Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

A Mountain View property once brimming with toxic contaminants is now officially being pulled from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s list of superfund sites, shortly before apartments are built there. It signals the end of a decadeslong cleanup operation, even though a chemical considered likely to cause cancer is still present on the site.

The site at 1710 Villa Street was previously home to the Jasco Chemical Corporation before it was designated as a Superfund site in 1989, becoming one of seven places in Mountain View where harmful chemicals have been discovered in the underlying soil and groundwater.

The process for removing Superfund sites, a formality known as “delisting,” is being pursued in record numbers under the Trump administration, though the cleanup work itself often has taken place years prior. The action to remove Jasco from the federal register comes despite the high levels of tetrachloroethene (PCE) in the groundwater, requiring that special measures continue to be taken at the site.

“At this point all response activities are complete, and the criteria for deleting the site from the national priorities list has been met,” said EPA project manager Eric Canteenwala at the April 28 Mountain View City Council meeting. “We’re kind of at the point where no further response is needed.”

Between 1976 and 1995, Jasco used the location for formulating and repackaging chemical products for sale, handling solvents in bulk and storing chemicals in eight underground storage tanks that have since been removed. Due to either poor waste disposal practices or leaking tanks, the site was found to be rife with nine harmful compounds, including PCE (also known as perchloroethylene or perc), benzene, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride and trichloroethene (TCE), which is known to cause cancer.

In the years that followed, the former industrial site was stripped down and excavated, with construction crews removing about 572 cubic yards of soil and backfilling it with concrete. Today, the excavated areas remain solid concrete down to 28 feet deep. Storage tanks were also removed during the cleanup, and groundwater was pumped to the surface and treated, Canteenwala said.

The Jasco property, a square-shaped patch of the Shoreline West neighborhood, is undeveloped, standing in stark contrast to the neighboring apartments and single-family home. And after years of monitoring the site, the EPA announced in 2014 that the cleanup was a success and the site was ready for commercial and residential uses.

And development is coming soon. In June 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved a project that would put a 226-unit apartment complex on the Jasco site and adjacent properties that includes two levels of underground parking. Though the project was approved, environmental documents for the proposal disclose a twofold problem: contamination is still present on the site, and construction activities could put nearby residents at risk.

PCE, a chemical used in dry cleaning and for degreasing metal that is classified by the EPA as a likely carcinogen, is still being detected in the site’s groundwater, though it is being attributed to an “off-site” source and therefore not a part of the EPA’s cleanup evaluation. Oversight of the contamination was passed off to state officials at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which has been unable to identify who is responsible for the PCE plume.

The project proposes placing a “vapor barrier” underneath structures to prevent PCE vapors from affecting residents living in the future apartment complex, as well as mitigation measures to ensure construction doesn’t spread contamination. The property is still subject to an environmental covenant overseen by the state, requiring the property owners to comply with vapor intrusion requirements, post-construction monitoring and soil management.

The EPA is scheduled to put out a notice of intent to remove Jasco as a Superfund site on May 11, soliciting questions and comments over 30 days.

For the EPA, delisting can be seen as a superficial act that happens long after remediation, similar to the Jasco site cleanup that was finished in 2002. But lately it has transformed into a priority, with the Trump administration touting a 13-year high in removing Superfund sites from the national priorities list as of 2018.

“This remarkable accomplishment is proof that cleaning up contaminated lands and returning them to safe and productive use is a top priority of the Trump EPA,” said Andrew Wheeler, then the acting EPA administrator.

Paradoxically, the Trump administration has also sought to slash funding to the federal agency each year by as much as 31%, and the backlog of unfunded superfund projects has grown as of 2019 to the largest in more than a decade.

Kevin Forestieri is the editor of Mountain View Voice, joining the company in 2014. Kevin has covered local and regional stories on housing, education and health care, including extensive coverage of Santa...

Join the Conversation

No comments

  1. Trump is just trying to cut Federal funding for toxic waste cleanup projects. I bet he would never want to live on this property. I surely would never buy one of these homes. Raising a family there is child abuse.

  2. This article is a prime example of why I won’t subscribe or donate to the MV Voice which is too bad considering the importance of local journalism. They have an obvious bias and it has been proven before.

  3. In the late 70s or early 80s, activists here – I believe in cooperation with the Mountain View Fire Department – actually caught Jasco employees in the act of dumping toxic substances by the railroad tracks.

    Contamination at this site was never as significant as at some of the other Mountain View “Superfund” sites, so it was possible to clean up this site. At this point, removing it from the Superfund list is just a formality.

    With the restrictions imposed by the Regional Water Board, U.S. EPA, and the city of Mountain View, this property is suitable for apartment development. This is an environmental success story.

  4. In response to Lenny Siegel you said:

    “In the late 70s or early 80s, activists here – I believe in cooperation with the Mountain View Fire Department – actually caught Jasco employees in the act of dumping toxic substances by the railroad tracks.”

    What does that have to do with the fact that TCE is STILL THERE! The fact is that the pollution is still a problem on that site you went on to say:

    “Contamination at this site was never as significant as at some of the other Mountain View “Superfund” sites, so it was possible to clean up this site. At this point, removing it from the Superfund list is just a formality.”

    WHAT? The TCE is still present any you want to say it is bow CLEAN? I just don’t get it. ONLY WHEN THE POLLTANT IS GONE CAN YOU CALL IT CLEAN. The Superfund listings are being manipulated to MAKE it look like the Trump administration was successful at toxic site cleanup AND YOU KNOW IT. You said:

    “With the restrictions imposed by the Regional Water Board, U.S. EPA, and the city of Mountain View, this property is suitable for apartment development. This is an environmental success story.”

    NO IT IS NOT, BECAUSE THE LAND IS NOT CLEAN, WARNINGS UNER PROP 65 AND TESTING ARE STILL REQUIRED. VAPOR CONTROL SYSTEMS IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROOF IT IS NOT CLEAN. THE PUBLIC AIR ISN”T BEING MONITORED ON PURPOSE. SO THAT NO SCIENTIFIC DATA IS ABLE TO DISPROVE THIS CRAZY IDEA. THIS IS LIKE CLAIMING THAT HE COVID 19 VIRUS IS DYING WHERE WE DON’T EVEN PROPERLY TEST FOR THAT.

  5. If the realLenny is posting – I’d sure believe him. Or at least the extremely-informed citizen activist that he as been in our community on this specic Public Policy issue! SUPERFUND process can and has started to render safe many sites. The Google complex in Whisman Station area (former Fairchild) had a vapor problem (TCE?) when the monitor&mitigation problem was not well done. TBM – we all live in an area and an era of chemicals. TBM benefited when Intel/Fairchild developed the microprocessors that now drive the information of the World (and allow TBM to post here!). All life is risk. Be aware of those risks, make capitalism PAY for the public risks that it made bad decisions on (profit/risk) and PLEASE DON”T THINK THE LOGIC OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER IN CAPITALS!
    🙂

  6. In response to Steven Nelson you wrote:

    “TBM – we all live in an area and an era of chemicals.”

    Yes, but at the same time that doesn’t mean you should put residential units in a place where it is proven to be a risky place to live AND YOU KNOW THAT. You said:

    “TBM benefited when Intel/Fairchild developed the microprocessors that now drive the information of the World (and allow TBM to post here!).”

    BUT, I never condoned this kind of action. NO ONE DID. So that was just an excuse to try to say if the people are DUMB enough to build residential units there, and people are DUMB enough to buy or rent them, that’s THEIR problem? I don’t think so, and YOU KNOW IT. You said:

    “All life is risk. Be aware of those risks, make capitalism PAY for the public risks that it made bad decisions on (profit/risk) and PLEASE DON”T THINK THE LOGIC OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER IN CAPITALS!
    :-)”

    PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A RISK, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTION. THAT WAS A CRAZY THING TO SAY. ONLY THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD LIVING IN A SAFE PLACE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO? ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT ONLY SOME PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LIVE IN A SAFE PLACE?

  7. Upon further review of site documents, I am not convinced that the vapor barrier described in the Environmental Impact Report is sufficient to protect against PCE and TCE vapor intrusion. I am waiting for current data on the presence of those compounds in groundwater and soil gas.

    Where unmitigated conditions call for site mitigation, California generally does not consider a vapor barrier sufficient mitigation. It should be supplemented with a passive mitigation system, with the option of making it active (adding fans), or an active mitigation system.

  8. Obviously the spot is not clean
    I just met with save Palo Alto groundwater and these sites have not been cleaned
    This site is not ready for construction
    The surrounding sites will be further contaminated if there is displacement of the soil
    Plumes like this can be pulled from quite far away this totally should be cleaned up. Anywhere emitting toxic vapors is unfit for human habitation

Leave a comment