-
INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT STATE ROUTE 85 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4-SCL US 101-PM 25.3 TO
28.6 SR 85-PM 0.0 TO 24.1 US 101 PM 47.9 TO 52.0
Prepared for: California Department of Transportation, District
4 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, California 94623 Caltrans EA
04-4A790K
March 2011
-
INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT STATE ROUTE 85 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4-SCL US 101-PM 25.3 TO
28.6 SR 85-PM 0.0 TO 24.1 US 101 PM 47.9 TO 52.0 EA 04-4A790K
Prepared for: California Department of Transportation, District
4 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, California 94623
Working in cooperation with: Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority 3331 North 1st Street San Jose, California 95134
Prepared by: URS Corporation 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite
200 San Jose, CA 95113 Project No. 28645170
March 2011
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
X:\85 Hot lanes\420_Environmental Studies\ISA\ISA
Report\2011-03-10_Submittal(Final)\2011-03-10_Final_ISA.doc iii
1. Section 1 Introduction and Project Description
.......................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction
..............................................................................................
1-11.2 Project Description
...................................................................................
1-1
1.2.1 Background
..................................................................................
1-1
2. Section 2 Methodology, and Limitations
.....................................................................
2-1
2.1 Methodology
............................................................................................
2-12.2 User Reliance
...........................................................................................
2-12.3 Limitations and
Exceptions......................................................................
2-2
3. Section 3 Study Area, Geology, and Groundwater
..................................................... 3-1
3.1 Environmental Study Area
.......................................................................
3-13.2 Geology and Groundwater Flow
..............................................................
3-1
4. Section 4 Records Review
............................................................................................
4-1
4.1 Regulatory Database Search Report
........................................................ 4-14.1.1
Search Results
..............................................................................
4-14.1.2 Screening Criteria
........................................................................
4-24.1.3 Screening Results
.........................................................................
4-2
4.2 Records Review
.......................................................................................
4-34.2.1 Geotracker and Envirostor Databases
.......................................... 4-3
4.3 Project Site Historic Use Information
...................................................... 4-44.3.1
Historical Aerial Photographs
...................................................... 4-44.3.2
Historical Topographic Maps
...................................................... 4-44.3.3
Summary of Historical Uses within the Study Area
.................... 4-54.3.4 Analysis of Historical Information
.............................................. 4-5
4.4 Previous Initial Site Assessments
............................................................
4-6
5. Section 5 Site Reconnaissance
....................................................................................
5-1
6. Section 6 Findings and Conclusions
...........................................................................
6-1
6.1
Findings....................................................................................................
6-16.1.1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites
............................................ 6-16.1.2 Aerially
Deposited Lead
..............................................................
6-26.1.3 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
...................................................... 6-36.1.4
Leaded
Paint.................................................................................
6-36.1.5
Pesticides......................................................................................
6-3
6.2 Recommendations
....................................................................................
6-36.2.1 Soil Sampling
...............................................................................
6-36.2.2 Groundwater Sampling
................................................................
6-36.2.3 Health &
Safety............................................................................
6-4
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
X:\85 Hot lanes\420_Environmental Studies\ISA\ISA
Report\2011-03-10_Submittal(Final)\2011-03-10_Final_ISA.doc iv
Tables Within text of report:
4-1 Regulatory Database Results within one mile of the Project
Area
4-2 Summary of Aerial Photograph Coverage for Project Area
6-1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites impacting the Project
Area
Within Appendix B:
B-1 Sites with Potential Impacts to the Project Area EDR
Environmental Atlas Report Worksheet with supplemental information
from online regulatory databases
Figures 1 Project Area Location
2-6 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites
Appendices A Caltrans ISA Checklist
B Regulatory Database Search Report (on CD-ROM) and Table
B-1
C Review of Previous Site Assessments
D Reconnaissance Survey Summary
E Reconnaissance Survey Photographs
F Summary of Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed
-
List of Acronyms
X:\85 Hot lanes\420_Environmental Studies\ISA\ISA
Report\2011-03-10_Submittal(Final)\2011-03-10_Final_ISA.doc v
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
CA FID California Facility Inventory Database
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
ETS Express Lanes Electronic Toll System
FINDS Facility Index System
HAZNET Hazardous Waste Manifests
HOT High-Occupancy/Toll Lane (Express Lane)
HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
ISA Initial Site Assessment
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
PSR Project Study Report
RCRA Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle
SPBD City of San Pablo Building and Planning Department
SQG Small Quantity Generator
SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
UST Listing
SR 85 State Route 85
TCE Temporary Construction Easement
URS URS Corporation
US 101 United States Highway 101
USGS United States Geologic Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VTA Valley Transportation Agency
WDS Waste Discharge System
-
SECTIONONE Introduction and Project Description
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 1-1
1. Section 1 ONE Introduction and Project Description
1.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Initial
Site Assessment (ISA) conducted by URS for the State Route 85 (SR
85) Express Lanes Project. The project includes the proposed
conversion of 24 miles of existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes along SR 85 to express lanes (also known as High Occupancy
Toll (HOT) lanes). An additional express lane would also be added
along a portion of the corridor to create a double express lane.
The project, located in Santa Clara County, would include the
construction of express lanes on northbound and southbound SR 85
from US 101 in southern San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View (See
Figures 1 and 2). The project would also include the continuation
of the express lanes for 3.3 miles on US 101 in South San Jose, for
a total project length of 27 miles.
The purpose of this ISA is to identify sites that have the
potential to affect the proposed project with hazardous materials
or waste from current or historical environmental conditions. The
format and content of this ISA follow Appendix DD, Preparation
Guidelines for ISA Checklist for Hazardous Waste, of the Caltrans
Project Development Procedures Manual. A completed copy of this
checklist is included in Appendix A.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.2.1 Background SR 85 is a 24-mile long freeway that connects
Mountain View to southern San Jose. SR 85 passes through Cupertino,
Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, San Jose's Cambrian Park, and the
neighborhoods of Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, and Santa Teresa.
SR 85 also intersects with SR 237, Interstate 280, Highway 17, and
SR 87. SR 85 typically has 3 lanes in each direction, including 2
mixed lanes and 1 HOV lane.
The project would involve the conversion of existing HOV lanes
to express lanes along SR 85 and a portion of US 101 in South San
Jose, and is proposed to provide congestion relief through more
efficient use of existing facilities, provide more mobility options
along this corridor, and create an additional source of revenue for
transportation improvements in the area. Three build alternatives
have been developed; common features of all three alternatives are
described in the following, followed by each alternatives unique
features.
Build Alternatives - Common Design Features
Lane Description The express lanes would be located adjacent to
the center median, and would be created either by converting the
existing HOV lane to dual use, or by adding an additional median
lane to create a double express lane facility. The express lanes
would include multiple intermediate access points from the adjacent
mixed-flow lane to provide equal opportunity for prospective users,
including carpoolers. These access points would consist of gaps in
the striped 2-foot-wide buffer zone, allowing traffic to enter and
exit the express lanes.
Lane Operation Static and dynamic overhead signs would be
installed to advise qualified HOV and single-occupancy vehicles
(SOV) users as they approach an entrance point. This includes
displaying the
-
SECTIONONE Introduction and Project Description
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 1-2
current toll rates relative to each destination and exit served
by the facility. These signs would be updated as the system is
managed for changing speed and traffic density measured at
intervals along the express lanes. Vehicles using the facility must
have transponders (similar to the current FasTrak) that would be
monitored by an overhead structure installed at the beginning of
the facility. The proposed express lane(s) would be separated from
the existing mixed flow lanes by a striped buffer, up to two feet
wide. Vehicles in the express lanes without a transponder would
activate a signal that would be monitored by enforcement officers,
who would observe from a distance whether the indicated vehicle is
a qualified car pool (e.g., two or more passengers or is otherwise
exempt).
Use of US 101/SR 85 Direct Connectors At the south end of the
project area in South San Jose, the southbound HOV direct connector
from SR 85 joins the existing southbound US 101 HOV lane, and both
lanes run parallel for a short distance before merging together.
The proposed express lane would end on US 101 where the two HOV
lanes merge together.
In the northbound direction on US 101, the proposed express lane
would also coincide with the beginning of the double HOV segment
allowing SOVs to use the express lanes for a short distance ahead
of the direct connector. The second HOV lane continues on the HOV
direct connector to northbound SR 85.
At the north end of the project area, the two existing HOV lanes
on southbound US 101 split prior to the US 101/SR 85 Interchange,
with one lane continuing on to southbound US 101 and the other lane
proceeding on to southbound SR 85 via the direct connector. The
direct connectors at this location are not proposed to be part of
the SR 85 Express Lanes project and would remain as HOV-only
connectors.
In the northbound direction, the express lane would terminate in
advance of the direct connectors allowing enough distance for SOVs
to exit the lane and merge across the mixed-flow lanes to use the
mixed flow ramp from NB SR 85 to NB US 101. In the southbound
direction, the express lane would start shortly after the direct
connector terminates on SR 85 allowing enough distance for SOVs
entering SB SR 85 from the mixed flow ramp to merge across the
mixed flow lanes to enter the express lane.
Construction Activities The project would be constructed
entirely within existing right of way, and utility impacts are not
anticipated. During construction, some lane closures could be
required, but full closures are not expected to be necessary.
Build Alternative 1 Single Express Lane/Separate Access
Points
Build Alternative 1 would include converting the existing HOV
lane along both northbound and southbound SR 85 into a single-lane
express lane facility, extending from US 101 in South San Jose to
US 101 in Mountain View.
In the sections between US 101 in South San Jose, and SR 87 and
between I-280 and US 101 in Mountain View, reduction in the width
of the express lane and the inside mixed-flow lane from 12 feet to
11 feet would be required to create the 2-foot buffer. Between SR
87 to I-280, the 2-foot buffer would be created by reducing the
inside shoulder width to 8 feet while maintaining 12
-
SECTIONONE Introduction and Project Description
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 1-3
foot lanes. Four feet of the inside shoulder would be replaced
with a full depth structural section to allow traffic to drive on 2
feet of the existing shoulder.
The 2-foot buffer zone would have designated entrance-only and
exit-only openings with a transition lane to provide access into
and out of the express lane facility. The additional transition
lane would be approximately 1300 feet long in order to minimize
impacts to both the express lane and the mainline traffic
operations.
In the section between SR 87 and I-280, where the median is
approximately 46 feet wide, additional pavement widening towards
the median would be necessary to accommodate the transition lane at
every ingress and egress location, reducing the a median width to
between 24 and 35 feet. The existing thrie-beam barrier would be
replaced with a concrete barrier Type 60 at these locations, as
required for areas where the median width is less than 36 feet.
In the section south of SR 87, where the VTA Light Rail runs
within the median, the outside of the freeway would be widened
within the right of way to maintain 10-foot outside shoulders, and
12-foot lanes would be provided to accommodate the transition lane
at every entrance and exit location. Where space is not available
for full standard lane and shoulder widths, the express lane and
express auxiliary lane widths would be reduced to 11 feet to
accommodate the transition lane.
In the SR 85 section north of I-280, where the median width is
approximately 22 feet, if outside widening is not feasible, the
inside shoulders would be narrowed to 2 feet to accommodate a
transition lane at the entrance and exit locations.
Build Alternative 2 Single Express Lane/Shared Access Points
Build Alternative 2 would include converting the existing HOV
lane along both northbound and southbound SR 85 into a single-lane
express lane facility throughout the corridor.
The sections between US 101 in South San Jose and SR 87, and
between I-280 and US 101 in Mountain View would require the
reduction of the express lane width and inside mixed flow lane
width to from 12 feet to 11 feet to create the 2-foot buffer. In
the section from SR 87 to I-280, the 2-foot buffer would be created
by reducing the inside shoulder width to 8 feet while maintaining
12-foot lanes. Four feet of the inside shoulder would be replaced
with a full depth structural section to allow traffic to drive on 2
feet of the existing shoulder.
The 2-foot buffer zone would have designated combined entrance
and exit openings to provide access into and out of the express
lane facility.
Build Alternative 3 Mixed Single and Double Express Lanes/Shared
Access Points
Build Alternative 3 would include converting the existing HOV
lane along both northbound and southbound SR 85 into a single-lane
express lane facility between US 101 in South San Jose and SR 87, a
double express lane facility between SR 87 and I-280, and a
single-lane express lane facility between I-280 and US 101 in
Mountain View.
In the section between SR 87 and I-280, widening into the
existing median would eliminate the need to reduce the width of the
left most mixed-flow lane. The 2-foot buffer zone would have
designated combined entrance and exit openings to provide access
into and out of the express lane facility.
-
SECTIONONE Introduction and Project Description
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 1-4
In the section between SR 87 and I-280, where the median width
is approximately 46 feet, pavement widening would be conducted in
the median to accommodate the second express lane. The median would
be paved and the existing thrie-beam barrier would be replaced with
a concrete barrier Type 60.
No Build Alternative
The No-Build alternative assumes no modifications would be made
to the current SR 85 corridor, including the continuous access HOV
lane, other than routine maintenance and rehabilitation of the
facility and any currently planned and programmed projects within
the area.
-
SECTIONTWO Methodology, and Limitations
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 2-1
2. Section 2 TWO Methodology, and Limitations
2.1 METHODOLOGY An ISA is intended to screen for potential
sources of hazardous materials within the limits of a proposed
project. The result of an ISA screening is a determination of
whether there is a potential that hazardous materials problems
requiring further evaluation affect the project area.
This ISA was accomplished by, and limited to, a reconnaissance
of the project area and review of the documentation described in
Section 3 for information about past and current land uses that
might involve the manufacture, generation, use, storage, and/or
disposal of hazardous substances in the project area and study
area.
The ISA included the following steps:
URS contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to
conduct a regulatory database search of known potential hazardous
materials sites, including underground storage tanks (USTs);
landfills; hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities; and subsurface contamination within an area
extending up to 1 mile from the project area. This EDR report was
performed for the entire proposed project corridor as well as for
portions of US 101 both north of the northern SR85/US101
interchange and south of the southern SR85/US101 interchange. A
copy of this report is included on CD as Appendix B.
URS reviewed multiple existing ISAs that addressed portions of
the study area. A summary of these reviews is included in Section
4.4 and a more thorough summary is included as Appendix C.
URS staff visited the project area on September 22 and 23, 2010,
to perform a site reconnaissance. A summary of this reconnaissance
is included in Section 5; a more detailed summary and a
photographic log are included as Appendices D and E.
URS reviewed available historical aerial mapping photographs
covering the project area and adjacent areas using the program
Google Earth. A summary of the findings are included in Section
4.3.
URS reviewed available topographic maps covering the project
area and adjacent areas. These files were generally reviewed using
available online services including the University of California at
Berkeley; a log documenting the sources is included as Appendix F
and the findings are summarized in Section 4.3.
For select properties within or near the proposed right-of-way
that showed potential for environmental impacts to the soils and/or
groundwater of the project area, URS staff reviewed the applicable
available files from the Envirostor and Geotracker web-based
databases maintained by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), respectively. Copies of researched
files are available upon request.
2.2 USER RELIANCE This report has been prepared for use solely
by VTA and Caltrans and shall not be relied upon by or transferred
to any other party, or used for any other purpose, without the
express written authorization of URS.
-
SECTIONTWO Methodology, and Limitations
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 2-2
2.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS This report and the associated
work have been provided in accordance with the principles and
practices generally employed by the local environmental consulting
profession. This is in lieu of all warranties, expressed or
implied.
It should be recognized that this study was not intended to be a
definitive investigation of potential contamination in the project
area and the recommendations provided are not necessarily inclusive
of all the possible conditions. This ISA is not a regulatory
compliance audit or an evaluation of the efficiency of the use of
any hazardous materials in the project area. Soil and/or
groundwater sampling was not undertaken during this investigation.
Sampling for asbestos, radon, lead-based paint, and lead in
drinking water was also not performed as part of this ISA. Given
that the Scope of Services for this investigation was limited, it
is possible that currently unrecognized contamination might exist
in the project area.
The conclusions presented in this report are professional
opinions based solely upon indicated data described in this report,
visual observations of the project area and vicinity, and URS
interpretation of the available historical information and
documents reviewed, as described in this report. Unless URS has
actual knowledge to the contrary, information obtained from
interviews or provided to URS by the client has been assumed to be
correct and complete. URS does not assume any liability for
information that has been misrepresented to us by others or for
items not visible, accessible or present in the project area during
the time of the field reconnaissance. The conclusions are intended
exclusively for the purpose outlined herein and the project
location and project indicated. The Scope of Services performed in
execution of this investigation may not be appropriate to satisfy
the needs of other users, and any use or reuse of this document or
the findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented herein is
at the sole risk of said user.
Opinions and recommendations presented herein apply to the
project area conditions existing at the time of our investigation
and cannot necessarily apply to project area changes of which URS
is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. Changes
in the conditions in the project area may occur with time due to
natural processes or the works of man in the subject project area
or adjacent properties. Changes in applicable standards may also
occur as a result of legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly
or in part, by changes beyond our control. Opinions and judgments
expressed herein are based on URS understanding and interpretation
of current regulatory standards and should not be construed as
legal opinions.
Changes may occur after the date of issue of the report. Some
examples of project area condition changes that limit the useful
life of this type of report are as follows: property usage changes,
change in ownership, the occurrence of additional environmental
releases, implementation of regulatory changes, updating of
regulatory agency files, and/or development of new investigation or
remediation results. These or other potential changes could affect
the recommendations in this report.
For the purposes of this evaluation, URS has assumed that
regulatory agency cases that have been closed do not represent
further potential hazardous materials risks to the project
Site.
-
SECTIONTHREE Study Area, Geology, and Groundwater
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 3-1
3. Section 3 THREE Study Area, Geology, and Groundwater
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AREA The ISA considered both a project
area and a broader study area, which are defined as follows:
The project area consists of the existing Caltrans right-of-way
along SR85 and US101 segments that are within the project
limits.
The study area consists of the project area plus an approximate
1-mile radius, for purposes of the records search only.
This assessment focuses on the potential for contamination in
the project area as well as in the study area, which may have
impacted the subsurface soil or groundwater below the project
area.
3.2 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW The study area is located
within the Coastal Range geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges are
bound by the Pacific Ocean on the west and Central Valley on the
east and are characterized geologically by steep northwest trending
ridges and narrow valleys. The ridges and valleys were formed by
mostly compressional tectonic deformations during Mesozoic time
(between 65 and 250 million years ago). This compressional tectonic
activity was replaced by strike-slip lateral faulting during early
Tertiary time (between 40 and 65 million years ago), resulting in
the formation of such major structures as the San Andreas, Hayward
and Calaveras faults. The San Francisco Bay is a flooded structural
depression formed as a result of faulting activity, which continues
to the present time. The study area is located along the western
margin of the San Francisco Bay, which occupies a major structural
depression between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and the
East Bay hills to the east. Groundwater in the northern portion of
the Study area is under the influence of either incursion of Bay
waters or tidal pressure effects. Groundwater has been detected in
monitoring wells near the Bay at average depths ranging between 2
and 6 feet below ground surface (bgs) near US 101 in Mountain View
(URS, 2010a), and at depths of up to 10-20 feet bgs near the
southern end of the study area (URS, 2010b).
Historical groundwater information included in Envirostor (the
database of the DTSC) and in local agency databases was used to
establish the most likely groundwater flow direction in the project
area. While regional groundwater flow typically flows towards the
Bay, local groundwater flow may be subject to local variations, and
may be under tidal influence and subject to local and temporary
changes. In general, URS has assumed that groundwater flow is
towards the Bay, and therefore has only considered sites upgradient
(generally south) of the freeways or adjacent to the freeways, as
having the potential to impact the study area.
Based on multiple recent Caltrans and VTA projects in Santa
Clara County, the potential presence of naturally-occurring
asbestos (NOA) represents a potential environmental concern.
-
SECTIONFOUR Records Review
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 4-1
4. Section 4 FOUR Records Review
4.1 REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT
4.1.1 Search Results The services of Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. (EDR) were retained to provide the radius
environmental database report (EDR report) for this ISA. The EDR
report is attached in Appendix B in electronic format and presents
the results of a search for properties within the study area that
are listed on 32 federal, 5 Native American, and 18 state or local
environmental databases, as well as 3 EDR proprietary databases.
The study area for the EDR report was based on the original project
limits of the SR 85 Express Lanes Project, which included 3.3 miles
of US 101 north of the SR 85 interchange in Mountain View that has
since been excluded from the project limits. The summary of data in
the paragraphs and table below reflects the entire EDR study area
(unless noted otherwise), whereas the interpretation of the data in
Section 4.1.2 and following sections reflects a study area based on
current project limits.
The results of the database search include the following:
Addresses of known underground storage tank (UST)/aboveground
storage tank (AST) sites;
Hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and/or disposal
facilities; and
Subsurface contamination known to be present in the study area.
The goal of reviewing the database report was to identify
facilities with known and documented environmental problems that
may negatively affect the proposed project.
The EDR report identified a total of approximately 350 cases in
and within 1 mile of the original project limits. Locations of the
350 properties are shown on the map included in the EDR report
(included on CD in Appendix B). Note that each property may be
occupied by multiple facilities or have changes in ownership or
listing name for the same property. In addition, some properties
are listed in multiple databases. Approximately 260 of the cases
are in and within 1 mile of the current project limits (i.e.,
excluding the 3.3 miles of US 101 in Mountain View and Palo
Alto).
Table 4-1 summarizes the types of cases listed on federal,
state, and/or local databases as presented in the EDR report.
Table 4-1: Regulatory Database Results within one mile of the
Project Area
Agency Database Cases Identified
U.S. EPA RCRA SQG. Registered Small Generators of Hazardous
Waste 207
U.S. EPA RCRA NonGen. Non Generators do not presently generate
hazardous waste. 57
State Landfill (SWF/LF). Inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in California. 1 CORTESE. Hazardous Waste
& Substances Sites List and include sites from LUST, SWF/LS and
Cal-Sites. This database is no longer updated by the state agency.
This database includes drinking water well with detectable levels
of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial
action, sites with known toxic material, USTs having a reportable
release, and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is
known migration.
42
State Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List 253
-
SECTIONFOUR Records Review
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 4-2
Agency Database Cases Identified
CA FID UST (Facility Inventory Database). Contains a historical
listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations
from the State Water Resource Control Board.
27
SLIC. A State Water Resource Control Board source. Includes
Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Clean-ups.
61
UST. Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory
agencies. 5 HIST UST. Historical UST Registered Database. 161 AST.
Aboveground Storage Tank database from the State Water Resource
Control Boards Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database.
2
SWEEPS. Former UST database updated by early 1980s. No longer
updated or maintained. 140 Notify 65. Proposition 65 Records. This
database contains facility notifications about any release which
could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a
potential health risk.
1
Drycleaners. Cleaner Facilities. 33 WIP. Well Investigation
Program Case List. 1 San Mateo County Business Inventory (San Mateo
Co. BI). This database includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan,
hazardous waste generator, and underground storage tanks.
104
Envirostor. The DTSCs Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse
Program (SMBRPs) 48
4.1.2 Screening Criteria The following screening criteria were
used to identify which of the approximately 260 cases identified in
the EDR report should be further evaluated based on their potential
to have impacted the subsurface below the project area:
The facility is either: adjacent to the project area (i.e. the
SR 85 Corridor, or segments of US 101 within the project
limits)
upgradient or crossgradient of, and within a distance of 1/8 of
a mile from, the project area
a site (typically an NPL site) with a known plume extending to
the project area;
and:
The facility is listed on one of the databases of reported
hazardous materials releases (Federal NPL, Federal CORRACTS,
Federal CERCLIS, State CORTESE, State LUST, State SLIC, RESPONSE,
Envirostor, etc.); or
The facility is listed as an RCRA large-quantity hazardous waste
generator (LQG), or a dry cleaner facility.
4.1.3 Screening Results A total of 18 facilities in the study
area met the above screening criteria. Table B-1 included with
Appendix B provides a description of each facility. After reviewing
the information for each of the 18 facilities, URS also researched
the online Envirostor and Geotracker databases and USEPA Region 9
Superfund website (discussed in Section 4.2.1), for additional
sites, and to gather further information on sites identified in the
EDR report but for which there was
-
SECTIONFOUR Records Review
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 4-3
insufficient information to allow URS to determine if the site
represented a concern to the project area. Based on these reviews,
URS determined that two facilities (which have a merged contaminant
plume and therefore are treated as a single entity) had a high
potential of impacting the project Site while an additional two
facilities had a medium potential. These facilities are listed
below, and Table 6-1 in Section 6 discusses each in further detail,
as well as other potential impacts to the site corridor. The
facilities identified in the EDR report are discussed by
appropriate project location below:
Northern US 101/SR 85 Interchange to I-280/SR 85 Interchange:
Teledyne Semiconductors Inc.: 1300 Terra Bella Ave, Mountain View,
CA
94043 Approx. 3,000 ft west of the northern US 101/SR 85
interchange, crossgradient, plume known to extend to US 101. Note:
for the purposes of this report, the Teledyne and Spectra-Physics
facilities are considered together as one site, due their merged
contaminant plume.
Spectra-Physics Inc.: 1250 W Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA
94042 Approx. 3,000 ft west of the northern US 101/SR 85
interchange, crossgradient, plume known to extend to US 101. Note:
for the purposes of this report, the Teledyne Semiconductors and
Spectra-Physics facilities are considered together as one site, due
to their merged contaminant plume.
Intel Corporation: 365 Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040
Approx. 3,000 ft east of SR 85, upgradient. This is a component of
the regional Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) NPL plume of VOCs in
groundwater from multiple sources. The plume is known to extend to
near the interchange of SR 85 and US 101 in Mountain View.
SR 85: I-280/SR 85 Interchange to southern US 101/SR 85
Interchange: Conoco Phillips #6080: 21530 Stevens Creek Blvd,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Adjacent to SR 85, cross-gradient.
4.2 RECORDS REVIEW URS reviewed the publically-available
Geotracker and Envirostor web-based databases maintained by the
RWQCB and DTSC, respectively. No additional sites (to those listed
in the EDR database) were identified. Based on a review of the EDR
report, URS also selected sites for which additional information
may be available on these publicly available databases. Please note
that sites which were listed as closed by EDR, or sites that were
already known to represent a potential environmental concern to the
project area were not further researched. These records reviews are
described below.
4.2.1 Geotracker and Envirostor Databases Two facilities were
reviewed on Geotracker. All information included in Envirostor is
also included in Geotracker, and therefore only the Geotracker
database was considered. Files reviewed are available upon
request.
-
SECTIONFOUR Records Review
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 4-4
Texaco: 975 Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View. URS reviewed the
Additional Investigation Report for former Texaco-branded service
station 21-1179. This site, located approximately 500 feet south of
the Project Area, has several monitoring wells in the northern
direction. Groundwater impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons has been
determined to flow north from this Site. However, contamination has
not been detected at the northernmost well, which is south of US
101. Therefore, no impacts to the project Site are considered
likely.
US Postal Service: 21701 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino. Approx.
800 ft southwest of SR 85, cross-gradient. No records available,
but Geotracker indicated that the case was closed in 1993,
therefore no impacts to the project Site are considered likely.
4.3 PROJECT SITE HISTORIC USE INFORMATION Historical aerial
photographs and topographical maps were reviewed using available
sources. The purpose of the review was to evaluate if past uses may
have created potentially significant environmental conditions that
would not appear in the regulatory records review, nor be visible
during the field reconnaissance conducted for the ISA.
4.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs URS used the Google Earth
Professional program to review historical aerial photographs of the
project area for evidence of previous activities and development
potentially involving hazardous materials. Historical photography
was not available for the entire project corridor for each year, as
shown in Table 4-2 below.
Table 4-2: Summary of Aerial Photograph Coverage for Project
Area Year Aerial Photograph Coverage
1948 Northern SR 85/US 101 interchange to just south of Saratoga
Avenue.
1953 Northern SR 85/US 101 interchange to just south of Saratoga
Avenue.
1978 Northern SR 85/US 101 interchange to just south of Saratoga
Avenue.
1991 Northern SR 85/US 101 interchange to just south of Saratoga
Avenue.
1998 Entire project/study area.
2000 Entire project/study area.
2009 Entire project/study area.
A summary of historical use within the study area, based on
information found in historical aerial photographs and other
historical data reviewed, is given in Section 4.3.3 below.
4.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps URS reviewed historical United
States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps maintained on the
online database of the University of California at Berkeley
(http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/) for evidence of previous
activities in the project area that may suggest the potential
presence of hazardous materials. URS also reviewed historical
topographical maps included in Phase I ESAs performed for the
Vector Control Yard (URS, 2004) and Stion Corporation (URS, 2010b).
This review included the USGS 7.5-minute maps of the Mountain View,
Cupertino, West San Jose, and East San Jose quadrangles and
15-minute
-
SECTIONFOUR Records Review
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 4-5
maps for Palo Alto and San Jose quadrangles. A detailed log of
the maps reviewed is included as Appendix F. A summary of
historical use within the study area, based on information found in
historical topographic maps and other historical data reviewed, is
given in Section 4.3.3 below.
4.3.3 Summary of Historical Uses within the Study Area Based on
a review of available historical information, including aerial
photographs, topographic maps, and previous studies within or near
the study area (discussed further in Section 4.4 below), the
following presents a brief summary of historical land use within
the study area and surrounding areas.
Land use within the study area was primarily agricultural until
at least around 1940. At that time, State Route 85 had not yet been
constructed. US 101 is shown on the topographic maps, but is
aligned along the current-day SR 82 (El Camino Real in the north
and Monterey Highway in the south). In the northern project area,
the current-day US 101 is present, but is labeled as BY 101. The
cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga and
Campbell are visible as small settlements.
Accelerated development of the northern project area began in
the middle to late 1950s. Agricultural lands were progressively
converted to industrial, commercial and residential uses. By the
early 1960s, SR 85 is under construction as a four lane divided
highway (Stevens Creek Freeway) from the northern project limits as
far south as the I-280. Construction of SR 85 has not begun in the
southern project area, and agricultural land use is still dominant,
with small pockets of development. Monterey Highway is still
labeled as US 101, and the BY 101 connects with the Monterey
Highway near the present day Blossom Hill Road/US 101
interchange.
By the mid-1960s, industrial and commercial facilities in the
northern project area were mostly concentrated near the
intersection of SR 85 and SR 237 (Mountain View-Alviso Highway).
The central portion of the study area appears to be predominately
residential development. Some industrial and commercial facilities
and residential construction is underway near the southern project
limits, in the vicinity of Cottle Road. SR 85 is still not
constructed in southern project areas.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the last significant agricultural
lands (greenhouse operations along Ada Avenue) within the northern
and central project areas were replaced by residential
developments. Major new commercial developments during this period
occurred between Route 85 and Route 237. Sometime in the early
1980s, the US 101 in South San Jose was realigned to its
present-day alignment.
By 1991, SR 85 has been constructed as far south as Stevens
Creek Boulevard; and appears to be under construction for the areas
south of this throughout the early 1990s. By 1998, SR 85 and its
southern interchange with the US 101 are complete, and the northern
and central project area is largely developed. Urban development in
the southern project area continues to occur throughout the 1990s
and 2000s, however there are still small pockets of
undeveloped/agricultural land, even at the present day (e.g.,
between Great Oaks Boulevard and Perimeter Road, to the northwest
of SR 85 near the southern project limits).
4.3.4 Analysis of Historical Information Based on the historical
use information presented in the previous sections, the following
potential environmental concerns have been identified:
-
SECTIONFOUR Records Review
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 4-6
The presence of Aerially-Deposited Lead (ADL) in soil adjacent
to freeways constructed prior to the mid 1980s (i.e., the northern
US 101/SR 85 interchange, and SR 85 north of I-280) is an
environmental condition of concern.
The presence of significant agriculture in the region indicates
that pesticides are also a potential environmental condition of
concern.
Some areas have contained industrial facilities since at least
the 1960s, particularly in the northern portion of the study area.
Some of these older industrial facilities are likely to have
created environmental concerns.
4.4 PREVIOUS INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENTS URS reviewed the following
documents which were located within or near the project area in
developing this Site Assessment:
Initial Site Assessment Route 85/101 Project, Mountain View,
California, prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc., January 14,
1994.
Initial Site Assessment Highway 85/101 Interchange, Mountain
View, Santa Clara County, California, prepared by Lowney
Associates, February 2, 2000.
Initial Site Assessment Portions of Route 85/US 101 Interchange
Project, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California, prepared by
Kleinfelder, June 14, 2002.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Former Vector Control Yard
Facility, 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California,
prepared by URS, October 25, 2004.
Supplemental Environmental Investigation Former Vector Control
Yard Facility, 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California,
prepared by URS, December 20, 2007
U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project - Embarcadero Road to Shoreline
Boulevard, Palo Alto and Mountain View, California, Baseline
Environmental Consultants, April 2008.
U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes-Embarcadero to State Route 85
04-4A3301, Hazardous Waste Materials Investigation Final Report,
prepared by URS, May 17, 2010.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Stion Corporation 6311,
6325 and 6331 San Ignacio Avenue San Jose, California, prepared by
URS, August 17, 2010.
A discussion of each document is included as Appendix C. The
first seven documents covered various portions of the project area
from the US 101/SR 85 interchange in Mountain View to Hwy 237 at SR
85 in Sunnyvale. The review of the Phase I ESO for Stion
Corporation covered the SR 85/ US 101 interchange in south San
Jose. In general, no additional environmental concerns were
identified in these reviews. These reviews confirmed information
provided in the EDR report and deduced from a review of the
historical aerial photos and topographical maps that the portion of
the project corridor near the US 101/SR 85 interchange has been
impacted by VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater, and
that ADL has impacted soil adjacent to the freeways. The review of
the Supplemental Environmental Investigation for the Former Vector
Control yard, located immediately east of the interchange of US 101
and SR 85, confirmed that groundwater in that area is impacted by
VOCs, likely transported to the site via a network of subsurface
utility lines.
-
SECTIONFIVE Site Reconnaissance
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 5-1
5. Section 5 FIVE Site Reconnaissance
Mr. Joe Bandel of URS Corporation in San Jose, California,
conducted a general reconnaissance of the study area on September
22 and 23, 2010. The reconnaissance was conducted from points of
public access, including the freeways and adjacent ramps, and
included a drive-by survey of the surrounding and adjacent
properties.
A detailed discussion of this reconnaissance is included as
Appendix D, and photographs of the project corridor and adjacent
properties are included as Appendix E.
A general discussion of the characteristics of the project area
is provided below:
SR 85: Northern US 101/SR 85 Interchange to I-280/SR 85
Interchange The area of SR 85 between the northern US 101 and the
interchange with I-280 junction mostly consists of residential
areas. There are a few commercial areas and gas stations at the
exits at El Camino Real and Homestead Avenue. Two large water tanks
can be seen from the freeway at the SR 85/Interstate 280
interchange.
SR 85: I-280/SR 85 Interchange to Southern US 101/SR 85
Interchange The area of SR 85 between the I-280 and the southern US
101/SR 85 interchange is primarily residential with isolated light
commercial areas, primarily office parks. East of the interchange
of SR 85 and SR 17, the VTA Light Rail Line is located within the
project median. Several gas stations are located at the
intersection with De Anza Boulevard. Good Samaritan Hospital is
located at the intersection of SR 85 and Bascom Avenue. As SR 85
approaches the southern US 101 interchange, the area is
increasingly commercial. Gas stations were observed at Almadan
Expressway, Blossom Hill Road, and Snell Road, near SR 85. A
Caltrans maintenance yard is located at the intersection with
Bernal Avenue.
US 101: US 101/SR 85 Interchange to Metcalf Road The US 101
freeway in this section is adjacent the Coyote Creek riparian
corridor and has residential units and open grassland areas on both
sides. A large utility substation is located just south of Metcalf
Rd. along US 101. Findings Based on the Site Reconnaissance, URS
observed the presence of a Caltrans maintenance yard and a large
utility substation, which may have impacted groundwater below the
project area.
-
SECTIONSIX Findings and Conclusions
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 6-1
6. Section 6 SIX Findings and Conclusions
6.1 FINDINGS
6.1.1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites Five potential
hazardous materials sites outside of the project area but within
the study area were identified during the regulatory database
search, local agency records search, and reconnaissance, as shown
in Table 6-1. URS recommends additional investigation for potential
impacts to the project area from historical or current conditions
at these properties, in conjunction with the site investigation for
aerially-deposited lead. The location of these five potential
hazardous materials sites is shown on Figure 2.
Table 6-1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites Impacting the
Project Area
Site No. (Figure Shown)1
Source of Information
Owner or Occupant/ Address Description
Further Investigation
Recommended?
1A and 1B (2)
EDR report
USEPA Region 9 Superfund website
1A - Teledyne Semiconductors Inc.
1300 Terra Bella Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043
1B - Spectra-Physics Inc.
1250 W Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94042
Manufactured semiconductors since 1962; CRWQCB (lead); NPL site.
The site has used a variety of toxic chemicals, primary chlorinated
organic solvents which contaminate ground water. Investigation in
June 1984 revealed that contaminants had migrated to the north and
had affected approx. 50 private domestic wells. Teledyne is
planning on pumping the contaminated ground water in upper aquifer
to the surface for subsequent treatment. The Teledyne NPL site is
being managed in conjunction with the Spectra-Physics NPL site, as
the contaminant plumes have merged.
Yes
If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be
determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should
be collected to evaluate whether the known VOC releases would
affect project construction activities.
2A and 2B (3)
EDR report
URS Corporation Supplemental Environmental Investigation for the
Former Vector Control Yard Facility, 750 Moffett Blvd.
2A - Intel Corporation
365 Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040
2B Former Vector Control Yard Site, 750 Moffett Blvd.
Intel Site: CRQCB- lead; VOCS (TCE, DCE, and Vinyl Chloride)
have been detected in soil and shallow groundwater at the site and
in shallow groundwater downgradient of the site. Since 1982 Intel
has been pumping groundwater and treating by carbon adsorption.
This is part of the MEW (Middlefield, Ellis, Whisman) joint NPL
cleanup site.
Site believed to be currently occupied by Opcode, World Energy
Labs and Skywatch Energy.
Former Vector Control Yard Site: Investigations performed by URS
Corporation suggest that VOCs may have been spread to interchange
of SR 85/US 101 via utility corridors. Investigations suggest a
potential source is the MEW plume.
Yes
If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property or near
the SR 85/US 101 interchange (to be determined during final design
phase), groundwater samples should be collected to evaluate whether
the known VOC releases would affect project construction
activities.
3 (4) EDR report Conoco Phillips #6080
21530 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA
Preliminary site assessment underway; LUST.
Site believed to be currently occupied by a
Yes
If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to
be
-
SECTIONSIX Findings and Conclusions
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 6-2
Site No. (Figure Shown)1
Source of Information
Owner or Occupant/ Address Description
Further Investigation
Recommended?
95014 Union 76 gas station (Conoco Philips). determined during
final design phase), groundwater samples should be collected to
evaluate whether the known Petroleum and/or VOC releases would
affect project construction activities.
4 (5) Site Reconnaissance
Caltrans Maintenance Yard, Intersection of Bernal and SR 85
Caltrans maintenance yard where substantial vehicle fueling and
maintenance operations may take place.
Yes
If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be
determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should
be collected to evaluate whether the potential Petroleum and/or VOC
releases would affect project construction activities.
5 (6) Site Reconnaissance
PG&E Substation, Intersection of Metcalf Road and US 101
Large PG&S substation. Yes
If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be
determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should
be collected to evaluate whether potential releases would affect
project construction activities.
1. Numbers correspond to numbered sites on Figures. Number in
parentheses lists the figure number where the site in question is
shown.
6.1.2 Aerially Deposited Lead The presence of US 101 and
portions of SR 85 within the project limits for several decades
indicates that exposed soil in the immediate vicinity is likely
contaminated with Aerially-Deposited Lead. While limited soil
excavation is planned, where un-paved areas will experience soil
disturbance, investigation of the soil for ADL is recommended.
Based on discussions with Ray Boyer (Caltrans District Branch Chief
- Hazardous Waste), ADL investigation for the portion of SR 85
between I-280 and US-101 in South San Jose is not recommended
except at interchanges, because this portion of the freeway was
constructed after the period when lead-based gasoline was in use
and prior use of the area was agricultural except at interchanges.
This section of SR 85 was constructed in the early- to mid-1990s.
Federal standards to phase out leaded gasoline were first
implemented in 1973, and as of 1 January 1996, the sale of leaded
fuel for use in on-road vehicles was completely banned.
-
SECTIONSIX Findings and Conclusions
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 6-3
6.1.3 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Based on URS familiarity with
the site geology and recent projects within Santa Clara County,
soils adjacent to SR 85 within the project limits may be impacted
by naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). While limited soil
excavation is planned, where un-paved areas will experience soil
disturbance, investigation of the soil for NOA is recommended, in
conjunction with investigation for aerially deposited lead.
6.1.4 Leaded Paint Thermoplastic paints on the freeways are
likely to contain lead. Standard Caltrans SSPs for removal of
yellow paint should be followed. No additional testing of this
paint is recommended.
6.1.5 Pesticides Based on the historical use of many areas
within Santa Clara County as agricultural land, soils adjacent to
SR 85 within the project limits may be impacted by pesticides. It
is noted that during original construction of SR 85, much of the
highway was built after excavating up to ten feet below the
original ground level, which will have reduced the likelihood of
potential pesticide contamination in many areas. While limited soil
excavation is planned, where un-paved areas will experience soil
disturbance, investigation of the soil for pesticides is
recommended, in conjunction with investigation for aerially
deposited lead.
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.2.1 Soil Sampling At this time, limited earthwork is expected
to be performed for this project. However, where surface soils will
be excavated, they should be investigated for appropriate analytes
based on the findings in Section 6.1, including lead, pesticides,
VOCs and PCBs. Additionally, soil sampling for naturally occurring
asbestos should be performed at several locations throughout the
project site from deeper soil samples collected associated with the
placement of future electronic signage.
Soil found to have environmental impacts should be properly
managed per applicable regulations and/or the Caltrans variance
with the DTSC.
6.2.2 Groundwater Sampling The results of this assessment
indicate the potential for petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated
solvents, and residual amounts of lead to be present in surface
soil and shallow groundwater. Although groundwater sampling is
recommended to take place prior to or during soil excavation
activities, the exact sample locations, sampling depths, sample
media (soil/groundwater), and constituents analyzed should be
selected with all potential identified impacts to the project area
in mind to prepare a comprehensive sampling plan based on the
findings in Section 6.1. Therefore, groundwater sampling, analysis,
and characterization are recommended before the start of
construction to investigate safety precautions for construction
personnel. Furthermore, treatment and disposal options for
extracted groundwater will need to be determined prior to any
dewatering of excavations due to construction activities.
-
SECTIONSIX Findings and Conclusions
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 6-4
Groundwater should be properly characterized and disposed of at
an appropriate facility per applicable regulations.
6.2.3 Health & Safety Contractors working at the project
site, or removing soil materials and/or groundwater from the
project area, should be aware of appropriate handling and disposal
methods or options. Higher levels of the potential contaminants
could be present at some locations and, therefore, material moved
or removed may require individual or specific testing to verify it
is at levels below any regulatory action limits.
-
SECTIONSIX References
X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA
REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 6-1
California State Water Resource Control Board. 2010. Geotracker
database. Available online at http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/
(accessed October 1, 2010).
Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, including
Appendix DD, Preparation Guidelines for ISA Checklist for Hazardous
Waste.
EDR DataMapTM Environmental Atlas. Inquiry Number 2797797.1s, SR
85 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara CA. June 28, 2010.
Engineering-Science, Inc., 1994. Initial Site Assessment Route
85/101 Project, Mountain View, California. January 14, 1994.
Kleinfelder, 2002. Preliminary Site Investigation Portions of
Route 85/US 101 Interchange Project, Mountain View, Santa Clara
County, California. June 14, 2002.
Lowney Associates, 2000. Initial Site Assessment Highway 85/101
Interchange, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California.
February 2, 2000.
Stantec Consulting Corporation, 2010. Additional Investigation
Report, Former Texaco-branded Service Station 21-1179, Mountain
View, CA. May 25, 2010.
SAIC, The Benham Companies LLC, 2010. First Quarter 2010
Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation system performance results,
Chevron Service Station No 90288. 2300 Homestead Road, Los Altos,
CA, 94024-7338. April 30, 2010.
URS Corporation, 2004. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 750
Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California. October 25, 2004.
URS Corporation, 2007. Supplemental Environmental Investigation,
Former Vector Control Yard 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View,
California. December 20.
URS Corporation, 2010a. US 101 Auxiliary Lanes-Embarcadero to
State Route 85 04-4A3301, Hazardous Waste Materials Investigation
Final Report. May 17, 2010.
URS Corporation, 2010b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
for Proposed Stion Facility at 6311, 6325, and 6331 San Ignacio
Avenue, San Jose. August 17, 2010.
USEPA Region 9 Superfund website (accessed September 30, 2010).
Available at:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vWSOAlphabetic?OpenView.
-
Figures
-
8 9 240 1
1240
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1280
1315
6
7
8
9
1320
1
2
3
4
1325
6
7
8
9
1330
1
2
3
4
1335
6
7
8
9
1340
1
2
3
4
1345
6
7
8
9
1350
6
7
8
9
170
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
170
1
7
8
9
170
1
2
3
4
175
6
7
8
9
180
1
2
3
4
185
6
7
8
9
190
1
2
3
4
195
6
7
8
9
200
1
2
3
4
205
6
7
89
210 1 2 3 4 215 6 7 8 9 220 1 2 3 4 225 6 7 8 9 230 1 2 3 4 235
6 7 8 9 240 1 2 3 4 245 6 78
9250
1
2
3
4
255
6
7
8
9
260
1
2
3
4
265
6
7
8
9
270
1
2
3
4
275
6
7
8
9
170
1
2
23
4
215
6
7
8
9
220 1
4
195
6
7
8
9
200
1
2
34
4
195
6
7
8
9 2001
2
3
4
205
6
7
8
85
CALIFO
RNIA
Figure
PROJECT
SR 85 EXPRESS LANES
Feburary 2011Scale: 1" = 750
2
MOUNTAIN VAIWMOUNTAIN VIEWN
N. S
horelin
e Blv
d
US
Old M
iddlefi
eld W
ay
Rock
St
Sierra V
ista Ave
W Middlefield Rd
N R
engsto
rff Ave
Amph
ithea
tre Pk
wy
La Av
enida
St
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
LEGEND:
TELEDYNE/SPECTRA-PHYSICS SUPERFUND PLUME
SITE #1ATELEDYNE
SITE #1BSPECTRA-PHYSICS
APPROXIMATE PLUME LIMITS APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
-
8
9
240
1
1240
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1280
1285
1290
12951300
1305
1310
1315
1320
13251265 6
7 89 1270 1 2
34
1275
6
7
8
9
1280
1
2
3
4
1285
6
7
8
9
12901
2 3 41295
67
8
9
1300
1
2
3
4
1305
6
7
8
9
1310
1
2
3
4
13156 7 8
91320
12
34
13256
78
91330
12
34
13356
78
91340 1
2
3
4
1345
6
7
8
9
1350
3
4
235
6
7
8
9
240
1
2
3
4
245
6
7
8
9
250
1
2
3
4
255
6
7
8
9
260
1
2
3
4
265
6
7
8
9
270
1
2
3
4
275
6
7
8
9
280
1
2
3
4
285
85
CALIFORNIA
Figure
PROJECT
SR 85 EXPRESS LANES
Feburary 2011
3
US
237 S
outh
bay
Fw
y
Centr
al E
xpy
Moffett B
lvd
E M
iddle
field
Rd
NAVAL AIR STATIONMOFFETT FIELD
N
N Whisman Rd
Ellis St
MOUNTAIN VAIWMOUNTAIN VIEW
Scale: 1" =1100
LEGEND:
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE #2B
FORMER VECTOR CONTOL YARD
APPROXIMATE PLUME LIMITS
SITE #2A
INTEL
MEW SUPERFUND PLUME
APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
-
89
91010123410156
78
9
1020
1
2
3
4
1025
6
7
8
9
1030
1
2
3
4
10356
7
N
Ste
vens C
reek B
lvd
CUPERTINOCUPERTINO
85
CALIFORNIA
Figure
11x17 PtrHH-FullSht
PROJECT
SR 85 EXPRESS LANES
Feburary 2011
CONOCO PHILLIPS #6080
Bubb Rd
Peninsula Ave
Gra
nd A
ve
Alhambra Ave
Empire Ave
Santa Clara Ave
Mary Ave
Scale: 1" = 200
4
LEGEND:
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE #3
CONOCO PHILLIPS #6080
APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS
-
2525
2530
2535
2540
2545
255080
123
4
85
6
7
8
9
90
1
2
3
4
95
6
7
8
9
100
1
2
3
4
105
6
7
8
9
110
1
85
CALIFORNIA
Figure
PROJECT
SR 85 EXPRESS LANES
Feburary 2011Scale: 1" = 200
5
11x17 PtrHH-FullSht
SAN JOSESAN JOSE
Monterey Rd
Blvd
Great
Oaks
Bern
al
Rd
US
N
SITE #4
CALTRANS MAINTENANCE YARD
LEGEND:
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITESAPPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS
-
G-1
Figure
PROJECT
SR 85 EXPRESS LANES
Feburary 2011Scale: 1" = 300
6
11x17 PtrHH-FullSht
US
N
Met
calf
Rd
Monterey Rd
SAN JOSESAN JOSE
PG & E SUBSTATION
Coyote Ranch Rd
Coyote
Ran
ch R
d
LEGEND:
POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SITE #5
PG & E SUBSTATION
APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS
-
Appendix A Caltrans ISA Checklist
-
Appendix DD - Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
Checklist for Hazardous Waste
Preparation Guidelines for Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
Checklist for Hazardous Waste
The ISA Checklist is a guide for district screening and
assessment of projects for potential hazardous waste involvement.
It is not intended to take a lot of time and effort to complete;
however, some assessments may take longer to complete just because
of the magnitude and/or location of a proposed project. Project
Information Section Be sure that the Project Manager and Project
Engineer have been identified. Do not begin the ISA until the
written project description and location maps have been provided
(Since hazardous waste could effect project development, it is
important to know what type of work is proposed and where it will
be located). Location Map It is suggested that the location map
provided by Design be attached to the ISA Checklist to provide a
record of the area that has been assessed, as well as the findings.
All future project limit changes should cause Design to request
further assessment for hazardous waste. Project Screening Section
Items 1 and 2 are risk indicators that could be used to determine
the level of effort required to complete the ISA. Generally, a
project that requires new right of way, excavation, structure
modification or demolition, or utility relocation will have a
greater potential for hazardous waste involvement than a project
that does not include these features. An urban location would
generally present more of a risk than a rural location; industrial
land uses would generally be more risky than commercial uses; and
so on. Items 3 through 6 deal with the actual assessment:
First, check available records to see if a known site is
present. This item should not take a lot of effort, but it will
require contacting the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the
Department of Health Services, and the city/county agencies that
deal with leaking underground tanks.
Next, conduct a field inspection to look for indicators of
potential hazardous waste or
contamination. Identify businesses that store or use potentially
hazardous materials (service stations, auto wrecking yards, paint
companies, machine shops, metal platers, electronic manufacturers,
dry cleaners, agricultural chemical suppliers, etc.). Other things
to look for include landfills and dumps, surface storage of
potentially
Project Development Procedures Manual 07/01/99 DD-3
-
Appendixes Project Development Forms and Letters plus Policy and
Procedures Documents
hazardous materials (sumps, pits, steel drums, etc.), illegal
dumping sites (especially on rural projects), and serpentine.
Based on the field inspection, if there may have been a previous
land use that could
still present a hazardous waste or contamination risk, it may be
necessary to verify the previous land use (e.g., abandoned service
stations can usually be identified by the type of structure and
location: the underground tank may still be there).
ISA Determination The ISA determination is simply "Yes" or
"No."
NO: No findings have been made that would indicate a known or
potential hazardous waste problem within or near the proposed
project.
YES: A known or potential site has been identified that could
affect the proposed
project and will take more time and effort to define and
coordinate cleanup options.
07/10/99 Project Development Procedures Manual DD-4
snjuser1Oval
-
Appendix DD - Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
Checklist for Hazardous Waste
etric
Caltrans
Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist
Project Information District ____ County _____ Route _____ Post
Mile ____________ EA _____________
Description
Is the project on the HW Study Minimal-Risk Projects List
(HW1)?
Project Manager phone #
Project Engineer phone #
Project Screening Attach the project location map to this
checklist to show location of all known and/or potential HW sites
identified. 1. Project Features: New R/W? ______ Excavation? ______
Railroad Involvement? ______
Structure demolition/modification? ______ Subsurface utility
relocation? ______ 2. Project Setting
Rural or Urban
Current land uses
Adjacent land uses (industrial, light industry, commercial,
agricultural, residential, etc.)
3. Check federal, State, and local environmental and health
regulatory agency records as necessary, to
see if any known hazardous waste site is in or near the project
area. If a known site is identified, show its location on the
attached map and attach additional sheets, as needed, to provide
pertinent information for the proposed project.
4. Conduct Field Inspection. Date ____________ Use the attached
map to locate potential or known
HW sites.
STORAGE STRUCTURES / PIPELINES: Underground tanks Surface tanks
Sumps Ponds Drums Basins Transformers Landfill Other
Project Development Procedures Manual 07/01/99 DD-5
snjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten
TextYsnjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten
TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextUS 101 from
Mountain View, all of SR 85, US 101 to S. SJCUrban, transitions to
residential and rural as go southsnjuser1Typewritten
TextCommercial, light industry, agriculture, and
residentialsnjuser1Typewritten TextProject area is entirely within
existing road ROWsnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten
Text9-22&232010snjuser1Typewritten
TextOff-Sitesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten
TextLimited offsite, non-haz and hazsnjuser1Typewritten TextNone
onsitesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten
TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten
TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten TextMultiple
known LUST and UST sites - See Reportsnjuser1Typewritten
Text25.3/28.6 and 47.9/52.00.0 / 24.1 04-4A790Ksnjuser1Typewritten
Textsnjuser1Typewritten Text4snjuser1Typewritten
TextSCLsnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten
Text10185snjuser1Typewritten TextNosnjuser1Typewritten TextRamsey
Hissen408-297-9585Chadi Chazbek408-297-9585snjuser1Typewritten
Textsnjuser1Typewritten Text85 Express Lanes Project
-
Appendixes Project Development Forms and Letters plus Policy and
Procedures Documents
Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist (continued)
CONTAMINATION: (spills, leaks, illegal dumping, etc.)
Surface staining Oil sheen
Odors Vegetation damage
Other
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: (asbestos, lead, etc.)
Buildings Spray-on fireproofing
Pipe wrap Friable tile
Acoustical plaster Serpentine
Paint Other
5. Additional record search, as necessary, of subsequent land
uses that could have resulted in a hazardous
waste site. Use the attached map to show the location of
potential hazardous waste sites. 6. Other comments and/or
observations:
ISA Determination Does the project have potential hazardous
waste involvement? ______ If there is known or potential hazardous
waste involvement, is additional ISA work needed before task orders
can be prepared for the Investigation? ______ If "YES," explain;
then give an estimate of additional time required:
A brief memo should be prepared to transmit the ISA conclusions
to the Project Manager and Project Engineer.
ISA Conducted by _______________________ Date _________
07/10/99 Project Development Procedures Manual DD-6
snjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten
TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten
TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten
Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten
Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten TextNOA a potential
concernsnjuser1Typewritten TextN/asnjuser1Typewritten TextSeveral
sites with snjuser1Typewritten Textknown contamination. Presence of
VOCs and hydrocarbons insoil and groundwater a concern. ADL likely
in soil north of intersection of 280; however little or no
excavation planned there.South of 280, ADL unlikely except at
intersections due to date of US 85 construction. Pesticides and
Naturally Occuring Asbestospossible in soil throughout site.See
report for details.snjuser1Typewritten TextYessnjuser1Typewritten
TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextPatrick Walz, P.E.snjuser1Typewritten
Text10/11/10james_rippleSticky NoteUnmarked set by
james_ripplesnjuser1Typewritten TextN/asnjuser1Typewritten TextN/a
(except for yellow striping)
-
Appendix B Regulatory Database Search Report (on CD Rom)
and
Table B-1: Sites with Potential Impacts to the Project Area EDR
Environmental Atlas Report Worksheet with supplemental information
from online regulatory
databases
-
saltA latnemnorivnE paMataD RDE
440 Wheelers Farms RoadMilford, CT 06461Toll Free:
800.352.0050www.edrnet.com
SR 85 Express Lanes ProjectSanta Clara, CA Inquiry Number:
2797797.1sJune 28, 2010
-
Thank you for your business.Please contact EDR at
1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety
of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental
DataResources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that
coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does
not exist fromother sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS
MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTALDATA
RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER.
IN NO EVENT SHALLENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO
ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS,
NEGLIGENCE,ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,CONSEQUENTIAL,
OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLYLIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT
PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings,environmental risk levels or risk
codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative
purposes only, and are not intended to provide, norshould they be
interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or
forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase
IEnvironmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental
professional can provide information regarding the environmental
risk for anyproperty. Additionally, the information provided in
this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights
reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in wholeor in part,
of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its
affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are
trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates.
All othertrademarks used herein are the property of their
respective owners.
-
FOCUS MAP SUMMARY
TotalDatabase Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
9NPL 0Proposed NPL 0Delisted NPL 0NPL LIENS 16CERCLIS
18CERC-NFRAP 0LIENS 2 10CORRACTS 9RCRA-TSDF 28RCRA-LQG 207RCRA-SQG
0RCRA-CESQG 57RCRA-NonGen 10US ENG CONTROLS 2US INST CONTROL 12ERNS
0HMIRS 1DOT OPS 0US CDL 0US BROWNFIELDS 1DOD 1FUDS 0LUCIS 1CONSENT
10ROD 0UMTRA 0DEBRIS REGION 9 0ODI 0MINES 3TRIS 0TSCA 3FTTS 3HIST
FTTS 0SSTS 0ICIS 3PADS 1MLTS 0RADINFO 283FINDS 0RAATS 0FEMA UST
0SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0COAL ASH DOE 0US HIST CDL 0COAL ASH EPA 0PCB
TRANSFORMER 0FEDERAL FACILITY
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
11HIST Cal-Sites
TC2797797.1s
-
FOCUS MAP SUMMARY
TotalDatabase Plotted
8CA BOND EXP. PLAN 1SCH 0Toxic Pits 1SWF/LF 20CA WDS 29NPDES
3WMUDS/SWAT 0Cortese 218HIST CORTESE 6SWRCY 253LUST 99CA FID UST
61SLIC 36UST 161HIST UST 0LIENS 140SWEEPS UST 16CHMIRS 0LDS 1MCS
19AST 12Notify 65 1DEED 4VCP 33DRYCLEANERS 0WIP 5CDL 4RESPONSE
518HAZNET 99EMI 0HAULERS 48ENVIROSTOR 3HWT 0PROC 1MWMP 3FINANCIAL
ASSURANCE 9HWP
TRIBAL RECORDS
0INDIAN RESERV 0INDIAN ODI 0INDIAN LUST 0INDIAN UST 0INDIAN
VCP
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
0Manufactured Gas Plants
NOTES:
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC2797797.1s
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC2797797.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
SANTA CLARA, CA DIABLO RANGE, CA 94041
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDRs search of available
("reasonably ascertainable ") governmentrecords within the
requested search area for the following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List SitesDelisted NPL
National Priority List DeletionsNPL LIENS Federal Superfund
LiensLIENS 2 CERCLA Lien InformationRCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity GeneratorHMIRS Hazardous Materials
Information Reporting SystemUS CDL Clandestine Drug LabsUS
BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields SitesLUCIS Land Use Control
Information SystemUMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings SitesDEBRIS REGION 9
Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site LocationsODI Open
Dump InventoryMINES Mines Master Index FileTSCA Toxic Substances
Control ActSSTS Section 7 Tracking SystemsICIS Integrated
Compliance Information SystemRADINFO Radiation Information
DatabaseRAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking SystemFEMA UST
Underground Storage Tank ListingSCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition
for Remediation of Drycleaners ListingCOAL ASH DOE Sleam-Electric
Plan Operation DataUS HIST CDL National Clandestine Laboratory
RegisterCOAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments
ListPCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration DatabaseFEDERAL
FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
Toxic Pits Toxic Pits Cleanup Act SitesCortese "Cortese"
Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites ListLIENS Environmental
Liens ListingLDS Land Disposal Sites ListingWIP Well Investigation
Program Case ListHAULERS Registered Waste Tire Haulers ListingPROC
Certified Processors Database
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC2797797.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV Indian ReservationsINDIAN ODI Report on the Status
of Open Dumps on Indian LandsINDIAN LUST Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks on Indian LandINDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on
Indian LandINDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas
Plants
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified.
The Map ID column refers to the Map ID-Focus Map(s) of the
listed site.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing
analysis.
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL: Also known as Superfund, the National Priority List
database is a subset of CERCLIS andidentifies over 1,200 sites for
priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The source of this
database isthe U.S. EPA.
A review of the NPL list, as provided by EDR, and dated
03/31/2010 has revealed that there are 9 NPL sites within the
searched area.
Map ID Address Site ________ ________ _____
TELCOM SEMICONDUCTORS INC 1300 TERRA BELLA AVE 0-4,4,4 PRINTEX
CORPORATION PLYMOUTH & COLONY STS. 0-4 SPECTRA-PHYSICS INC 1250
W MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 0-4,4 JASCO CHEM CORP 1710 VILLA ST 0-4,6,6
MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION MOFFETT FIELD NAS 0-5,5,5,5,5,5,7,7 INTEL
CORPORATION 365 MIDDLEFIELD RD 0-5,5,5,5,5,7,7,7 FAIRCHILD
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPOR 101 BERNAL RD 0-21 NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CO
313 FAIRCHILD DR 98-5,7 RAYTHEON COMPANY 350 ELLIS ST REMEDIATIO
116-7
CERCLIS: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Information Systemcontains data on potentially
hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by
states,municipalities, private companies and private persons,
pursuant to Section 103 of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites
which are eitherproposed to or on the National Priorities List
(NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phasefor
possible inclusion on the NPL.
A review of the CERCLIS list, as provided by EDR, and dated
01/29/2010 has revealed that there are 16
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC2797797.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
CERCLIS sites within the searched area.
Map ID Address Site ________ ________ _____
TELCOM SEMICONDUCTORS INC 1300 TERRA BELLA AVE 0-4,4,4 PRINTEX
CORPORATION PLYMOUTH & COLONY STS. 0-4 SPECTRA-PHYSICS INC 1250
W MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 0-4,4 JASCO CHEM CORP 1710 VILLA ST 0-4,6,6
MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION MOFFETT FIELD NAS 0-5,5,5,5,5,5,7,7 INTEL
CORPORATION 365 MIDDLEFIELD RD 0-5,5,5,5,5,7,7,7 FAIRCHILD
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPOR 101 BERNAL RD 0-21 SIERRA VISTA PROPERTIES 465
SIERRA VISTA WAY 72-4 NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CO 313 FAIRCHILD DR
98-5,7 M-E-W STUDY AREA SHERLAND AVE & N WHISMA 108-7 RAYTHEON
COMPANY 350 ELLIS ST REMEDIATIO 116-7 HIGHWAY 101 AND MOFFETT BLVD
HIGHWWAY 101/85/MOFFETT 124-6 SYLVANIA SYSTEMS GROUP GTE PRO 100
FERGUSON DR 128-7 SIEMENS COMPONENT 19000 HOMSTEAD RD 179-9 HITACHI
GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOL 5600 COTTLE ROAD 326-20 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
STN 635 & STN 706 360-21
CERC-NFRAP: Archived sites are sites that have been removed and
archived from the inventory of CERCLISsites. Archived status
indicates that, to the best of EPAs knowledge, assessment at a site
has been completedand that EPA has determined no further steps will
be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List(NPL),
unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or
other considerations require arecommendation for listing at a later
time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no
hazardassociated with a given site; it only means that, based upon
available information, the location is not judgedto be a potential
NPL site.
A review of the CERC-NFRAP list, as provided by EDR, and dated
06/23/2009 has revealed that there are 18 CERC-NFRAP sites within
the searched area.
Map ID Address Site ________ ________ _____
PALO ALTO CITY DEPARTMENT OF U 3201 EAST BAYSHORE 12-4 FORD
AEROSPACE 1036 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE 21-4 CHARLESTON BUSINESS PARK
2400-2460 CHARLESTON RD 36-4 DAVILA INTERNATIONAL CIRCUITS 2420
CHARLESTON RD. 36-4 FORD AEROSPACE (PCB STORAGE LO 3939 FABIAN WAY
37-4 SAN ANTONIO/ W BAYSHORE AREA CHARLESTON & FABIAN 42-4
ADVALLOY INCORPORATED 844 EAST CHARLESTON ROA 42-4 MONTWOOD 1615
PLYMOUTH ST. 63-4 JASCO CHEMICAL CO 1090 TERRA BELLA 86-4 FAIRCHILD
LINEAR PRODS DIV 313 FAIRCHILD DR 98-5,7 AIR PRODS & CHEMS INC
465 N WHISMAN RD 105-7 INNERCONN TECHNOLOGIES 327 MOFFETT BLVD
113-6 ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD 187-9 ZILOG CORP 10440 BUBB RD 194-9
ZILOG INC 10460 BUBB RD 194-9 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 1587
DELL AVENUE 236-17,18 BECTON DICKINSON & CO 14300 WINCHESTER
BLVD 251-17 KELLY MOORE PAINT CO INC 469 BLOSSOM HILL RD 291-20
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC2797797.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
CORRACTS: CORRACTS is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective
Action Activity. This report showswhich nationally-defined
corrective action core events have occurred for every handler that
has had correctiveaction activity.
A review of the CORRACTS list, as provided by EDR, and dated
03/25/2010 has revealed that there are 10 CORRACTS sites within the
searched area.