HomeMy WebLinkAbout0413.093~: ... ' "" 't'O
July 22, 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto~ california
, ,"
o
UPORT ON THI STATUS OF GROUNDWATER qdBANIlPS I N PALO ALTO
Members of the council:
groIT lR' BRIp
This report is informational only and requires no Council action.
The report contains infonnation about. cleanup activities,
addressing contamination of. soil andior groundw-ater with induBtrial
chemicals, metals, or solvents at several sites in Palo Alto.
Information about the cleanup process; site-specific inVEstiga
tions. expected timelines for further actions. and discussion
regarding issues related to the cleanups is included. This report
concentrates attention on sites that have been cont~nated with
industrial cbemicals and does not cover fuel leak site cleanups.
This report has been prepared as both. information for the City
counci.l and for individuals and organizations that contact the
CieY4 Staff anticipates updating the report every six months.
"CZ<DU"'pm
Palo Alto has numerous sites affected by chemical ~ontamination of
soii and/or groundwater. There are 21 Palo ~to addresses listed
as sources of industrial solvent or metals contamination, mostly in
Stanford Research Park. one of the source6~ 640 Page Mill Road, is
listec! on the l~ational priorities List as a federal Superfur:td site.
In addition~ there is a site listed as the Oregon Expressway
Underpass Dewatering System, where commingled groundwater plumes
come together and are pumpec. out and treated. Another site listed
is the Hillview-Porter plume~ which represents the site
investigation of offsite contamination by several comningled plumes
from the area of Stanford Research Park in the vicinity of the
intersection of Hillview Avenue and Porter Drive. The sources of
contamination at these sites have been generally attributed to
leaking underground storage tanks or other containers of induBtrial
solvents and historically poor chemical management practices.
"
gun IXC2IT or MLIQB cr layup S IDS :IX PALO AL'l"Q
Two state Agencies are lead agencies for investigation, monitoring,
and cleanup of Bites in Palo ~to affected by solvent or metals
contamination. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) oversees l2 sites, while 11 sites are the responsibility of
the Cal.ifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
formerly a division of the California Department of Health services
(DRS). but now part of the California Bnvironmental P:rotection
Agency (CALEPA).
The 640 Page Mill Road site has a subunit called the California
Olive-Emerson (COB) operable unit. As mentioned above, this site
is listed as a Superfund site on the National Priorities List (~7Ll
under ebe Comprehensive Bnvironmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CBRCLA or • SUperfund'" ) . The site includes the
Bewlett-~3ckard facilities at 640 and 39S Page Mill Road and the
Varian facility at 60:1 California Avenue. The tTnited StateB
Environmental Protection Agency (SPA) has delegated responsibility
to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for oversight of
claanup of this site. Tbe H~wlett-Packard facility at 1501 Page
Mill Road was also initially listed on the NPL, but was removed in
1989.
Oversight of the Hillview Porter plume area and its associated
sources is assigned to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), and is fur.dec1 under the Hazardous Substances Centrol
Account law (otherwise Known as the state SUperfund). Other sites
with ~C oversight are the former Aydin Corporation site at 3180
Hanover Street and Varian at 611 Hansen Way. The Regional Water
Quality Control Board has responsibility for oversight of all other
contamination sites in Palo Alto. but has delegated responsibility
for oversight of fuel ~eak site~ to the Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
Tbe Site Cleanup ~roce§s
Figure 1 outlines the steps in the site cleanup process.
0111.<413,93
p,\C*t~u ...... _
7/22/93
Page 2
--,--_._. -..,...,...
Si .. pilo:wtry _fyh,.
I'oterru.Jly
~b\e
1'a<ty(ie8)
(I\Pl<)
Soil and/or Lead &grIncy
g~,~{ _"'" coot.amioation defioe RP. is_ throu." land
"""" UlJC iditol)'.
UDlergrouod titJeand -""'""" .....,.,y
·.-"",'5" or othe< """,beo.
invaIipd ...... cIIeolkaI ...
histories.
'.(
I
I
!
':""'\ .. . ,
t"MR1413:93
.. '\.-r\Ir'fIIt;.t .... ,....r
Figure I
TYPICAL SITE INVFSTIGATION AND CLEANUP PIlOCF.ss
~ 11-At::dOll Order lavestipdt'wPeaslbilit1
(\lAO) '" Study (RlI1'S)
Notic:e of
..... _abd
SubotlDlial
~
(i,(~Il)-
RAO or PreluniDill')' sihl
[S&!!i_ i,1'IiI$1i11lUoDB .we-
to RI'(o) p:rformod to __ the
r<qIUri .. type PI! exteat or
redlOV.I of ch~aIa pteRm It the
coDtamiDlol 8ite a.od. RlJPS wmtplQn .....,....,. il IlUbmittld fur miew
'WOrk pJu for abd IjlJlrova!. All«
"'-ipdolL appmvJl, e:ueoaive
Interim _Ii .. abd .... ,....,.
n:mcdiItion pe1fo ...... abd poIend" _ ... y deanup ftSMdie& are
be r<qIU!<d, evllualed ....... _.
BaWioe Publio
Hratth BvalUildup
(BPHII) or Health ....,-...
(HIlA)
A BPHBorHRA
illp~wbkh
ideAdfieH the
polebti.d e.:porutt
fOutefii of abe
clM:micals
COatallllnadoa me
ooU",
JtOUlidwater. and _Ibo
IIIIOCJ..-tcd bwnm
btaIth riob if tlw:
cleanup Wli mt
do .. ,
P .. A_a!
Adion PIau (Dtab
RAP)
A draft RAP is tbca
..... Iopod whicb
oontaiDl'l • IIIIIDfI'W')
of 1he RIfFS ....
outJiOCl'l PmpoKd
cI~ methods for
the site .
Availlbility is
publicized. ~lblic
IDClttina is held afKl
"'"IlUC"" ...
IOlicilcd. from. tilt
public for at lea6t .10
daY!I. At IeMt olle
lacl ...... l_
dwias tbi!l period.
7/22/93
Page 3
Final Raaed.iaI Attioa RcmaIlaJ
PI .. (Pinal RAP) Deli",...,.
Impl ..... -
W;.,. t
Folloool .. Jlklay Lad ""DC)'
public oomtneru ....... ,
period. lead llICo;:y de6ion abd
approvtR tba remedy impIementarioo
fOr c1eu.i.., up the .lice of seltttal
I .... nbal RAP). !ad ...... y.
",""y....,.,.. 'I'brnugbool
writtCII rarpome8 to impJeo~n
COlDIIlettUI reed vcd pf\.~.lead
from public dwing "'''''1 """"'" rt'Vtew period, the COUIJIlUDity
Approprlale public """"'" foell"
oonuD<DIK "'"
_. puhlu; ",
_abd metting" or
Z.,.
ia;:o.rporurd into the WQrQbops;.
FlDalRAP.
"" ... .,;.. ..
r;~,,·
o
AS part of the investigat.ior:. and cleanup proce6B~ Responsible
Parties (RPs) are required to subu~t Workplans, Health and Safety
Plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, Public Participation Plans,
Community Relations Plans, periodic monitoring and status reports~
and other tecl"!..nical memoranda and reports. Responsible Parties are
required to use the services of qualified experts to conduct this
vork~ The encire process is lengthy and costly~
Local Information Repositories are established for cleanup sites.
The US Geologic SurvE':Y (USGS) Library at 345 Middlefield Road,
Menlo Park is th~ local repository. A limited. collection of
document:s is maintained in the Environmental Protection Division at
City Hall, and a repository for the Hillview-Porter project and
other Palo Alto sites is maintained in the Barron Park Neighborhood
by Dr. Inge Barding-Barlow. In addition, the Palo Alto Main
Library at 1213 N"ewel.l Road has a condensed COtt1Ttllnit.y Guide tor
Hillview Porter, which contains a brief project history, copies of
all Fact Sheets, the Public Participation Plans, and a bibliography
of all documents that have been placed in the USGS library.
TEll nLINIEW-POR'1'E1 UGIOlUL PllOGRAJI JUIII) 0'1"IID. SIDS mmBlt 'nIB
OVDS:tGET OP '1'1IB DlIP1UI.TImlI'I: OF '1'O%IC SlIBS'Ul!IOS CON'nlOL
HISTORY OF TIlE HILLVIEW-PORTER SITE
Contam.i:"'..dtion in the Hill view-Porter region (see map, Figure 2) was
first discovered at the Watkins-Johnson site at 3333 Ki11view
Avenue in 1982, when low levels of chemicals in soil and
groundwater were found during monitoring of an underground acid
neutralization sump. The case was referred to the Department of
Health Services (DRS) in late 1985. Follow-up investigations found
low levels of the same contamdr~te in private wells in the Barron
Park Neighborbood and in samples taken by the Regional Wat-eX"
Quality Control Board from Matadero Creek, which flows: through the
Stanford Research Park and Barron Park. In 1987~ the Department of
Health Services conducted an extensive Boil gas investigation
program and other aEsessment work Which helped to detennine
possible contaminant sources.
To keep the c<:mnllnity infonned z a Community Relations Plan was
establisbed in 1986, which includes activities such as community
meetings, Fact Sheets, and an Information Reposit.ory to provide the
public with information on the program.
Nine sites were identified as potential sources. They are:
3210 Porter Drive (Coherent)
3215 Porter Drive (Hewlett-Packard 15)
page Mill Road/Rorter Drive (Hewlett-Packard 28 A~ B. & C)
3170 Porter Drive (Locr~eed, Building 255)
3400 Hillview Avenue, {Smith Kline & French Laboratories}
=,413,93
p,\--~"~
1/22/93
Page 4
• J
I
CMR,4:>3,9l
'I\-~'~
® ~;.,'
'" z
'" '" .. ~
, .....
'\, "', \
~ ~
'" ~Jj
l!l ~::s
~ ;,1 '" =:;q;--'" " ~~§ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~5 ~ « zo~ ~~ i Q1:~
" §~~ .,c
c ,,~
!i ! ~s .. ~e
~ w~l :fc
0 I~g ~.,
~'i' ~ i~e 2< "w
Q ~ ~~" c" < !! ~~ li:; ~
10 • ~
~
~
~
~
"
7/2'Z/'J:l
Page 5
g.
::f
<!
0
~
5
N
!
" "" b:
: .'
3300 Hillview Avenue (S}'Tltex)
3165 Porter Drive (Teledyne MEC)
3176 Porter Drive (Teledyne-Singer)
3333 Hillview Avenue (Watkins-Johnson)
o
!D 1988, the Department of Health Servic~s issued a Remedial Action
Order (RAe) to 14 parties in Stanford Research Park to investigate
and remediate chemicals in Matadero Creek and Barron Park.
Amendments to the RAe in 1990 and 1992 brought the total number of
Potentially Responsible Pa=ties to 2~. Nine parties responded to
the RAO and submitted plans for site specific in ... ·estigations.
Pourteen companies--known as Responding Parties or RPs--joined
together to cooperate in completing a Remedial Investigation.!
FeasLbility Study and conduct follow-up actions for the Hillview
Porter Region. Six nonparticipating c~~anies (~za, Librascope,
Qmex, Quality Technologies, Syntex (USA} and Syval were found in
formal noncompliance by the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC, the state agency now in charge of oversight as part or
california Environmental Protection A~ency). A seventh, Bicoastal
Cc~ration representing Singer, has not yet been found in formal
noncompliance. In January 1992, DTSC was notified that Librascope
had dropped out of the regional program.
OBJECTIVES OF THE HILLVIEW-PORTER RBGIOI>'AL PROGRAM
The objectives of the Hillview-Porter Regional .Program are to
determine chemica1 distribution in the region and to determine what
kind of site remediation is appropriate. At this time. the field
work to define the outer boundary of groundwater chemicals has been
completed.. The results of the investigat.ions indicated that
trichloroethylene is present at up to 890 parts per billion (ppb}
in groundwater at the Veteran's Administration Huspital. In the
Barron Park Neighborhood. groundwater trichloroethylene levels
range from 0 to 45 ppb.
To prevent further movement of chemicals under t.be Barron Park
Neighborhood, Interim Remedial Actions {IRAsl are underway,
including a permanent stream aeration project for Matadero Creek
that began operating on March lSi 1993. Under design is a
groundwater treatment system, where pumped groundwater from t.he Sol
Park bike path extraction wells and other remediation wells on the
Vet.erans Administration (VA) property will be treated. Access
agreements have been finalized for the t.reatment plant, which will
be located at 3225 Porter Drive. and for the conveyance pipeline
which cross~s many properties and the creek. A return pipeline is
part of the deSign plan to allow reuse of the treated water. A map
showing the location of the lRAs and the conveyance and return
pipelines is attached (Figure 3). Remedial designs for all the
IRAs are e.:<pected to be ~ompl.eted in the swrmer of 1.993.
CMR,U3,93
pl\_~"t._. __
"1/22/93
Page 6
i"-
t
N ...
",:::
~'--
Figure :3
'tV'
, '~,
\
\
Location of Interl .. Remedial Actions {I RAJ
; " "
o
Reuse alt.eruatives are being actively inyestisated. The primary
reuse candidate appears to be the Veterans Administrat.ion Hospital.
However, because the extraction wells on the VA Hospital property
will interrupt natural underground flow to Mataderc Creek, a
minimum of 70 gallons per minute will be discharged to the storm
drain at the 32~5 Porter Drive treatment facility. from whare it
will flow to the creek, and thus prevent dewatering the creek.
Following completion of the investigation, the final Remedial
Investigation report and Feasibility Study will be prepared. A
public meeting for the draft Remedial A~tion Plan is planned for
December 1993"
1.. swmnary of the activiti-es for the Hillview-Porter site, the nine
separate site in~estigations, and t~o other sites with Department
of Toxic SubBtances Control (DTSC) oversight, taken from the June
1993 fact sheet, is attached (Figure 4, pages 10-11). The
Hillview-Porter site specific investigations are discussed in
detail in Appendix A. Other sites under Department of Toxic
Substances Control oversight are discussed in Appendix B. while
non-Superfund sites under Regional Water Qualit~· Control Board
(RWQCB) oversight are in Appe:ndix c.
l"BDBRAL "stlPDJ'tIIIIl)" UTI! AT 640 PAGB KILL JlOAD
HISTORY OP 640 PAGE M!LL ROAD SIn:
ThiB is the major site in Palo Alto under RegiDnal Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCI!) oversight. The RWQCB is regulati!:lg the
investigation and cleanup of this site under agreements with the US
Environmental Protection Agency, since the site is a federal
SUperfund. facility. The pl\l.D1e appears to bave originated at both
the Va.rian 601 California Avenue (Varian 501) facility and the
Hewlett-Packard facility at 640 Page Mill Road (HP 640). As with
other sites in the Stanford Research park, chlorinated industrial
solvents are the principal contaminants, although there is some
contamination of site soil with arsenic. The plume also involves
the Hewlett-Packard facility at 395 Page Mill Road, where some
metals contamination of soils is also found. The plume of
chemicals in shal~ow groundwater extends from HP 640 and. Varian 60l.
taci~ities to ~md Street on the north and to California Avenue on
the west. The downs~ream edge of th~ plume is several bloeks east
of Matadero Creek. The. plume has also coumdngled with. t.he plume
from Varian's site ~t 611 Hansen Way.
INTERIM RBMBDrATION
At HP 640, a waste storage tank was removed in 1981, and
groundwater extraction and treatment was conducted during 1.982 j
then resumed in 1987 and is ongoing today. Two existing buildings
have been demolished, and contaminat;ed soils were removed down to
CMR,413:93
.;\_~t.>&a.~
7/22/93
Page 8
o .. -"/
a depth of about 30 feet as part of the excavation for a new office
building under construction on the site.
A groundwater extraction system has ope-rated at Varian 601 since
1986, and an expanded soil vapor extraction system is operating.
Both companies have jointly operated groundwater extraction wells
near the site. Treated groundwater is discharged to the sanitary
sewer.
In addition to on-site remediation systems, there are a number of
extraction" wells being developed in the California-Olive-Emerson
(COE} area. including wells at the corner of 21 Camino and Olive,
Park and Olive i and in Palo Alto Square near Page Mill Road and Hl
camino Real. These wells have been installed; but because of
permitting issues for transmission lines cross\ng El Camino Real
and Page Mill Road, th~y will not begin extraction until March
1994. The dewatering ByBt~m at the Oregon RxpreBsway/~ma Street
underpass (discussed below' also acts as an extraction system for
contaminated ground~ater in th~ vicinity.
SorA TUS OF INVES'rIr,A'rION AND CLBANlJP
The Baseline Public Health Evaluation (BPKS) for this site has been
reviewed by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (BPA) and the
public. In E'ebruary 1993, BPA issued a response to corrments on the
BPHB. Al though many comrnenters were unhappy with various
provisions and assumptions of the BPBE, apparently EPA does not
plan to modify the document that was submitted. In general,
commenters disagreed with the ultraconservative assumptions that
were made during the aSBeSBment~ such as the exclusion of
-nandetect N values in the calculation of average chemical
concentrations, and averaging vinyl chloride concentrations over
the entire area when, in fact, the chemical was detected in only
two locations. The assumption was made that the entire population
of Palo Alto could use the water from the contaminated aquifer,
even though there is insufficient capacity in the aquifer to supply
the entire city. These assumptions resl.ll ted in an overly
conservative risk assessment.
Tbe R~~dial Investigation (RI) report for the California-Olive
Emerson (COB) area was due on June 21, 1993; and the Feasibility
Study (1'5) is due August 15, 1993, with a Pinal Cleanup Plan in
early 1994. The Final RIlE'S for the 640 Page Mill Road site is
expected to be completed by February 1994, and a Pinal Cleanup Plan
about six months after that. A publiC meeting on this site
i~vesti9ation was held on June 17~. 1993.
CMR,413 ,93
p,\ __ ~.cuo
7/22/93
Page 9
Figure 4:
Summary of
Activities
k>_l\Iio!WtII .........
It~~
flS~rSoIICfoniIrd'ioIlNs ... --'rJi.:~1'*-.
~.f~
~~ ...
~B~~
OC~ Ocl'Ilrlou"JWW.
OC?~rllCl~
" -'''' ,"'-1rI~""" ,,"00
'" "'"... Cl1ic"llf
~B ~klmurll -PCC. Ttt::ocItlciiwMGli ... -
~~.~~ ....
~"""~Q!'GIII
~ ~ --A~, ~~
11:.1.. 'i1dOlWllllN
Tet TIICnIi!I~
tC£: T~MliII""""
,
~
IDTlC t:!."Ia\I OTIC-
.-.,.,.!'rIr: -" 11M .. !I ... ..,. -...... """ .... ' _ ...
-"D~.Driw """'"' CoIwMI
1215 PorWom. .... ' ~lD --_IS
c.n. • PIfIIHI J_
Rd. IDd' Port_ om. t,,· .. , .. --... ......... """
311'0 PDM Dri\<t .... , ---... " -'"
-,.. ....... " -_ ... -...... """"'"' -_ ... ... , ...... w .... ·
11M Port:.Oriw -T_WEC w..,.,
S171& Por\.-Oriw ..... "'0 T ____ ,.."..
Al31itri1w iw ..... w_ --
't'r.~r:t -,.-,,..,..
""', ", HallMII w., "-YW!t·
.'
a
".,. ., ,~ ''''' 11 Fu.w Iy
Qpult .... ~1D&l1DfI I' .11; • .... ' .. '''' Can,""",1M ,cr.u"".-l..om
""0II~1I1t 1e~'U$
,,., , ... ~ .. ~,.,..~
"..." """'--CQ-....... ,.,~.ldfloC'O)~...:'IIo
.
1.-lI18i. "" P1*""'O~ ..ce4tDt
18!111_ --... """" _~f"' .. Qillrll1a<i
o'~."':.<;11"".~"C
'b'..,.lc;or .... ,... C~t'ao'Ttl)' I
~~uOiojjnd
QI\"c.Ic_~.
IN1. , ... U)Qt.IIOfY I-'l(j~ .. ..-~1>i~lnos
~l~n •.. ,,'
.
1'\116.<·1'!11!i". "., I ""Io:D<Wit"~ """~ I.,. ,,,,. .~~""" ...., -~-mr",I";l"""'lI" • ...-."~t(J~
_arUl;ll>(l~or..-.!:
''-'1_ "" ¥i"1Mc:~ .. Q' M>C:!"""""-,-__ I,"", -lq>I-nnu d ___ -...... ---. -.....
,,,. "" ~'7'1S«!ltI< ..-~_""IIdio'"
~ ...... ~:i:~ , ---I ,,., . I 19117 EI.c!""'Q"'OItI:~_ ,..,.. """"""'~U;YoJl
.
''''' , ... (l""'r'O'I<C'
llr.-.t ~~1K1~r..,g -"--i!'.It«l
, .... , .. , £ift:tmni<$I1IIoUtd'I.at\CI ...... --
19$ii,'II4; . "" ~~_'or
e~ ... ,..,~ ... ,' 1I'\MI.o11C.u.. ... oI rold .... .d . ~, cc ... ..,~~ .....
'''' . "'" --...-....... 1II .. """'II1.!'o<! _te" -
, $il!$ III hi Star1lerd Rese;,fdl Pirl. boItn;lllrducll!d' in lIle ~I~ew POI1er ~ioNiI PI!lgI6iTl
CMR,U3,93
p,\ .... \~.<St'
'-•• IMII .... Dnt
1:1 ""'" '0121
-~,
~"'II'I CT5C1Atl~
11*'( .... "*"
&1lII6~1
" ... "." ... -"" .... ~
DfSC IYoO oaowH " ..
~DIo:bnI ... -D~~~..-! ...
......., . ."..
~'ltoc:rllr'lla ... --DT.st: flAO_ ... ~
1~~
l __ l1~
w:'\d.~o:#
looiG.,.,dC-CI
0 .... '&'1»1
~""-, '-111.""----..... '-_ ......
CBtbl)_ -.. _ ... --a,v..n s.dDnl .,""''''' --
r0Nd'f">8MECn ..... '" , .'X "'" '-",,11*""0
''h~Mtt "---_DrSC
""-0 ........ '1_
(.I.....cIrtdU~) .............. --"'SC_ ..... ....,
~"dllrrll;,;
InS(: AAO ...... ~ ...
v-
o~c.r.."" O< .. r .... _~
.~
-::-;::",,-
-~'"
T,..., c.anlIlII .......
D5IH\M~l; ......-....,
'" fC(.1.t,I·TCA,.F_'11.
~ dI~. ~Ikam.
Pee,1,'.oa:
MoIU<tIrv C""*' ~
1.1-t)CE, IjI.()CE, 1, 1.1·teA, -,'
... : 1CE.1'U, ,.1-ocf
t' ~ l'J, fl1ocn,2
.' TeE, ~ rCA. I.l~ ~ ttMtillc, '.2-oCE
..w U-acA.
~ TeE. TCA. 1 ,1-tJC(.. MOl,
eNo<lIfo"", ITXE
a; --.. 101_, Ittoft
,'1Cl. 1.!-..otl:, 1.2.:oa:.
IrIOl<"1113,"""-..cHa~
I~,~,~
1,1,' .. tc,l.. 1ctPCt. !,(.oct
FIWJ' I;J. :. ,...O...::A. 1,2 t'CA.. -. we
11.1,f.TCA, TctflCt 1.'.ocl
F_'U,1,l-OC<\,l.z..t'CA.r.
2..oc:f.F"'11,~IoIC •
1iOj-.lIIII.!ntqotn,
lit TeE. ~. ~.t.:.oa:. ,-
.: Ttl. /'CI'. 1.2~_ .
~ ..... ,~~
<I" ~,Pa..'.t..o:::E,.
1,2 -oc:f. r'-llll.. FtMWl tt.
~1.1.t·n:A
~ 1.1.1 :TCA. TCE.
t~, 2...ooc BnI:
•. 11 TeE.~. i .1.~·'iVo
.:~
.. ~ TCf. TCA. DI1
PCP."'" I!; ltl. JIa.. __ . U.oa:.
"""-
.; JlrC:k,.oII,wI-. 1. I
DCA.~, 1.2[Q,.l~.
1.4 oca. 1.2.4· lCII, -I, tx:f.. 'T'CIt. 't(;E
"'9' ~ PeE. TCA. 8TlIf
.. 'tC£. OCA. ca:, PC[
~.INtr_.F ....
ttl..uE.F_l1
7/22/93
Page l.()
',: .... .,'-ali ___ IriUrim t ... ..., Allho"IM
·m ... ""y"' ...... ...... .-. ........ ""'lDI'IIII~
.~_ ... t.m.r>.,..,. 1III\~.,.~e._il_
.1 .......... CMk~ ..... ~ Alldr;jpeUI ~ Ulr1"C1 Ilo'iI2
.»~ ......... .g~,~ ......... ~I'ICI ..
........ ...-( .... IIiU...".!olI.~..:I\I ...
~ ~ ...... ~\10<....,,911
.I~-""",,,-.. G;~uUldiQnll"<i~jrot'l1
.1~'" __ ~Zt112. ,$o;,""'U't7«t1O'1IRA
• 50 MllIIoIrWvI ... ~..,
.s.a~""""""c..M:
·27 011· ......... fnIrMo ...................... ) .:::;~~O!'IIIWJ-tr_rrtr""",
.. 11II(J/! ....... ~.~.1iIoIIa} __ I r.;U" 1iItO. ,.,...,._~ .. U PHg ...
7""'.
.~ioIII cIIo/IIkIII p;t ~ tIo/lOji .... "'moo'Id"
"""'c-.-"",,,~ ·SDr....,.,.~ .. ",~~~ ....
1·17on· ...... • ~ .. -----.., ~"-I.m_ j,"1g1'1--c1a'-' ~~~IAod0W2·
....... ~cond.~5o'III1 SoIIil.,.,.".rbIIo;ro""'~
l·iUl~...n
1·" ..... -'laDII"",,!OI~
\:I~~~
I
'" 211111 ... .-.d...,....,. __ q ....... • .. ___ Dtl_~~7~in
(ItrI6aw.""~ _ ... ) ..,.
·., ....... -""iII ..... uIraGtIan ...... .. ~ _ .. --,-*,,"¢.IIeiI • ...-d
. '$IIirIIoM en .... In! D'k. .. ...,..... ...
·1Dn ......... ~ .oII/;iII;~......,.-.l4III1
.. JII'I;iIIaw ......... ~
·2~1ft __ ""Ib~
·:!aIboIir .... ~)
'21"'~
.~~........,CAOIt;
'I"~"'" ·2on-ti11~
'"'Ii~'" ~'(It!~~(
~JoO:ICIOI~
·2nct\ ........ ttcl'! .......... ~, .~ut~(.~::1. __ ~""
r~.""'oIMo) ...
.~_ ....... c,..o; ·.sao:"".,I...,,~ ..... m'~...,
&WlI, ~~ 140; _""" ...... 1OiI ...........
·.0t1·'* ..... ~.,111_ .......
_I
·-zr~· ....... .rr ..... l'rIrrrIbr~..., • ~'1~~.-..! mtlI_-.o., -.,....
• b:atr...., I11d 1Ir~ III CIIfIC;I..,~"';1
"""Mlr>:fIQ2,l>O'Il'Il~d
• .. on_nlllt __ ~ ..... ·SClOIMII/Q~I.~"" IV'*"""" ____ ~l """"~1_ .. ""'-............ • ScOr_ru _ (PeE) OD!I"jIIftI<tMl
.,~." .............. ~"""'" ·G,..,..,........~~&I91.
·1 .. -4IfI ...... -W~ .. ~SooirI\QOG'iJ%\I1C'II..,Ioys.III!"" .~"I'V12
.-...--p~SOII ........ --om, 413,93
p"..,.~.cS¥"
I
NIi' .... II!t:_ ........
~1'Pf> ...... MC,tfII'
.. e......."..,.~......, ..,
~rKl3lllll,. __ 'I/Io'I2
.~-~ "" • F.c1 SIINI " ........ :MIll
.c-JIIYIr'II oft!,..~ "". .I'CSI'roM111i1rt<o11! ,. ..
.fllCl~n\~$IIJ'r.
.FKI'lhIoot~IorrWooIIMrl,
~~..,~ ...
.r1lClSl'lrl«I1~"1
.rWl~n~~ --.~...,,~ ...
·~""'·1oII00I"II/ ...
I
·1«1. .... "_SIII .
~fcI.st....rln~!rlIItI.
·~.,.;u,'fliliorW ...
'~""l""" .....
• ~-SIIM'rrI_~ SJIrO.
.CoCI""~~,..K;n;II .....
.Pf'9 ........ .w;-.
• f1ra !!I.-" _lItO "'7 .
• F1C19INtr..-....:I1M1
.~~n~1 ....
.~lOt'IIr1V'Of1I/ ....
.. ~~!.o'lI:I .. f.,~,.,.'**'t."iC
• FICl s.t..."'.......:r 121"i1O
·,,",~II'IIIO • ~~~n_d"~
• FK' ~n.,",*, ~1
• FKI&.ttII' _~ 2m .
•
e.W'M a" r .... rI .... aH.~
.,,~1IIttcI.~ .. ~~l:ll"l2
.Al~d ... lRl
• FS ~..,......" ar'Jd Fa "-' .... 4oV3
.2t'IOI DrrII PuIlltlC 1iI&III'I'«ooIj~ • ..-.d., ""'"'-_
.J\io,I,: _____ ~7R2
• PJ ~ ."., >WItw
.,IroilFS~""'~ F<rIoIIFS~ ___
1Ii"-~ for 1000m
.~A<IcItnIII ..... ~~:l'I2.
.f.5.~~~.
'PuINII:~~_~:va2
·CI~I\.o_"~~" ..... :)rd,u-dO't""tIIoc
t.oAI~ PMo<l tnil'n.., W1~,
·AIIF3~l/lIZ. • ..... .........,.. ___ '2R1.
.~Ador>"""'~~""""" __
·/f6d'-tJcIniI'~~ ... u'rWCI --.. ..,
·RJlIirN:Iort--.l5o'll
."';~ .. ...,.,.c!MJ2
.R.,t:~",-~31112.
.o-.~~I'\II''''''"",,",
'Rr "-""t "*" ..... ~ FS AllJIOn ....... ~ ·P.-rt __ &.I......, ~ ........
·~~n..-VI1
.~~ .. -.:I&1112.
·PWk~~wmm..-6o'IIZ.
·O;1ttp.-.iud4octJGr> "-'''' .... r....-.
·'U~~5r'!12
• FS IIQort ~ MI2. • Po..bk ItNrItt: fqI~ ___ 1Z/91,
• Dqft~ Adem,.,... ...............
--
.Ftn.~_Nkl ...... ~711:t
-"1"-1 Ill .. II25IIr2.
·Fti~_t.2IW
• p~ MiN'IIl t'tlllAllon ....... Ift\orw .
~l'IIrl'olllO!'tloO'Ol'Ior_.
·f;rllffS~rt41ltt'".d\ll
'L>mi1td Su.-rOtliJI R.u. ~fCiI 1M ____ &92
·""loi<",ljtt.h.~~6.'R
• Pol "-~ ",,<II., ,...,... •
·" ....... k-\roor<O~'-'POr1 ...... , ...... • .s. .. I-JM'!Irr1<l2_ra\l'lle..w'III'O....,....ro.rl!n...,..,
~,
.
7/22/93
Pa~ l.1
'J
"
o
OTBBR SITES INVOLVED IN 640 PAGE MILL PLUME
oregcD Expr ..... y ADd Alma Street (Oregon ZXpro .... y t1:14erpa ••
_ter1Dg Syot_l
Contamination was discovered in Septetnber 1.986 at this roadway
dewatering system operated by the Santa Clara county s~nce 1959.
The system intercepts polluted groundwater emanating from.
upgradient industries and i~ within the HP 640/Varian 601
C&.lifornia-Olive-Emerson (COB) study area. The Regional Water
Qu3lity Control Board issued a discharge permit in September 1987
for wet weather discharge to Matadero Creek (NPDES CA0029246). A
treatment system has been installed, and treated wate~ is
discharged to the sanitary sewer during dry weather. This
remediation project acts as an extraction system for cleanup of
upgradient sources.
1'5 Page Ki~~ Road (Hewlett-Packard)
This site ia within the HP 640 Page Mill COB plume and is being
addressed as part of that project. Contamination at this
electronics plant was discovered in May 1982. Trichloroethylene~
trichloroethaue, and dichlorethane are thought to have originated
from a leaking tank, chemical storage areas, degreaser plts, and
possible offsite sources. The R.egional Water Quality Control Board
issue(J site cleanup requirements in April 15189. Vapor recovery for
soil near the underground tank was complpted. in Pebruary 1989.
_-S'IlPlIItPmID SITES DlIDa UGIORAL lIATBIt !lQALITr COIITIlOI. lIOUD
OVDSIGII'r
Information about sites other thnn 1501 page Mill Road was g1eaned
fran the South Bay Site Managetneut System Quarterly Report. October
1991-December 1991. distr£buted in late January 1992. These sites
are listed in Appendix C. Information in City files on some of
these locations is very limited.
ISSl1BS stJJtRommnca Crl&"VP srTls
There are several major issues sutrounding the cleanup of
contamdnated sites in Palo ~to. These issues, diSCUSSed in the
following paragraphs, include:
'1.) Establishing acceptable cleanup levels and remediation
methods,
(2) the redevelopnent of cantaminated properties,
(3) the appropriate disposal/reuse of extracted groundwater once
it has been treated,
CMR,413 ,93
p,\-~ . ..,.
7/22/93
Page 12
,
{4J tl'le potential risk £or ground subsidence due to overpump.ing o~
the shallow a.quifers,
(5) rear of residents that" the coIJ'ta.'1Iinated water in the shalloW'
Aqui~ers and Matadero Creek creates a health risk~
{6) the .liability of responsibl-e parties, landowners ... and lenders
....,0
(7) zoniug and use of property within the boundaries o~
cont~nated plumes.
The entire remedial investigation/feasibility study process is
geared to establishing acceptable cleanup levels ~~d appropriate
remediation activities. Once the extent and nature of
contamination has bean deterrr.ined, a health risk assessment or
baseline public health evaluation is performed. which evaluates the
potential rout.es of exposure for people expoeed to the
contamdnation. and the resulting risk to their health.
In general. the assessment is ultraconservativej and assumptions
made during the assessment are extremely health protective. The
overall evaluation and public reporting process overst.ates the
risk, which causes higher than necessary levels of conce~"D for some
people. In most cases, the use of contaminated groundwater for
human consumption and bathing creates the highest level af risk.
Bawever, this exposure route is extremely unlikely, since under
both california and federal law. water used. for such purposes DnlBt
meet the ~~imum Contaminant Levels (MCLS) established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. before the water can be used as part of a
public water supply. Further. the contaminated aquifers are
gener~ly those closest to the ground surface and are unsuitable
for potable water supply. because of the high probability of
bacterial ccntamination. Nevertheless s in general. the goal for
groundwater remediation is cleanup to MCLs even when tbe affected
aquifer is not usable for public drinking water after the chemucal
contamination is remo-.red, increasing the cost and length of
c~eanup~ Soil cleanup levels are generally set at either
background levels or some other low level that clearly does not
pose a risk to humans~
Baseline risk assessment is performed before final cleanup begins
and is used to determine what level of cleanup is needed to protect
publi c beal th .
Remediation methods are evaluated in the project· S Feasibility
Study, and the method(s) are chcsen for their cost effectiveness,
probability of achieving the end resultr and a variety of other
Cl'IIh 413 : 93
P' \..r~tIqo. CIKt"
7/22/93
Page B
I
I ,
!
I
o
factors. Public comment on the selected method is invited during
the review of the tinal Remedial Action Plan.
Frequently~ redevelopment plans are proposed before investigation
and cleanup of a contami~ted site is completed. This poses a
dilemma for both the pr~rty owner and the City~ The cos~s of
conducting a remedial investigation are significant, and the
property owner generally cannot: afford to wait until investigation
is completed to utilize his investment. When development of a
contaminated site is proposed, the City's Planning Division works
closely with the property owner and tee leaa agency with oversight
authority fot' the site l to asc,.ure that redevelopment of the
property will not interfet"e 'With the investigation or cleanup
activities. Although review of the project may be allowed to
proceed, a building permit will not be issued until the lead agency
indicates it is satisfied that the project does not interfere wit~
investigation and/or cleanup a..l1d that Clea!ll!p measures the lead
agency believes appropriate have been incorporated in~o the
redevelopment plan.
D1spos&l/Reu •• o~ TreAted GcoUDdWater
When contaminated sites were first discovered in .Palo Alto and
interim remedial action projects were begun in the early 1980's,
the City-was urged by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to
accept the pumped groundwater into the sanitary sewer system. In
the interest of ge~ting interim remediation underway without delay
to protect 'mderlying aquifers from contamination, the City agreed+
Standards for chemical quality of the discharged water were
established, and a permit system and fees were implemented for such
discharges. However, as time went on and. the drought became more
acute, the policy was eFtab1ished to require that parties wishing
to use the sanitary sewer for disposal must demonstrate that no
onsite reuse is fea~ible+
The Regional Board did not at first want to permit discharges of
treated groundwater to storm c:!:rains or creeks, because of the
difficulty in pol-icing such discharges and the administrative
burden of issuing permits. However, policy seerr..s to be shifting
regarding such discharges. For example. io the Remedial Action
Plans for most of the HillvieW-Porter sites, discharge to Matadero
Creek is being proposed to offset expected reductions in creek
recharge from aquifers in the Stanford Research Park which are
affected by groundwater extraction. Discharge to the Creek is
desired by Barron Park residents to assure that the Creek does not
cease to flow. However, City staff is not convinced that the
proposed dischaxges to the Creek will not exceed historical flow,
and would like to see water not needed for maintenance of Matadero
CMR,41.3,93
p,\ __ ~t ..... -=--
"
"1/22/93
Page 14
Creek f~ow reused for landscape irrigation or some other reuse to
replace Bcarce potable water supplies .
.Fot..,t.tal ai.1t ~or GroWlcf Sumoi!! ... "e Due to ov.orpulllp.tDg o~ eM
BllaU"" Aqu1~er.
In s:ub6urface soils r groundwater occupies volume and, as such,
supports overlying 50il and prevents ground subsidence. When such
water is removed by pumping, it is often impossible to restore the
soil to its for.mer condition. In some areas of Santa Clara County~
including portions of Palo Alto near the Bayshore Freeway,
overpumping of groundwater supplies, especially prior to the
~970's, bas led to sutsi4ance. Therefore, there is a risk that the
cumulative effect of groundwater pumping as part of the cleanup
process may be ground subsidence. State otficials assure staff
that th.ey have modelled the existing and proposed. extraction
projects and will limit the rate of pumping to asaure that
overpumping and resulting subsidence does not occur.
'ear o~ Re81deJ:It8 tb..1t eo.ntuUDat'ed' lfate.r:--i..o t:be $ballolf Aqut.~"rB
azuf ... t.deJ:o creek erN te8 & BeaJ, t.b Rj."
NUmerous Baseline Health Evaluations have been performed for the
Hillview-Porter region sites and other Stanford R.esearch Park
sites. In a11 cases~ any hypothetical risk is smell and results
from a c~ination of conservative assumptions. The highest risk
is always determined to be use of such vater for potable use.
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, water cannot be supplied by a
water utility for potable \lse that does not meet Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) establisbed by the Act. Since much of
t.he grounc:htat.~r dOes not:. meet Mct..s, such wat.er would require
treatment before being supplied for potable use. However j the
groundwater in its ~resent state does not pose a significant risk
to human health, because it is not used for drinking and bathing,
nor is it likely to be in the future.
Ullder joint and several liabilit)" provisions in state and federal
law, landowners are held liable for investigation and cleanup of
contamination of soil and/or groundwater on land they own .bather
or DOt: tbe l&.ll4:nrt.a:er .... r.spcHJaJ.b~e ~or t"he cOZltuzi.aat:1oa. If a
responsible party can be identified, who is able to take
responsibility for investigation and cleanup, the oversight agency
takes all steps feasible to assure that tbe responsible party
conducts and pays for this activity. If a responsible party cannot.
be identified or refuses to comply and t.he landowner also cannot or
will not. conduct t.he investigation and cleanup. fLU'lds are available
in the state Razardous Substances Control fund and the federal
Superfund ~o pay for the cleanup. However, the state and federal
authorities have legal authority to ~ue for triple the costs from
0IR,413 ,93
g,\_~t ..... __
7/22/93
Page ~5
------
". ~ -.-':
.. "': ..... -,.",-,..
o
the identified responsible party and/or landowner. This provision
is not actively used against "innocent I lando~~erB. but qualifying
as such is very difficult in some cases. In general, homeowners of
la..'"'1d affected by migration of contamir..antB from oftsite .sre not
held liable; but the law;s provisions C~~ be used to convince the
homeowner to cooperate with agencies and responsible parties who
want access to the homeowner's land for investigation and cleanup
activities.
Real estate disclosure laws require that a seller must disclose any
known contamination to the buyer. When contaminat.ion is present on
a comnercial 6ite~ it is sometimes literally impossible to get
financing fer pU1:"chasing suc...~ a site, because lenders have been
held liable for cleanup costs in cases where the mortgage holder
has gone bankrupt or abandons the properLy~ In some cases. the
value of residential property is adversely affected when it is
known that the property is affected by migration of contamination
from offsite. Tberefore r the issue of liability is a serious
concern. Furthermore; in the case of extreme contamination, the
Department of Toxic Substances Control claims authority to place
deed restrictions, even in situations where contamination has
migrated onto a &ubject property from an adjacent contaminated
site. There has been no indication that any sites in Palo ~to
would be subject to such restrictions.
ZorJblg ADd 0' •• Qf .Pro,perty wi t:.h1.n COlJ;t~te4 .1 um_
Much of the land within the borders of the HP 640 plume and the
Hillviev-Porter plume is zoned as either multiple family or single
fami1y residential. which has raised some concerns over whether
parcels so affected are suitable for hOUSing. Since the amount of
land available for residentia.l development in the City is very
limdted, this is an important consideration + However, while the
Base.line Public Heal.th Assessments are primarily a t.ool used by
oversight ageccies to establish the need for remediation. the data
and methodology used in them may be useful in evaluating whether a
specific piece of property carries an unacceptable risk. As
already mentioned, household use of the contaminated groundwater
before treatment would probably present an unacceptabla risk; but
the aquife~s in question are insufficient in size and too close to
the ground surface to be of practical use. The other possible
route o.f exposure is migration of volatilized contaminants from
groundwater into a building's indoor air+ However 1 in its response
to comments on the BPHB for the BP 640 site, the U.S. Envi~onmental
Protection Agency said, ""There is no direct evidence that VOCe
( ... volatile organic compounds) in ground. water could volatize~
migrate up through the soil column, and then into indoor
air ... Nothing in the BPHE should be construed as suggesting in any
way that VOCs in ground wat.er are migrating into struct.ures.·
Furthermore, under the Uniform Building Code, structureR with
underground garages are required to have sufficient ventilation for
7/n/93
Page 16
exhaust ot automobile fumes, which would prevent the accumulation
of volatilized chemicals. Since mos~ new residential construction
in the affected area is likely to be multiple family. and often the
most efficient use of land is to place parking uu,derground. there
does not appear to be a problem for such structures. In actual
practice, if development is proposed on parcels that contain -hot
spots,' there should be an individual risk assessment performed for
that particular development; and approp~iate mitigations could be
employed if a risk were shown to be present. The risk, if any is
present, will also ~iminish over time as remed1ation continues.
'V"Ilt1Y
'Ibis report has suamarized ongoing act.ivities l-egarding groundwater
and eoil cleanups being conducted in Palo Alto UDder the ove~sight
of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Hillview-porter plume
investigation is nearing completion, and several site-specific
investigations are moving into the final Remedial Action phase.
with most being completed by the end of 1993. The Superfund site
investi9"'tions for contamination originating at the Hewlett-Packard
640 Page Mill Road facility and Varian 601 California facility are
continuing~ and onsite remediation projects have been implemented.
A Baseline Public Health Evaluation has been reviewed, and
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) reports for
the cal1fornia-Olive-Brnerson area are to be submitted in late
summer 1993, with a Fi~ Cleanup Plan in early 1994. The Pinal
RI/FS fnr the 640 Page Mill Road site will be completed in early
1994. Most other sites in the Stanford Research Park a..-e under
active oversight by either the Regional Water Quality Control Board
or Department of Toxic Substances Control, and investigation and
cleanup is proceeding according to schedule. Several of the plwnes
have catI'Ilingled and the geology in the area is very complex, which
has complicated the investigation and remediation design. Staff
will continue to MOniter progress and provide periodic updates to
the Council.
Re~cr;:tfull,Y Submitt"ed.
II " ~
d-.) ~ /4. y
DORIS J. ,fuz
Environmental Protection
Coordinator
City Manager
CMR:413:93
.,\ .... ~.--
~:e/~
KBNNBTH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Pl~ing and
Community Environment
7/22/93
Page 17
o
Appendix A. Site Specific lnvestig&tions~ The Hillview-porter
Plutft9'
Appendix B. Other Stanford Research Park Cleanups with
Department. of Toxic Substances Control OVersight
~ix C. Site Specific Invest.igations Under Regional Water
Quality Control Board Oversight
co: Architectural REview Board
Planning Commission
Stanford University (Andy Doty, David Neuman, CUrtis Feeny)
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Barron Park Bomeo",-ners Association, 3875 B1 Centre i Palo Alto,
0. ~4306
Barron Park Association Foundation, 3589 Laguna Avenue, Palo
AJ.to, CA 94306
College Terrace ~~:.ighborhood Association, 2130 Hanover, Palo
AJ.to, CA ~J4C6
College Terrace Residents Association, 2150 Columbia, Palo
Alto, CA ~4306
College Terrace Committee for a Better Bnvironment, 3451 Cork
Oak Nay, Palo Alto , CA 94303
Dr. Inge Harding-Barlow. 3717 Laguna Avenue, Palo A1to,
CA 94306
Peter COUtts Homeowne~s Association, 9 Peter Coutes Circle,
Stanford, CA 94305
Paula Kakimoto, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill
Road, Menlo Park, CA ~4025
Ann Coombs, League of Women Voters, 521 Guadalupe Drive, Los
AJ.tos, CiI. 9402:<
CMR,U3,93
1"'\ __ \gwt~.<:!U'"
7/22/~3
Page 18
APPBNDIX A
SITE SPBCIFIC rNVBSTIGATIONS
TJIB KILLVIBW PORTER PLUJIB
3215 Porter priye (Hewlett-Packard Building lS)
ThiB site w~s used by Hewlett-Packard Corporation for transformer
and printed circuit board manufacturiog {PCBM} from 1964·1973~
Transformer operations ceased in 1973, but PCBM operations
continued to 1987 when all manufacturing operations ceased. A
chem!cal storage bunker installed in 1~74 and removed in '988, a
ch~mical storage shed which was removed in 1975. and a chemical
dilution pit removed in 1990 are the potential sources of
trichloretha.,e , trichloroethylene and volatile organic compound
contamina.tion.
Since 1987, six phases of soil end g~oundwater investigations
have been conducted in the. The Department of Toxic Substances
Control <DTSC) issued a Remedial Action Order in Marc~ 1989. A
Remedial Investigation Report was submitted in August 1990 and
an Addendum was approved by DTSC in March 1992. A Baseline Public
Health Evaluat:ion tBPHE) and Feasibility Study (FS) were also
approved by DTSC in March ~~92.
Two remedial systems are currently operating oneite. One is a
groundwater extraction system with two extraction wellS and
granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment system with discharge
to the sanitary sewer. The other is a Boil vapor extraction
system and granulated activated carbon treatment system with
discharge to the air under an air d~strict permit.
The final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was approved on September
30, 1992. The approved alternative is to clean soils by vapor
extraction with air injection with granulated activated carbon
(GAel treat:nent of tbe vapor, and to clean groundwater by
extracting groundwater containing volatile organic compounds.
treat~ng with GAe, and discharging either to Matadero Creek or to
the sanitary sewer with some water being reused where possible.
Staff commented on the draft Remedial Action Pla~, requesting
that reuse on site or on neighboring sites be considered~ but the
Department of Toxic Substances Control replied that the flow
would be returned to the creek to offset th~ expected reduction
in creek recha:!'ge as a result of the groune-·qter extraction. The
expected discharge for this site is or.ly 7 _~llons per minute
{gpm). but the combined flow from all the expected systems that
intend to use this treatment facility is expected to be from
20-30 gpm. Staff continues to explore possibilities for reuse of
treated water that is in excess of that needed for stream flow
maintenance.
p,\e.~_gw Appendix A, page 1
•
Appendix A. page 2
1681 Page Mill Road (Hewlett Packard Buildings 2&;, 2gB, and lSC)
This site located at the intersection of Page Mill Road and
Porter Drive is 10 acres in size, and comprises ~hree building~.
Building 2SA was built in 1916 and used for laboratory purposes
by Hewlett packard {HP} until 1980 and office space since then.
Building 2eB, built in 1951, was used by Kaiser Aerospace and
Electronics Division for electronics research and equipment
manufacture between 1961 and 1979. In 1973 the building was
refurbished by HP for research ana development laboratories, used
until 1987, and demolished in 1990. A new building is now
located at thet site. Building 29C was built in 1965 and used by
Kaiser for electronics manufacture until 1979. Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation used part of the building for engineering and
drafting between 1966-19S!, and HP has used the building fDr
research and development laboratories since 1980.
Soil gas and groundwater sampling since 1987 detected volatile
organic compo~ds in soil and groundwater. The L~partment of
Toxic Substances Control (OTSC) issued a Remedial Action Order in
NOvember 1990. ~our phases of remedi.l investigation were
conducted between May 1989 and March ~991, DTSC approved the
Baseline Public Health Evaluatio~ report in December ~991 and the
Revised Remedial Investigation report in February 1992.
A draft Remedial Action Plan was presented at a public meeting on
November 1.4, and approved as a final Plan on December 30, 1992.
The proposed action is to extra~t contaminated groundwater, pipe
it to the treatment facility at the Hewlett-Packard site at 3215
Porter Drive. and discharge treated water to the creek. If a
discharge permit for creek discharge is not feasible. then ~he
water will be reused tc the extent possible under a water
reclamation permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board with the rest discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Appendix A, page 3
•
Appendix A. page 4
3176 porte, Drive (Teledyne Singer)
'i'his site has been used to manufactuz-e microwaV"e tubes.
travelling wave tubes and amplifiers since 1960. It has been
occupied sequentially by Alfred Electronics (August 1960-August
1969), L·ibrascope Inc. ,/singer Company {August 1969-July 1975);
and Teledyne MEC {July 1975-1987). Since ~edevelopment from
1989-1991 during which the original building was aemolished.
Lockheed Missiles and Space Comp~~y has occupied the new two
story building erected en the site. In November 1986, Teledyne
MBC~ Singer, Hiaco. Ltd.~ Henry Roes Hansen and Carl and Patricia
v~ Holvick were named as Responsible Parties in an Remedial
Action Order issued by the California Dept. of Health Services
for investigation and remediation activities associated with the
presence of organic solvents in soil near an underground storage
tank and sump located at the site.
Interim remedial meaBu~es taken at this site include removal of
the sump and underground storage tank~ and removal of 20 cubic
~rds of Boil near the sump. Four phases of soil and
groundwater investigation have been completed. Volatile organiC
compounds including trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene were
detected in the shallow gro\mdwater zone l20-65 feet below ground
surface (bgs)]. Trichloroethylene is in deeper groundwater (65-
125 ft bga) ~t up to 750 ppb.
A Baseline Public Health Evaluation was apprcved by the
Department of Toxic SUbstances Control in Decewber 199~~ and A
compiled Remedial Investigation report was approved in May 1992.
No complete expoSlire pathwaya currently exist at the site, but
groundwater cleanup goals are set ~t state and federal maximum
contaminant levels CMCLs) for drinking water.
Tbe draft Remedial Action Plan was presented at a public meeting
on November 14~ 1992~ and a final Remedial Action Plan was
9ubmitted on December 23. The proposed remediation is to extract
groundwater r:ontaining volatile organic compollnds~ tr~at it with
granulated activated carbon at an cnsite facility already part of
an interim remediation project~ and discharge to the creek~ If
creek discharge is not permitted, the treated water would be
discharged to the sanitary sewer. The expected discharge is 22
gallons per minute. Staff has discussed reuse with the
Responsible Party~ but its consultants maintain there is no reuse
possible onsite, and that neighboring properties do not need it
because they have installed landscaping with low water
requirements ~
p,\~\~.p Appendix A, page 5
Appendix A. page 6
3165 porter Drive (Teledyne HEel
:>:,-. • .,..--.' :~--,
Teledyne MEC has co~ducted administrative, research and light
manufacturing operations at the site since the early 1960's. The
primary product is microwave traveling tubes used in electro~ic
countermeasures and communications applications.
From 1963 to 1995, Teledyne operated a chemical container storage
site located near the eastern site boundary between 3165 and 3181
Porter Ori,\re. The use of this area for chemical storage was
discontinued in ~ges when a new chemical storage building was
constructed on the west side of the site. During regional
invest.igations and P~.ase I and r! Remedial Investigatior, studies
conducted from 1986 -.1989, soil and groundwater investigations at
the site showed concentrations of volatile organic compounds. A
chemical use history report showed that Teledyne MEC ~d used
trichloroethylene, tricnloroethane , toluene, acetone and freon.
In August 1990, the Department of Health Ser~ices (DHS) issued an
Immediate and SUbstantial Endangerment/Remedial Action Order
(I&SE/RAO) naming Stanford University Lands Management and
Teledyne MBC as Responsible Parties. In October, 1990, a DRS
letter stated that the RAO had been issued because of the lack of
progress and minimal cooperation exhibited by Teledyne MEe, and
that an amendment to the RAe requested by Teledyne would not be
granted.
A proposed Notice of Determination of NonCompliance (PNDNC) was
also issued for failure to submit required plans by the due date.
The Department of Health services (DRS) approved the Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) in December, 1990, the Contingency Plan in
January, 1991, and the Scoping Document in March, and wit.hdrew
the PNDNC in March. Another P.NDNC was issued in December, 1991
for failure to submit revised Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study reports by their required dates.
Revised Remedial Investigation and Fe.!sibility Study reports
B~nitted in May 1~92 were approv~d in June by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). After several revisions, a
Baseline Public Health Evaluation ~aB also approved in June. A
draft Remedial Action Plan was submitted to DTSC on August 14,
1992. A public meeting was held for this site's draft Remedial
Action Plan on December 3, 1992, and the Final Remedial Action
Plan was approved by the DTSC on January ::17. 1993. The approved
groundwater remediation consists extraction at the rate of 5
gallons per minute, with re~~val of volatile organic compounds
with grar.ular.ed activated carbon and discharge to the storm drain
leading to Matadero creek. If a discharge permit cannot be
obtained, treated water will be reused for irrigation to the
extent possible with excess going to the sanitary sewer. Soil
remediation will be accomplished by excavation of about 600 cubic
yards of contaminated soil with disposal at a Class I and/or
Class III landfill.
p: \ou-'aw-c-r . 9'1 Appendix AI page 7
.10,,-.
•
p'\~~-gw Appendix A. page 8
o -v
321Q Porter Dr~(CQherent)
Coherent has been conducting research. design, and manufacturing
of lasers at 3210 Porter Drive since 1971. Coherent leased a
portion of the present facility for a machine shop in 1971,
sharing the building with Sroith-Coroua. The Coherent machiile
shop had formerly been used as a metal plating shop by MEL
Laboratories. This area had an acid neutralization scmp that had
been used by MEL for metal pr~cipitation. but Coherent did not
use it for chemical neutraliza~ion. Coherent set up two non
drained solvent degreasera in ~971 which used trichloroethylene.
Coherent also used an outdoor chemical storage area located on
the south side of the facility which it claimed existed when they
began occupan cy .
By 1976 1 Coherent had leased the entire facility at 3210 Porter.
In 1980, two solvent degreas~rs were installed at the north end,
and a pit was excaveted in the first floor foundation to house a
new vapor dryer using trichloroethylene. In 1982, the Optics
division relocated to Auburn. CP., and in 1983 the vapor dryer pit
was filled and the former Optics area was converted to a dye
testing area. In 1984, Coherent constructed a new opent chemical
storage area near the loading dock at the south end of the
facility. The outdoor chemical storage area was decommissioned
and the spill containment sump was removed at that time. In 1986
the solvent degreasere were removed when the Laser Product
Division processing moved to the south end of the building. A
solvent degreaaer was set uP. in the new area.
During 1988-89. Coherent conducted three phases of investigations
of the site and submitted a Feasibility Study workplL~ iD mid-
1950 which was approved by the Department of Health Services
(DHS) in September after some modifications. In November, DRS
issued an Immediate and Substantial Enaangerment/Remedial Action
Order, naming Stanford University Lands Management, HM Holdings,
and COherent as Responsible Parties for the site.
The Department of Health Services (DHS) required revisions of
Coherent's Health and Safety Plan, Quality Assurance project
Plan, and Project manag~ment Plan submitted in May 1951. In July
a Data Management Plan was approved. In July 1991~ DRS requested
that Coherent submit a revised chemical use report, based on
discrepancies between statements by HM Holdings and Coherent
about when the outdoor chemical s~orage shed ~as constructed~
In ~U9ust 1991. a revised Quality Assurance project Plan was
approved~ There were disputes between the Department of Toxic
SUbstances Central (DTSC) and Coherent over Coherent's operation
of an Interim Remedial Action project without DTSC approval, and
a Proposed Notice of Determination of Noncompliance was issued to
Coherent for failure to submit a comprehensive Remedial
Investigation repolt on time, even though a 30 day extension of
the original schedule had been granted.
Several revisions of a Feasibility Study Report were submitted
during 1992 by Coherent's consultant, but to date, the Department
Appendix A, page 9
13
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has not been satisfied and
requiz:ea further modifications.
An Inside Soil Investigation Report was submitted to the
Department of Toxic Substances Control in June 1993 by Pacific
Environmental Group. Inc .• 0[1 behalf of Coherent..
p,\ __ ~.!JII Appendix A, page 10
.. ,'
o
3300 Hillyiew Avenue (syntex/Svva}
The facility at 3300 Hillview was constructed in 1959, and has
been used by synt.ax; {USA) Inc., Xerox Corporation. liM Holdings,
Inc., COherent, Inc., and their subaidiaries for administrative
offices l research, development, assembly and testing of
electronic devices. Syntex and Syva were named by the Department
of Health Services (DHS) along with HM Holdings, Inc. and Xerox
Corporation in the June S, 1990 amendment to Remedial Action
order (RAe) 8B/.e~-016 a6 Responsible Parties in the Hillview
Porter plume4 The finding was based on evidence of groundwater
contamination with trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, 1 1 1,
dichloroethylene, a~d 1,2-dichloroethylene above drinking water
standards. The contamination was found during the remedial
investigations that had been conducted up to tha~ time. In July~
DRS issued a Notice of Final Determination of Noncompliance for
failure to comply with the order~ DRS denied Syntex's petition
to be removed from the R~ and issued a Notice of PropQsed
Determination of NonCompliance on December 11. 1990. The notice
waG withdrawn in January 1391~ following submittal of re~Jired
documentation from the Responsible PartY4
A sump removal fA.'Orkplan was approved in Febr..lary 1991, but a
R~~edial Investigation/Feasibility Study Workplan was rejected as
incomplete. In September, the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) approved a Revised Project Plan, Data Management
Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and Quality Assurance Project Plan,
but still found other elements of the Remedial Investigationl
Feasibility Study Workplan unsatisfactory. In October, the
Scoping Docu~~nt and Sampling and Analysis Plan were approved,
but the DTSC had problems with the proposed schedule, contingency
plan, and aquifer testing protoco~s. The Feasibility S~udy
Workplan and Baseline Public Health 2valuation Plan were
submitted in December 1991. but had not yet been completely
approved as of Novembe~' 1992 due to deficiencies. Letters from
DTSC in January and February 1993 indicated continuing
deficiencies in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
reports.
In July 1992, Department of Toxic Substances Control re~~ired the
Re~nsible Parties for the site to submit a workplan to
~nvestigate the high levels of trichloroethylene found in May
1992 at an onsite monitoring well, and also required that soil
samples be obtained from a former drum storage pad~ A revised
risk assessment, part of the Baseline Public Health Evaluation,
was due for submittal by August 26, 1992. The Remedial
Investigation report and the BCI.seline Public Health Evaluation
were submitted on February 23, 1993. Risk to current and future
employees and future residents were found to be within the
Environmental Protection Agency' 6 "acceptable-range of 10~' to
10.5 • Modificat.ions are required for a draft Remedial Action
Plan (RAP) submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances
Appendix A, page 11
P f
•
Control by Syntex. The revigions must be sent to the Department
for preapproval by June 22, 1993. After approval of the draft
RAP, a public meeting will take place and comments will be
solicited before approval of the final RAP.
p,\oo:r~.gw Appendix A. page 12
,r·.
3JJ3 Hillview Avenue (Watkips Jghnson)
watkins Johnson Company leased this 35 acre site from Stanford
Onive~9ity in 1958. and began manufacturing a variety of
electronic components. ccntamination was discovered in 1982. A
chemical history submitted in December 1989 was deemed ineomplete
by the Department c.f Health Services (PHS), and Watkins U"ohnson
Company (WJC) ~as named as a Responsible pa~ty along with
Stanford University Lands Management in the Hillview-Porter
Immediate and Substantial Endangerment/ Remedial A~tion Order
(I&SE/RAO) 89/90/012 issued in May 1990.
In July 1990, the Department of Health Services (DHS) rejected a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) workplan
submittal by Watkins Jor~son Company {WU"C) because it lacked key
documents required in such a plan. ~~rin9 subsequent months, WJC
submitted a Data Management Plan (DMP1, Project Management Plan,
Quality Assurance project Plan (CAPP). a Feasibility Study (FS)
workplan, Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and a Health and
Safety Plan (H&SP). The DMP, QAPP, and Seoping Document (SD)
were approved in October. In November the FS workplan and H&SP
were approved r In December, the SAP was approved. and the
Contingency Plan was approved for activities then underway at the
site.
In March 1991, the Dep~rtment of Health Services (DHS} approvec a
pilot study wc;:-ltplan proposed by Watkins Johnson for a
peroxidation treatment system. Baseline Public Health Evaluation
and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIfFS) reports
submitted in l~te 1991 were rejected by Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) ae needing revision. aDd as of November
1992 had not been approved. devised RI and FS reports were to
have been submitted by June 26 a.."1.d July 6, 1992 respectively.
Operable Unit t1 was approved by DTSC in November 1992, and
Operable Unit #2 is due for approval by June 1993, with a draft
Remedial Action Plan meeting planned for September or October
1993.
A revised Baseline Public Health Risk Assessment was submitted by
Watkins-Johnson in February 1993, responding to comments by
Department of Toxic Substances Control mad~ on an earliex draft.
The report concluded that exposure pathways associated with
surface water contamination in Matadero Creek account for JUBt 1\
of the total cancer risk. while exposure pathways assoeiated with
80il ~ontamination are relatively inGignificant~ The risk to
future residents using untreated groundwater for drinking and
bathing was estimated fram 6E-05 to 2E-04~ which are greater than
the Proposition 65 criterion of lE-05. The future industrial
scenario also estimated risk greater than the Proposition 6S
criterion, but the current industrial scenario risk was below the
eriterion. Tne Total Hazard Index for noncarcinogenic effects
for the future residential scenario was 13, indicating that
adverse systemic effects are a possibility under this scenario.
Appendix AI page 13
,--
•
Appendix A, page 14
'.
3fQQ Hillview (Smith-Kline Seckman. Quality Technologies)
This 17-acre si~e was occupied by Smith-Kline & French
Laboratories from November 1966 to January 1972, Gould, Inc. from
January 1972 to May 1973, Monsanto Company from May 1973 to June
1979, General Instrument Corporation from June 1979 to March
lSS8, and then Quality Technologies from March 1988 to A~gu8t
1990. Opera~ions at the facility included preparation or
manufacture of electronic medical equipment, light-emitting
diodes. optoelectronic devices and mechanical components related
to these product~. Some of the chemicals reportedly used in
these operations were trichloroethylene, trichloroethane. xylene,
toluene. acetone. and freona.
The former facility building was demolished during late 1990, and
has been r~developed as a campus-style research complex by its
current leaseholder, 3400 Hillview ABsociates.
Site investigations have been carried out at the site since
August 1987. Trichloroethylene ~nd perchloroethylene have been
found in 9round~ater samples at levels of less than 30 feet deep.
Three phases of soil investigation have detected trichloroethy
lene and other volatile organic compounds in soils at the sit~.
Approximat~ly 5000 cubic yards of soil were removed and aerated
in December 1990, then used for onsite grading after the
chemicals were removed to below laboratory detection limits. A
groundwater extraction and treatment system has also been
installed and in operation since August 1991.
In August 1988, Quality Technologies Corporation i Gould. Inc,
Monsanto, Company, Gener.l Instruments and Stanford Lands
Management were notified that they were conaidered as Responsible
Parties tor all phases of ren~dial activi~ies sch~duled for the
site under Remedial Action Order 88/89-005.
A Workplan for Soil Remediation submitted in OCtober 1990 was
approved in January 1391, and a revised wcrkplar~ for ~ore
investigacion was approved in February 1992. Implementation of
this investigation was delayed while parties negotiated terms of
acceBa i including a required encroachment permit from the City of
Palo Alto.
A draft Health Risk Assessment (BRAl was conducted from January
to April 1991 to evaluate the potential effects of present site
conditions on human health and the environment. The draft HRA
concluded that risk levels for all routes of exposure except
ingestion of groundwater were below levels of concern.
Trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene are at levels above
considered safe for drinking water. but it is quite unlikely that
this source will be used as a drinking water supply_ The
Department of Toxic Substances Control approved the HRA in March
1992.
p:\~,'P" Appendix A. page 1S
--~_m ___________ ~'
o
The Remedial tnve6tigation Repo.c was approved on May 29, 1992
and the Feasibility S~udy was approved subject to modifications
on June 4~ 1992. A revi8~d draft Remedial Action (RAk) was
presented for public comment at a community mee~ing on April 29,
1993. The comment period for the RAP closed on May 20, 199).
The recou~ended remedial alternative for the site is expansion of
the shallow groundwater extraction and treatment system to treat
water from eleven extraction wells. Treatment will be by an
ultraviolet oxidation system. The treated water will be
discharged to Matadero Creek through the storm drain under an
NPDES permi t.
•
.P:\~."" Appendix A, page 16
!
~
1
I
3179 Porter prive (A129 Corporation. L9cXh£ed Miaailes , S~
~
Alza r Lockheed, and OMEX were added to Remedial Action Order
88/89-016 in June 1990 as Responsible Parties in the Hillview
Porter plume. In July 1991. Alza received a Notice of Final
Determination of Non-Compliance (NFDNCl for failure to respond to
an Immediate and Substantial Endangerment/Remedial Action Order
and a notice of proposed action. Alza has taken the position
that it should not be citec for noncompliance because it has
-been denied participation in the Feasibility Study/Remedial
Investigat.ion process on an~' reasonable basis· and treated
unfairly during the negotiations with Responsible Parties because
Alza insisted that their participation in the Regional Program
would be limited_ to their apportioned or otherwise fair share of
liability, and that evidence of onsite Boil and groundwater
contamination does not link to Alza's reported chemical Jsage.
No further information exjsts in City files on the status of this
dispute.
Based on chemical use history submitted by Lockheed, in September
1988 the Department of Health Services (DHS} requested that
Lockheed conduct an investigation of nature and extent of soil
and groundwater contamination at Building 255 operated by
Lockheed. A workplan for the investigation was approved in
November 1966 and a Phase II Workplan was approved in January
1~90~ In August 1990, a Phase 3 workplan was proposed and
approved, but Lockheed was reproved by DRS in NO~Jember for
failing to meet deadlines in the approved 9chedule~ partly
attributable to difficulties in obtaining access to offsite
testing locations. The Phase III Site Investigation Report was
submitted in March 1991.
In August 1991, the Department of Toxic SUbstances Control (DTSC)
approved the Baseline Public Health Evaluation ~~rkplan submitted
by Lockheed in May~ In December, DTSC approved the revised
Health and Safety plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan
addendum submitted in November. Approval of the Feasibility
Study was withheld pending Lockheed'a documentation that it would
coordinate with other P~tentially Responsible Pa~ties to
remediate Plume B at the site. In July 1992~ Lockheed submitted
their intent to cooperate, and submitted a Feasibility Study
Report on November 15, 19~2~ A revised Public Health and
Bnviornmental Evaluation was submitted in April 1993.
In September 1990, Department of Health Services found that OMBX
was not in compliance with Remedial Action Order 88/89-106 and
issued a Notice of Final Determination of Non Compliance. rn
June 1991, DHS further notified OMEX that r1lo Alto Fire
Department records show that there were cisposals of solvents
into the City Sanitary sewer system and solvents into Matadero
Creek in 196"2, and a flammable liquid spill onto asphalt in 1963
Appendix A, page 17
,
•
by Precision Instru~ent co, the predecessor to OMEX, and required
OMEX to submit a more detailed ch~mical use history. A response
was due in 30 days. City files contain no further correspondence
on this matter.
Lockheed conducted fu~ther field work to gather more datal which
they are required to submit as an Addendum Remedial Investigation
Report by July 15. 2993. A revised Feasibility Study Report is
due by July 30, 1993.
Append.i.x A. page 18
•
APpmmn: B
otBBR STAlO"ORD RBSBARCB PA1UC CLBANUPS WIm DBPAR'l'XIDIT
OP '!'OJ:IC SUBSTANCBS CONTROL OV'BRS IGHT
Varian {§11 HAnB@ni
This site has been occupied since the early 19~C's by a
manufacturing facility owned by varian ABsociates, Inc. Products
manufactured include cancer therapy machines; tubes for
televiBion~ saltellite, and microwave communications; analytical
instruments; and equipment ~o manufacture semiconductor chips.
The site haa been under inveatisation since 1986. Trichloroethy
lene. perchlorethyle~e, 1,1~-dichloroethylene, and benzene are in
the soil and groundwater at levels above the State Action Level.
Soil and groundwater contamination are being addressed in
separate operable units.
In 1390. the Department of Toxic Substances Co~trol approved
Varian's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study workplan, and
an updated version was approved in Au~~st 1991. Soil
contam.inated with ethylene glycol was removed in 1989 and
perchloroethylene contaminated soil waq removed in 1991.
Groundwater extraction began in 1991, and a Boil vapor extraction
system started up in February 1992.
Investigation~ remediation, and oversight for the contamination
from this site is complicated by the fact that the plume from
this site has migrated and commingled with the California-Olive
Emerson {COE) plume that originates at Varian 601 California
Avenue and Hewlett Packard 640 Page Mill, and also is commingled
with a plume coming from the former Aydin Energy site at 3180
Hanover. Varian is being held responsible for onsite remediation
at ~11 Hansen Way under the oversight of the Department of Toxic
SubstanceB Control and for remediation of offsite migration into
the ODE area lL~der oversight by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Additionally. Varian has agreed with Aydin t.hat
Varian will submit all reports and workplans regarding the
groundwate: remediation of the area north of Hanover Street.
Groundwater extracted and tr~ated from Building 1 is used for
onsite irrigation. Initial invest.igations at the site indicated
that air stripping waa the most feasible treatment for the siter
However, a decision was made to switch the treatment system for
extracted groundwater from air stripping to Granulated A~tivated
Carbon (GAC) ~ Start-up of the GAC system was accomplished in the
spring of 1992. The switch was made because the rates of
extraction may be greater than formerly anticipated, GAC was
alr~ady installed on the site for interim remediation~ and GAC is
the most health protective with no adverse environmental impacts.
In a GAC system. extracted groundwater is passed through tanks
containing GAC. The GAC absorbo the contaminants and the GAC is
then shipped offaite for regeneration. Treated groundwater at
this site is then used for onsite irrigation.
Appendix B, page 1
•
A Baseline Public Health Evaluation report for the site was
approved in June 1392. The Remedial Investigation Report is under
review by Department of Toxic Substances Control. In April, OTSC
approved an ~~tension of the Feasibility Study;s due date to May
14, 3.5193.
p,\~~.!I" Appendix B, page 2
Aydin Energy (3180 Hanover Drive)
, --,
'-
A variety of electronics research, development and manufacturing
firms have occupied this site since 1956. It ~as occupied by an
Aydin Energy manufacturing site from 1gea-1ge4~ and in 1987
Hewlett Packard, the new and present lessee, demolished the
former Aydin buildings and installed parking facilities.
Soil contamination on the site has been under investigation since
1.979. and the grounc.water investigation }ias been conducted since
l'85. Soils on this site are contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls {PCBs) and related compounds, while groundwater is
oont~nated with chlorinated solvents such as trichloroethylene
and trichlorethane.
A Remedial Action Order was issued in 1986. Grollndwater
extraction began in 1987. A Community Relations Plan yas
prepared in 1988 and updated in 1990_ In 1990, Aydin recommended
remediatins PCB-containing soil by solidifying it in place, but
both the landowner {Stanford University) and c~rrent lessee
~Rewlett Packard) were concerned about the potential impact this
would have on future land use. The~efore, a Limited Screening
Risk Assessment for eoil excavation was submitted in April 1992,
and soil excavation of about 1500 cubic yards was conducted in
~992~ Groundw~ter extraction was interrupted when soil excavation
activities began in March 1992, and as of the April 1993 monthly
report, had not been resumed.
In NOvember 1992, the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) requested a workplan and revised Health and Safety Plan by
January 1993. Aydin responded in January with a seeping document
for additional data needs for soil and groundwater remediation
which DTSC rejected as not meeting the objectives outlined in
their November letter. In March 1993, DTSC completed review of
the Remedial Investigation summary Report that was submitted in
JUne 1.992. and aeked for revisions. ERM West, the consultant for
the project. submitted a revised letter/addendum on April 3, 1993
responding to DTSC'9 comments.
p,\~\""""",,, Appendix S, page 3
•
APPBNDIX C
SITE SPBCIFIC IHVBSTlGATIONS
tDlDa UGIOKAL WA'l'BJt: Qt1ALlrY
cotn'ROL BOARD OVDSIGIlT
@
Hewlett Pickard. (1501 Page Mill Road)
The Regional Water ~~ality Control Board is regulating the
cleanup at this 8ite under an agreement with the US EnVironmental
Protection Agency. The site was placed on the federal Superfund
National Priorities List l but was removed in 1989. Nevertheless,
both California and federal Superfund investigation and cleanup
procedures are being followed for the site.
The site is geologically complex i with groundwater flowing both
north towards the He~lett packard building at 3000 Hanover (liP
3000) and south towards the Hillview-Porter region. Sampling
indicates that contaminat~Qn has not spread to the east across
Hanover or north past the HP 3000 building, but has possibly
crossed Page Mill Road into the area north of the Peter Coutts
housing area. Investigation is continuing.
Interim remediation using soil vapor extraction and groundwater
extraction ~nd treatment have been underway since January 1988.
with 3 new weils along Page Mill Road Btarting up in mid-1992.
The Feasibility Study submitted in June 1992 and a Baseline
Public Health Evaluation are currently under review. A public
comment period on proposed cleanup actions is planned for Spring
1993, with adoption of a cleanup plan by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board in the summer of 1993.
3201 Ash Street {Durabondl
COotamination was discovered at this site in February 1S~~. The
facility manufactured bearings at the site using leaJ babbitting.
The principal contaminants are trichloroet.hylene, xylene i8omers~
and f 1lel hydrocarbonea. Sl..xty cubic yards of soil were removed in
early 1981 at the waste impoundment site. Groundwater
contamination with volatile organic compounds is believed to
originate offsite~ A proposal for remediation of the hydrocarbon
(fuel) plume was due in 1989, but had not been submitted at the
time of the December 1991 Regional Water Quality Co~trol Board
report. The facili~y has closed~ and operations ~ere removed to
Nevada in 1989.
4001 Miranda Avenue (Fairchild semiconductor earpl
Contamination at this Bite was discovered in February 1982.
Fairchild Semiconductor had manufactured gallium arsenide wafers
at the site. The source of contamination was determined to be the
dry well near the chemical mix area. Contaminants are
trichloroethylene, perchlorethylene. and dichloroethlyene-l.2~
Soil removal of 100 cubic yards \Io'as done in May 1999.
Groundwater extraction was begun in 1985. Extraction wells were
relocated when the site was redeveloped. The site is now
occupied by a three building office/research and development
complex with multiple uses.
p: \c:-=\aw=c--.!lIt Appendix C, page 1
o
3500 pent creek Rood (Hew1ttt Packard)
Contamination at this electronics plant and research and
development site vas discovered in october 1980. Contaminants
are trichloroethylene, trana-l,2-dichloroethylene, and
ethylbenzene from a spent solvent storage tank leak. Tank and
aolv~nts were :emoved immediately. and soil excavation was
completed in Octobe~ 1988. The extent of the pollutant pl~me has
been defined, and final cleanup measures are being implemented.
Low levels of volatile organics hav~ migrated from groundwater to
Deer Creek. Pumping contaminated groundwater began in February
1982, and a second extraction well in the creek terrace area
began pumping in January 1986. Trichloroethylene is now at
nondetectable levels. The Regional Water Quality Control Board
issued site cleanup requirements in February 1989 {#89-02S}.
Treated groundwater is discharged to the sanitary sewer.
2875 61 Camino (St~nfQ~d Cleaners}
contamination at this dry cleaner~s site was found in April 1982.
The source was thought to ~ & leaking waste solvent tank.
Contamination with 140 F dry cleaning solvent. trans,l-2
dichloroetbylene and trichloroethane were found~ but only the d~y
cleaning solvent was thought to be originating at this site. The
other concaminants are believed to be coming from o~fsite. The
underground tank was removed along with 360 cubic feet of Boil.
Some contaminated soil remains. The site is now on the inactive
list.
1050 page Mill Road (Beckman tnstrumentl Inc.}
Contamdnation at this manufacturing Bite for electronic equipment
was found in July 1986. A chemical use his LOry was requested and
received. Records indicate no trichloroethylene use in the past
10 years. Bec~~ does not use tricnloroethane which is showing
up in downgradient wells. This site is also inactive at this
time~
925 Page Mill Road {Eastman Kodak Company}
This site was used up until 1992 as a photographic film and paper
processing plant. The facility i. upgradient of an unexplained
chlorinated solvent source. Site records indicate there was a
small amount of trichloroethylene use. At the time of 't.he
December 1991 Regional Water Quality Control Board report; the
case was under review by Regional Water Quality COntrol Board.
Charleston and Fabian (Eprd A~rospace)
Contamination was discovered at this aerospace research and
manufacturing facility in April 1987. Trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, and l~l~l tricbloroethane are in groundwater.
The sources have not been determined. A cleanup order (#89-137)
was issued in 1989. No cleanup action has begun.
p:\CIW~.gw Appendix C, page 2
Itt i fb'rl"cgn Road (Advalloy. tnc )
Thi •• it. was used for the manufacture of lead frames and doing
plating for the el~etronics iLdustry. Contamination with
trichloroethylene, tr~~B-1/2 dichloroethylene~ and toluene were
found in JUne 1988. The sources of contamination are the acid
neutralization BUmp and surface spills. The Regional Water
Quality C~ntrol Board issued a cleanup order (#90-016) in 1990.
Advalloy i. in b&nk~ptcy. no longer in business. and no
detexmination baa been made &~ to when characteriz~tion will
continue and cleanup will begin.
14St Pagn Mill Rpod {Al;a Pharmec@uticaleL
Contamination of grolL~water with chloroform. carbon
tetrachloride. and trichloroethylene was discovered at this
pharmaceutical nanufacturing facility in February 1987. The
contamination BOL~rce willa thought to be inadequate chemical
handling practices. The Regional Water Quality Control Board
issued a Cleanup and Abatement order (#8S-0D~) in January 1988.
Soil vapor extrac~1on and treatment was started in June 19S8, and
groundwater ~raction began in April 19B9. No final remedial
measures have been determined.
p:\c.r~.,.. Appendix C, page 3