[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31427-31430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11028]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-10008-68-Region 9]


National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List: Deletion of the JASCO Chemical Corp. 
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is issuing 
a Notice of Intent to Delete the JASCO Chemical Corporation Superfund 
Site (Site) located in Mountain View, California, from the National 
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed 
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the 
State of California, through the Department of Toxic Substances 
Control, have determined that all appropriate response actions under 
CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude 
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 25, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received 
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Superfund Project Manager: Eric Canteenwala, 
canteenwala.eric@epa.gov.
     Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily 
suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the 
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not 
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard 
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
following repositories:
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional 
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting 
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed 
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket, 
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further 
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us 
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information 
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area 
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond 
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Canteenwala, Superfund Project 
Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (SFD-7-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3932, email: canteenwala.eric@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 9 announces its intent to delete the JASCO Chemical 
Corporation Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on 
this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of

[[Page 31428]]

sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, 
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of 
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). 
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the 
NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future 
conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for 
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting 
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using 
for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it 
meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from 
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted 
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have 
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, 
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of 
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this 
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has 
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of California, through DTSC, has concurred with 
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to 
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a local 
newspaper, the Mountain View Voice. The newspaper notice announces the 
30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete 
the Site from the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion 
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public 
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified 
above.
    If comments on this document are received within the 30-day public 
comment period, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the 
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA 
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public 
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines 
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator 
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public 
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, 
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the 
Site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or 
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from 
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement 
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for 
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the 
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should 
future conditions warrant such actions. EPA may initiate further action 
to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information 
becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a 
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking 
system.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site (CERCLIS ID #CAD009103318) is located at 1710 Villa Street 
in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California and is 
2.05 acres in size. JASCO Chemical Corporation (JASCO) repackaged and 
formulated bulk chemical products on site from 1976 to 1995. Chemicals 
were unloaded from rail cars and stored in eight underground storage 
tanks that polluted the surrounding soil and groundwater. Volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) and hydrocarbons, such as trichloroethane, 
acetone, creosote, and methylene chloride, were detected in shallow 
groundwater at the Site starting in 1984. On June 24, 1988, the Site 
was proposed for NPL listing (53 FR 23988). On October 4, 1989, EPA 
added the Site to the NPL (54 FR 41015).

Ongoing Development

    Historically, the area surrounding the site was industrial with 
many different electronics and semiconductor manufacturers. It is now 
within a residential area and zoned for future residential use, with 
the Southern Pacific Railroad running along the property's northern 
boundary. The site is currently owned by the Prometheus Real Estate 
Group, which plans to redevelop the property into an apartment complex.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Remedial Investigation (RI) was completed in 1991 and included 
investigation of groundwater and soil. A citizen complaint of solvent 
dumping resulted in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board 
(RWQCB) requesting the installation of monitoring wells to determine if 
the groundwater had been contaminated. EPA drilled additional 
groundwater monitoring wells and collected soil samples to define the 
nature and extent of contamination at the site.
    EPA completed the Feasibility Study (FS) in 1991. The FS evaluated 
six alternatives for groundwater remediation and five alternatives for 
soil remediation. The groundwater alternatives were: (1) No further 
action; (2) discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); (3) 
UV oxidation; (4) liquid phase carbon adsorption; (5) air stripping; 
and (6) biological treatment followed by carbon adsorption. The soil 
remediation alternatives were (1) no further action; (2) off-site 
treatment; (3) enhanced biological treatment; (4) X-19 biological 
treatment; and (5) Excalibur process or soil washing involving 
catalytic ozone oxidation.

Selected Remedy

    The Record of Decision (ROD) was issued on September 30, 1992. A 
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GETS) with air stripping 
and liquid phase carbon adsorption that discharged into a POTW was 
selected as the groundwater remedy. Ex-situ bioremediation was selected 
for the soil remedy. An interim removal action completed in 1988 
removed 572 cubic feet of contaminated soil down to the

[[Page 31429]]

water table (22-28 ft. below ground surface). A dual vacuum extraction/
soil vapor extraction system (DVE) was installed for dual remediation 
of contaminated soil and groundwater. This remedy included 
modifications to and continued operation of the existing GETS and 
implementation of a restrictive easement to prohibit use of onsite 
shallow groundwater. Institutional controls on the site prohibited the 
use of groundwater until cleanup levels were achieved.
    On September 13, 2002, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant 
Differences (ESD) that modified three elements of the remedy. (1) 
Treated groundwater was discharged to surface water under a National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the 
RWQCB instead of Mountain View's POTW. In order to meet the more 
stringent requirements under the NPDES permit the groundwater treatment 
system was modified. (2) Soil treatment in the drainage swale area at 
the rear of the site was modified to allow in situ soil vapor 
extraction. (3) Institutional control requirements were modified to add 
a post cleanup deed restriction to address the impacts of an offsite 
tetrachloroethene (PCE) plume not considered part of the Site. EPA 
issued a second ESD on September 26, 2012 that removed the requirement 
for the deed restriction to address the offsite PCE plume and clarified 
that this was no longer a component of the Superfund remedy for the 
Site.
    The remedial action objectives (RAO) for the remedy selected in the 
1992 ROD were to prevent further migration of contaminants into 
groundwater by treating Site soils; prevent possible future exposure of 
the public to contaminated groundwater; and prevent contamination of 
the drinking water aquifer by treating both contaminated soil and 
groundwater. The 1992 ROD listed cleanup criteria for twenty different 
VOCs in soil and groundwater. The cleanup levels for many of these 
contaminants were more protective than the groundwater Maximum 
Contaminant Level as specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Response Actions

    The remedy selected in the 1992 ROD was implemented beginning in 
1994. Activities implemented pursuant to the ROD, as modified by the 
2002 ESD included: (1) Removal of eight underground storage tanks (UST) 
from the Site and ex-situ bioremediation of the soil stockpile 
generated from UST removal; (2) installation of GETS equipped with a 
liquid-phase carbon adsorption system that discharged to a POTW; (3) a 
dual vacuum extraction/soil vapor extraction system installed for dual 
remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater in the drainage swale 
area; (4) two monitoring wells were converted to DVE wells in response 
to the appearance of PCE in groundwater. These converted wells remained 
in operation until April 1998 when the expanded GETS was completed; (5) 
Implementation of Institutional Controls on the Site in the form of a 
restrictive easement recorded in 1993, which prohibited the use of 
groundwater until cleanup levels were achieved. The Site reached 
construction complete status on September 20, 2002 and a Preliminary 
Close Out Report (PCOR) was prepared at that time.

Cleanup Levels

    Cleanup levels for both soil and groundwater treatment were reached 
in 2002. The GETS was shut off in 2002 and groundwater monitoring ended 
in 2010. The 2012 Five Year Review (FYR) concluded that all 
contaminants of concern, except for PCE and tricholoroethylene (TCE), 
were below the maximum contaminant levels for 18 consecutive quarters. 
PCE and TCE were determined to be related to an offsite plume not 
related to the Site. The EPA determined that the RAO (i.e., prevent any 
further migration of contaminants into groundwater by treating Site 
soils) had been attained at the Site based on confirmatory samples 
taken of soil contaminants after the excavation of the USTs and in 
2002. The results were compared against both EPA Region 9 residential 
soil Preliminary Remediation Goals for dermal exposure and the 2012 EPA 
Regional Screening Levels for soils.

Operation and Maintenance

    There are no ongoing monitoring activities for soil or groundwater. 
The 2012 ESD removed the requirement for institutional controls related 
to the CERCLA remedy. An environmental covenant related to the offsite 
PCE plume was signed by the property owner and the RWQCB, was recorded 
by Santa Clara County, and remains in effect. Because cleanup is now 
complete at the Site, the 2002 Site-related deed restriction was 
terminated, groundwater monitoring was discontinued, the monitoring 
wells have been properly closed under Santa Clara Valley Water District 
(SCVWD) permit, and monitoring and maintenance have been discontinued.

Five-Year Reviews

    EPA conducts reviews every five years to determine if remedies are 
functioning as intended and if they continue to be protective of human 
health and the environment. EPA issued the Second Five-Year Review 
Report on September 28, 2012, and concluded that the remedy at the 
JASCO Site is protective of human health and the environment. At that 
time, groundwater contamination had reached cleanup levels, and any 
potential exposures were controlled through the deed restriction. No 
future five-year reviews are needed because the groundwater and soil 
cleanup goals have been attained throughout the Site, all monitoring 
wells have been closed, and the environmental covenant for the CERCLA 
related contamination was terminated.

Community Involvement

    EPA held community meetings before and during the Site cleanup. EPA 
released a fact sheet in 2010 describing potential redevelopment of the 
site.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    EPA has followed all procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e), 
Deletion from the NPL. EPA consulted with the State of California prior 
to developing this Notice. EPA determined that the responsible party 
has implemented all appropriate response actions required and that no 
further response action for the Site is appropriate. EPA is publishing 
a notice in the Mountain View Voice, a local newspaper, of its intent 
to delete the Site and how to submit comments. EPA placed copies of 
documents supporting the proposed deletion in the Site information 
repositories; these documents are available for public inspection and 
copying.
    The implemented groundwater remedy achieved the degree of cleanup 
and protection specified in the ROD for the Site. The selected remedial 
action objectives and associated cleanup levels for the groundwater are 
consistent with agency policy and guidance. Based on information 
currently available to EPA, no further Superfund response is needed to 
protect human health and the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water 
pollution control, Water supply.


[[Page 31430]]


    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., 
p. 193.

     Dated: May 14, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2020-11028 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


