streamlined risk evaluation€¦ · 4.2 data usability ... 5. human health risk assessment ... who...

Prepared for:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232

Streamlined Risk Evaluation Sweetwater Marsh Unit Site, Operable Unit 2

(Gunpowder Point) San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Chula Vista, CA

Prepared by:

621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600

Portland, Oregon 97205

Project Number PNG0519A

January 2015

OU 2 001828

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-i 01/07/2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................ iv

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SRE Process ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Background ..................................................................................... 2 1.3 Report Organization ..................................................................................... 3

2. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Location and Setting .................................................................................... 4 2.2 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 4

3. OVERALL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ............................................................. 5

4. DATA MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 6 4.1 Dataset Selection ......................................................................................... 6 4.2 Data Usability .............................................................................................. 7 4.3 COPC Screening .......................................................................................... 7

4.3.1 Mercury and Chromium ................................................................... 8 4.3.2 Dioxin and Furan Congeners ........................................................... 8 4.3.3 COPC Screening Summary ............................................................. 8

5. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT............................................................. 10 5.1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model ...................................................... 10 5.2 Exposure Assessment ................................................................................ 11

5.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations ...................................................... 12 5.2.2 Calculation of Receptor Intakes ..................................................... 13

5.3 Toxicity Assessment .................................................................................. 13 5.3.1 Noncarcinogenic Chemicals .......................................................... 14 5.3.2 Carcinogenic Chemicals ................................................................ 15

5.4 Risk Characterization ................................................................................. 16 5.4.1 Cancer Risks .................................................................................. 16 5.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Hazards .............................................................. 17 5.4.3 Evaluation of Lead ......................................................................... 17 5.4.4 Potential Risks to Restoration Workers ......................................... 18

5.5 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary ............................................... 18

6. SCREENING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (SLERA) ............. 19

OU 2 001829

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-ii 01/07/2015

6.1 Step 1: SLERA Problem Formulation ....................................................... 19 6.1.1 Ecological Habitat Characterization .............................................. 20 6.1.2 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model ............................................... 20

6.1.2.1 Receptor Identification ..................................................... 20 6.1.2.2 Exposure Pathways .......................................................... 21

6.2 Screening Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation ........................ 21 6.3 Risks to Identified Receptor Species ......................................................... 22

6.3.1 Risks to Herpetiles ......................................................................... 24 6.3.2 Risks to Plants and Invertebrates ................................................... 24

7. UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION .......................................................................... 26 7.1 Uncertainty in Conceptual Site Model ...................................................... 26 7.2 Uncertainty in Dataset and COPC Selection ............................................. 26 7.3 Uncertainty in Exposure Assessment ........................................................ 27 7.4 Uncertainty in Toxicity Assessment .......................................................... 29 7.5 Uncertainty in Risk Characterization ......................................................... 30

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 31

9. DEVELOPMENT OF RISK-BASED CLEANUP GOALS ................................... 32 9.1 Preliminary Remediation Goal Calculation ............................................... 33 9.2 Background Evaluation ............................................................................. 33

9.2.1.1 Calculation of Background Threshold Values ................. 34 9.3 Final Cleanup Levels ................................................................................. 35

10. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 37

LIST OF TABLES

Table SRE-1: Depth Evaluation of Soil Database Table SRE-2: Chemical of Potential Concern (COPC) Screening Table SRE-3: Human Health Risk Exposure Point Concentrations Table SRE-4: Summary of Exposure Assumptions Table SRE-5: Summary of Human Health Toxicity Factors Table SRE-6: Summary of Carcinogenic Risks for Site Worker Table SRE-7: Summary of Carcinogenic Risks for Adult Site Visitor Table SRE-8: Summary of Carcinogenic Risks for Child Site Visitor

OU 2 001830


GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-iii 01/07/2015

Table SRE-9: Summary of Carcinogenic Risks for Teen Volunteer Table SRE-10: Summary of Noncarcinogenic Hazards for Site Worker Table SRE-11: Summary of Noncarcinogenic Hazards for Adult Site Visitor Table SRE-12: Summary of Noncarcinogenic Hazards for Child Site Visitor Table SRE-13: Summary of Noncarcinogenic Hazards for Teen Volunteer Table SRE-14: Summary of Human Health Risks Table SRE-15: Exposure Point Concentrations for SLERA Table SRE-16: Exposure Parameters for Ecological Receptors Table SRE-17: Calculation of Uptake into Plants Table SRE-18: Calculation of Uptake into Earthworms Table SRE-19: Calculation of Uptake into Small Mammals Table SRE-20: Toxicity Reference Values for Mammals Table SRE-21: Toxicity Reference Values for Birds Table SRE-22: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the Pocket Gopher Table SRE-23: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the California Quail Table SRE-24: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the Savannah Sparrow Table SRE-25: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Table SRE-26: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the Ornate Shrew Table SRE-27: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the American Kestrel Table SRE-28: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the Short-Tailed Weasel Table SRE-29: Calculation of Intake and Hazard for the California Gnatcatcher Table SRE-30: Summary of Screening-Level Hazard Quotients Table SRE-31: Calculation of Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological

Receptors Table SRE-32: Selection of Final Preliminary Remediation Goals

OU 2 001831


GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-iv 01/07/2015

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Human Health Conceptual Site Model Figure 2: Ecological Conceptual Site Model

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Calculation of Dioxin/Furan Toxicity Equivalence Quotients Attachment 2 ProUCL Outputs Attachment 3 Exposure and Risk Algorithms Attachment 4 LeadSpread Output Attachment 5 Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling Attachment 6 Comparison of Soil Concentrations to Plant and Invertebrate Screening

Level Values

OU 2 001832

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-v 01/07/2015

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µg/dl µg per deciliter ALM adult lead model AUF area use factor bgs below ground surface CDE chronic daily exposure CDI chronic daily intake CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHHSLs California Human Health Screening Levels COC chemical of concern COPC chemical of potential concern CSM conceptual site model DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control Eco-SSL ecological soil screening level EE/CA Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis ELCR excess lifetime cancer risk EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPC exposure point concentration ERAGS Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service Geosyntec Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. GIABS gastrointestinal absorption factor GSA General Service Administration HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HI Hazard Index HQ hazard quotient IUR inhalation unit risk LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter NOAEL no observed adverse effect level

OU 2 001833

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-vi 01/07/2015

NWR National Wildlife Refuge PA/SI Preliminary Site Assessment/Site Inspection PCDDs polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins PCDFs polychlorinated dibenzofurans PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal RAOs Remedial Action Objectives RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board RfCs range of reference concentrations RfDs range of reference doses RL reporting limit RME reasonable maximum exposure RSL regional screening level SF slope factor Site Gunpowder Point SLERA Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment SLV screening level value SMDP scientific management decision point SRE Streamlined Risk Evaluation SSI Supplemental Site Investigation SSIWP Supplemental Site Investigation Work Plan TCDD tetrachlorodibenzodioxin TEFs toxicity equivalence factor TEQ toxicity equivalence quotient TRV toxicity reference value UCL upper confidence limit USC United States Code WEFH Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook WHO World Health Organization

OU 2 001834

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-1 01/07/15

1. INTRODUCTION

Geosyntec Consultants Inc. (Geosyntec) has prepared this Streamlined Risk Evaluation (SRE) for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or the Service) for Operable Unit 2 (OU2) of the Sweetwater Marsh Unit of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge. OU2 includes a natural upland area commonly known as Gunpowder Point (referred to as the “Site” herein), which was the site of intensive industrial activity from 1916 until the early 1930s.

This SRE Report is provided as an attachment to the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), and some of the data figures referenced herein refer to this main report, as noted. This SRE consists of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA). Portions of the EE/CA Report relevant to the evaluation of potential risks are summarized herein; however, the full context of Site-specific information requires the SRE to be evaluated in light of the complete EE/CA report.

The EE/CA is being performed in general accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.415, and was authorized under General Service Administration (GSA) contract GS10F0106M, FWS Delivery Order No. F11PD03291. The FWS has the authority to undertake Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response actions, under 42 United States Code (USC) 9604, 10 USC 2705, and Federal Executive Order 12580.

1.1 SRE Process

This SRE conservatively characterizes risks to human and ecological receptors potentially exposed to constituents detected in environmental media at the Site. As a baseline assessment, this report is intended to characterize potential human health and ecological risks under current (i.e., unmitigated) Site conditions.

The objectives of the SRE as defined in the EE/CA Guidance [EPA, 1993] are to “help EPA decide whether to take a cleanup action at the Site, what exposures need to be addressed by the action, and in some cases define appropriate cleanup levels.” The SRE is intended to be reduced in scope and more focused compared with a conventional baseline risk assessment.

To streamline the risk evaluation, consistent with the intent of the EE/CA process, the assessment of human health and ecological risks was integrated to the extent practical. The overall Conceptual Site Model (CSM), which describes media available for exposure, generation of the database, and development of subsets of data corresponding

OU 2 001835

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-2 01/07/15

to selected depth intervals was performed and is presented collectively for both assessments. Overall uncertainties are also addressed comprehensively. Development of CSMs specific to human or ecological receptors and calculation of exposure point concentrations (EPCs) was handled separately in accordance with guidance and regulatory requirements unique to each risk process.

1.2 Project Background

A Preliminary Site Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) was conducted at Gunpowder Point in 2011 [FWS, 2011], and a Supplemental Site Investigation was conducted in 2012 [the SSI results are included in Attachment A of the EE/CA], as precursors of the EE/CA. In addition, soil samples were collected by FWS during previous, targeted site investigations from 2007 to 2009. Data collected during the previous site investigations were compared to human health and ecological screening values for soil and groundwater during development of the Supplemental Site Investigation Work Plan [Geosyntec, 2012]. The purpose of screening the previous site data was to focus the 2012 Supplemental Site Investigation on those constituents and areas of concern with the greatest potential to adversely affect human health or the environment. In 2012, Geosyntec completed a Supplemental Site Investigation to obtain soil, groundwater, and surface water samples. Findings from the Supplemental Site Investigation were consistent with the previous investigations in that the results suggested potentially site-related constituents are generally widespread across the Site and, in some instances, consistent with background; however, higher concentrations have been reported in certain areas associated with historical operations. This SRE addresses the potential risks associated with soil in the 30-acre upland area. As described in Section 3, groundwater is not a contact medium at the Site.

Using previous site investigation data, a preliminary risk evaluation was conducted (consistent with a Tier 1 Assessment under California Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] guidance). The preliminary risk evaluation identified relevant screening criteria and pathways of exposure for site-specific human and ecological receptors. Ecological screening criteria for many of the constituents do not exist; thus, potential risks for these constituents were not quantified. Because of this uncertainty and the ubiquitous nature of potentially site-related constituents, additional human health and ecological risk assessments were recommended to further evaluate potentially site-related constituents and refine human and ecological risk estimates. These risk results will be used to support the EE/CA through the development of Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) and numeric Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) that will guide the assessment of removal actions under the EE/CA process.

OU 2 001836

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-3 01/07/15

1.3 Report Organization

The content and organization of this document are described below:

• Section 1, Introduction, presents the project background and scope, and the purpose and approach for conducting the SRE;

• Section 2, Site Description, describes the general physical and environmental characteristics of the Site and identifies the relevant media and potentially complete exposure pathways;

• Section 3, Overall Conceptual Site Model, describes the exposure potential associated with Site media and supports the Data Management step;

• Section 4, Data Management, describes the analytical data and media being evaluated and how the final exposure database was derived;

• Section 5, Human Health Risk Assessment, describes the human health risk assessment, including assumptions, exposure and toxicity assessments, and the risk characterization;

• Section 6, Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment, describes the SLERA process, the ecological habitat characterization, preliminary CSM, screening level exposure estimates, and identifies risk for receptor species;

• Section 7, Uncertainty Evaluation, provides a discussion of the uncertainty and effects of assumptions used in the risk assessment;

• Section 8, Summary and Conclusions, summarizes the human health and screening level risk assessments and provides conclusions;

• Section 9, Development of Risk-Based Cleanup Goals, discusses development of risk-based cleanup goals and final cleanup levels; and

• Section 10, References, provides a list of references used in preparation of this document.

OU 2 001837

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-4 01/07/15

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location and Setting

The Site is comprised of a 30-acre upland feature that juts westward into San Diego Bay from the surrounding Sweetwater Marsh area and is commonly referred to as “Gunpowder Point” (Site). It is approximately 10 feet higher in elevation than the surrounding Sweetwater Marsh. The Site is gently rolling and is covered with sparse vegetation or bare soil. Localized disturbed areas (mounds and constructed berms) from former industrial operations are approximately 4 to 16 feet high in elevation. Remnants of concrete structures, concrete building pads, and other features related to former operations are present throughout the Site.

The Site location is shown on Figure 1 of the EE/CA Report.

2.2 Land Use

The Site was occupied by industrial facilities during the first half of the twentieth century and was used for the production of potash and acetone, followed by cotton seed-based products, and agricultural operations.

The Site is currently a National Wildlife Refuge and is intended to remain so. The Site is occupied by the Living Coast Discovery Center, a Visitor’s Center, walking paths, and wildlife habitat.

Additional details appear under the habitat description in the SLERA (Section 6).

OU 2 001838

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-5 01/07/15

3. OVERALL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Analytical soil data collected during previous site investigations (2007-2012) described above were included for evaluation of baseline risks associated with current (i.e. unmitigated) conditions at the Site. The data set of groundwater, surface water, surface soil, and subsurface soil results appears in Tables 1 and 2 of the EE/CA.

There are four elements necessary to form a complete exposure pathway:

• a source or release from a source; • a mechanism of release and transport; • a point of contact for potential receptors; and • an exposure route.

Shallow groundwater is not and will not be used for water supply purposes. The water table is approximately 8 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs), too deep for incidental contact by humans or burrowing animals. No construction is planned that could expose saturated material or present an exposure risk. Therefore, groundwater is not considered further in this SRE.

Similarly, subsurface soil will not be encountered below depths at which humans or ecological receptors may experience incidental contact. For humans, the primary use of the Site will be for passive recreation. Likely activities will include walking/hiking and bird watching. The Refuge also expects to run volunteer programs in which adults and teens may participate in ecological restoration activities.

Recreational activities and Site maintenance would result only in exposure to surficial soils the 0 to 0.5 feet bgs interval. Some planting and restoration will likely occur which could reasonably be expected to extend up to 3 feet bgs. Exposure depths for ecological receptors vary based on behavior. Some may be exposed only surficially, some to the near subsurface (0 to 3 feet), and some deeper. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC, 1998] specifies a depth of 0 to 6 feet for burrowing mammals except where more surficial soil is more impacted than deeper soil. In this latter case, a shallower depth interval should be used to assess exposure to ensure. This approach ensures that EPCs are not underestimated.

Additional description of the CSMs for human and ecological receptors appears in Sections 5 and 6, respectively.

OU 2 001839

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-6 01/07/15

4. DATA MANAGEMENT

4.1 Dataset Selection

The database developed for the EE/CA includes soil analytical data from a variety of soil depth intervals. For the purposes of these risk assessments, Geosyntec started with a full soil database from the previous site investigations, and retained only samples that had any portion of the depth range within 0 to 6 feet bgs. Further, sample data were reviewed to select the most appropriate and conservative data. Samples from the following depth intervals were retained for use in the SRE. In addition, data were reviewed to select the most appropriate and conservative data for use in the SRE. Target receptor groups may potentially contact soil from different soil depth intervals, as follows:

• 0 to 0.5 feet bgs for casual human contact (Site Visitor, Site Worker) and surficially dwelling wildlife;

• 0 to 2 feet bgs for semi-burrowing animals (e.g., shrew);

• 0 to 3 feet bgs for semi-intrusive Workers and Volunteers (planting); and

• 0 to 6 feet bgs for burrowing mammals, unless [per DTSC, 1998], shallower samples contain higher concentrations.

Table SRE-1 presents the depth evaluation that was used to select the most appropriate dataset for the SRE. Average concentrations for shallower and deeper samples were calculated, and it was determined that observed concentrations in shallower samples were higher than or comparable to those in deeper samples. Therefore, deeper samples were excluded from further consideration. Although the 0 to 0.5 feet bgs depth interval is most representative of the incidental contact zone, there were only two samples available in this interval, so it was not considered separately. Subsequently, the 0 to 1 and 0 to 2 feet bgs depth interval samples were compared to determine whether the entire 0 to 2 feet bgs depth interval should be included for the receptors potentially exposed to surficial soil. In some cases, concentrations in the deeper samples were slightly more elevated, and in some cases the shallower samples contained more elevated concentrations. Thus, the 0 to 2 feet bgs samples also included the 0 to 1 foot bgs depth interval, which is included because of the assumption that all receptors are exposed to this depth interval. Therefore, to increase the statistical reliability of the dataset by including more data, the 0 to 2 feet bgs depth interval was used for all receptors.

OU 2 001840

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-7 01/07/15

4.2 Data Usability

Data usability for risk assessment purposes can differ from data validation conducted as part of a site investigation (see for example, Appendix D of the EE/CA report, data validation for the Supplemental Site Investigation). In particular, the inclusion of elevated reporting limits (RLs) can skew the calculation of EPCs and thereby distort risk management decision making. As such, Geosyntec reviewed the Site database further to identify any RLs that were well above the reported detected concentrations. Only a few observations, for beryllium and cadmium (shown in italics in Table SRE 2), were identified as not usable. These results were eliminated from the dataset.

4.3 COPC Screening

Screening based on a broad range of human health and ecological benchmarks to select chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) was performed in development of the EE/CA Work Plan [Geosyntec, 2012] and following the Supplemental Site Investigation (EE/CA Section 4.5 and Section 6). An adjusted screening was performed as part of the risk assessments discussed in this SRE. This screening considered only the applicable reduced dataset for the SRE (0 to 2 feet bgs) and only screening level values (SLVs) for complete and applicable pathways (i.e. SLVs for leaching to groundwater and based on commercial use were not considered). Because different SLVs apply to human health and ecological receptors, separate lists of COPCs were generated for the HHRA and SLERA1.

Per United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund guidance, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are classified as essential nutrients, which lack screening criteria, and were therefore eliminated from further quantitative evaluation [EPA, 1989]. Analytical data results that are not chemical-specific (e.g., total organic carbon [TOC] and pH) were also excluded from further risk evaluation.

In some cases, screening requires special consideration of chemical form (or specific compounds), as described below for mercury, chromium, and dioxins/furans.

1 COPCs for ecological risk are typically referred to as chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs). For consistency in this SRE, the term COPC is used in both evaluations.

OU 2 001841

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-8 01/07/15

4.3.1 Mercury and Chromium

Mercury and chromium can exist in several forms that vary in terms of toxicological potency and environmental transport. Soils at the Site were analyzed for total mercury and total chromium and compared to the SLV (EPA’s Regional Screening Level [RSL]) for elemental mercury and chromium in its trivalent form, respectively). There is no known history of Site processes that would have generated mercury or hexavalent chromium, nor are the concentrations of chromium at the Site (maximum 36 mg/kg) indicative of a chromium release. Therefore, use of the trivalent chromium screening level is deemed adequately protective for this SRE.

4.3.2 Dioxin and Furan Congeners

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) are typically found in the environment as mixtures of PCDD or PCDF congeners. Because these congeners differ in terms of potency, the toxicity of environmental mixtures involves the use of Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) that normalize the individual compound concentrations were to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) to develop a Toxicity Equivalence Quotient (TEQ). If an individual congener was never detected in soil, it was excluded from the summation; otherwise, non-detect results were summed using one-half the reporting limit.

The calculation of PCDD and PCDF TEQs appears in Attachment 1. There were four samples in the risk dataset, and the TEQ was calculated separately for each. In calculating the TEQs, nondetects were handled as follows:

• a congener that was detected in any of the other three samples was entered as ½ the RL; and

• congeners not detected in any samples were excluded.

Separate mammalian and avian TEQs were generated using the World Health Organization 2005 TEFWHO-05 factors, as recommended by DTSC [2011b].

4.3.3 COPC Screening Summary

The COPC screening is detailed in Table SRE 2. Consistent with the EPA’s approach for selecting chemical constituents for quantitative evaluation, maximum detected concentrations of constituents were compared to conservative risk-based screening levels to assess the potential for adverse impacts to human health or the environment. If the maximum detected constituent concentration was less than the lowest applicable

OU 2 001842

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-9 01/07/15

SLV, the chemical was eliminated from further risk evaluation because the constituent will not contribute significantly to overall risk [EPA, 1993]. Exceedances of screening levels do not in themselves indicate an unacceptable risk exists. Rather, exceedance of a screening level indicates the need for further evaluation in a risk assessment.

For human health, the SLVs are the RSLs for residential soil [EPA, 2013, updated in May] and the residential California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs; [OEHHA, 2013]). The RSLs and CHHSLs are based on an excess cancer risk of 1x10-6 and a noncarcinogenic hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1. For ecological health, the SLVs are EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) for plants, birds, invertebrates, and mammals [EPA, 2003 et seq].

The following chemicals were identified as human health COPCs because they exceeded their respective SLVs:

• arsenic • cadmium • lead • TCDD TEQ

For the SLERA, the following chemicals were identified as ecological COPCs because they exceeded their respective Eco-SSLs:

• antimony • arsenic • barium • boron • cadmium • chromium • cobalt

• copper • iron • lead • manganese • mercury • molybdenum • nickel

• selenium • silver • strontium • vanadium • zinc • perchlorate • TCDD TEQs

Note that neither regional nor site-specific background levels of constituents were considered in the selection of COPCs. However, maximum concentrations of several inorganic COPCs are within the range of regional background. In addition, the presence of dioxins and furans may represent background conditions. Uncertainty associated with COPC selection is presented in Section 7.

Although background concentrations are not considered in the selection of COPCs described above, background is considered in the risk conclusions (Section 8) and related risk management decisions (Section 7 in the EE/CA). A statistical evaluation of Site-background concentrations is included in Appendix H of the EE/CA.

OU 2 001843

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-10 01/07/15

5. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Consistent with standard risk assessment practice and EPA guidance, the following steps are included in this SRE:

• Data Evaluation and Selection of COPCs - COPCs in environmental media are identified through comparisons to conservative risk-based screening levels. These steps have been described above.

• Exposure Assessment - both current and reasonably foreseeable future scenarios under which exposure to site-related constituents could occur are qualitatively discussed, and a set of hypothetical receptors for the purposes of calculating future risks is developed to quantitatively evaluate such scenarios. Conservative estimates of the intake of each COPC by each receptor through the selected pathways are calculated.

• Toxicity Assessment - a characterization of the toxicity and dose-response characteristics of each COPC is provided with regard to potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. This provides a quantitative representation of toxicity that can be used in conjunction with the intake information from the Exposure Assessment to characterize potential risks.

• Risk Characterization - for each scenario, the information provided by the Exposure Assessment and Toxicity Assessment is combined to yield quantitative risk estimates that characterize the relationship between hypothetical exposures and potential toxicity. Estimates for potential theoretical excess cancer risks and noncarcinogenic hazards are provided and discussed, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

5.1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model

As discussed in Section 3, shallow soil down to a depth of 3 feet bgs is the only exposure medium identified for human receptors at the Site. The Site is designated as a National Wildlife Refuge and is expected to remain as such into the foreseeable future. As such, there is no prospect of deeper soils being brought to the surface during construction, nor of direct contact by workers with subsurface soils (deeper than would be encountered during routine maintenance). Therefore, the following on-Site potential human receptors are considered representative of human receptors that may potentially be exposed to environmental media at the Site:

OU 2 001844

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-11 01/07/15

• Current and Future NWR Employees (adults); • Future NWR Restoration Workers (adults); • Current and Future NWR Visitors (children and adults); and • Current and Future NWR Volunteers (teens).

Employees are assumed to be long-term maintenance or Visitor Center workers. The FWS has estimated that restoration will be a one-time effort over approximately two weeks. Therefore, exposure to these receptors is addressed qualitatively, similar to the approach typically used for utility workers.

Visitors may be any age. Based on FWS estimates, Visitors are likely to frequent the Refuge up to a 10-year period. Since children younger than three years of age are not expected to come into contact with soil to the same extent as older children, the age group selected to represent the youngest receptors is 3 to 13 years. Adults are also evaluated.

The FWS has also indicated that there are short-term opportunities for teens to volunteer at the Refuge. Teen volunteers may also encounter soils and are therefore evaluated.

Pathways by which human receptors may be exposed to soil include:

• Incidental ingestion; • Dermal contact and absorption; and • Inhalation or particulates (fugitive dust).

There are no volatile organic compounds present that would trigger concerns for inhalation of volatile compounds, either outdoor or indoor from vapor intrusion.

It is likely that the contacted soil depth range will vary by receptor group. Teen Volunteers and Site Workers may be engaged in planting activities that could expose soils down to 3 feet bgs. Visitors are unlikely to encounter soils that deep. However, as detailed above in Section 4.1, the 0 to 2 feet bgs depth interval was determined to be the most conservative and has been used for the EPCs for all the receptor groups.

The CSM for human receptors is provided as Figure SRE-1.

5.2 Exposure Assessment

Exposure assessment is the process of measuring or estimating the intensity, frequency, and duration of human exposure to a chemical in the environment. This section

OU 2 001845

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-12 01/07/15

describes current and future land use assumptions, characterizes exposure factors for potential receptors, discusses the mechanisms by which these receptors might potentially come in contact with COPCs in environmental media, and estimates the degree of contact between potential human receptors and COPCs. This information is integrated with EPC estimates and intake assumptions to quantitatively estimate exposure (dose). In accordance with EPA guidance, an exposure assessment consists of three basic steps [EPA 1989]:

• Characterization of the exposure setting (physical environment and potential receptors);

• Identification of exposure pathways (constituent sources, exposure points, and exposure routes); and

• Quantification of pathway-specific exposures (EPCs, calculation of receptor intakes, and exposure assumptions).

The first two components are described in detail in Sections 1.2 and 2.1, respectively, and diagrammatically presented in the CSM (Figure SRE-1). The third component, Quantification of Exposures, is described in the following subsections. The exposure estimates selected are intended to represent a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario. The RME is estimated by selecting values for exposure variables such that the combination of all variables results in the maximum exposure that can reasonably be expected to occur.

The following sections present the methods used to estimate EPCs, intake, and potential risk and hazard.

5.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations

An EPC is an estimate of a constituent in a medium within some specified exposure point. Soil EPCs for arsenic, cadmium, and lead were calculated as the 95th percentile upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean. The UCL was calculated using EPA’s ProUCL statistical software package (version 5.0; [EPA, 2013a]). Attachment 2 provides the ProUCL outputs.

For TCDD TEQs, there were only four observations so no statistical derivation of the EPC was appropriate. The EPC is the maximum observed.

Table SRE-3 presents the EPCs for COPCs in upland soil.

OU 2 001846

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-13 01/07/15

5.2.2 Calculation of Receptor Intakes

For the purpose of a quantitative risk assessment, dose is the quantification of exposure to constituents in environmental media. The type of dose or exposure estimate used in a risk assessment is dependent on the route of exposure. Ingested and dermally absorbed doses are both presented in daily dose rates per unit of body weight (milligram per kilogram per day [mg/kg-day]); “chronic daily intake” (CDI) is the general parameter used to quantify exposure dose for ingestion and dermal contact pathways. Inhalation concentrations are calculated as the amount of constituent per cubic meter of air (milligram per cubic meter [mg/m3]); “chronic daily exposure” (CDE) is the general parameter used to quantify exposure for inhalation pathways.

In the risk characterization stage, dose estimates are combined with toxicity criteria to estimate potential risk associated with exposure to COPCs. For the inhalation pathway, receptor exposure concentrations are used in conjunction with concentration-dependent toxicity factors. The equations for calculating exposure, risk, and hazard are provided in Attachment 3.

Table SRE-4 lists the exposure assumptions used in this SRE along with their sources. These exposure parameters are based on EPA defaults and professional judgment.

5.3 Toxicity Assessment

The toxicity assessment provides a description of the relationship between a dose of a chemical and the potential likelihood of an adverse health effect. The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to provide a quantitative estimate of the inherent toxicity of COPCs for use in risk characterization. In the context of the regulatory risk assessment process, potential effects of chemicals are separated into two categories: carcinogenic (cancer) and noncarcinogenic (noncancer) effects. This distinction is based on the current EPA position that the mechanisms of action for these endpoints are different. The EPA generally makes the conservative assumption that carcinogenic chemicals do not exhibit a response threshold2 [EPA 1986, 2005g], while noncarcinogenic effects are universally recognized as threshold phenomena. However, chemicals that are believed

2 A threshold indicates that a minimum amount of drug or chemical agent is required to elicit an effect. For example, certain metals such as iron and selenium are toxic above a threshold dose but safe and, in fact, required dietary components at lower doses. For carcinogens, EPA assumes that no threshold exists and that there is some increased risk at every dose level.

OU 2 001847

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-14 01/07/15

to be carcinogenic may also be capable of producing noncarcinogenic health effects. Potential health risks for COPCs are evaluated for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk.

This SRE used the default toxicity factors presented in the EPA RSL tables [EPA, 2013], except where there was a more stringent California value [OEHHA, 2013]. The toxicity factors are summarized in Table SRE-5. Additional discussion of these values follows.

5.3.1 Noncarcinogenic Chemicals

It is well accepted that noncarcinogenic biological effects of chemicals occur only after a threshold dose is exceeded [Klaassen, 2001]. This concept implies that a range of exposures up to some defined threshold can be tolerated without appreciable risk of harm. Potential effects may be precluded at concentrations below the threshold by pharmacokinetic processes such as decreased absorption or distribution to non-target organs,

Potential noncarcinogenic effects resulting from human exposure to chemicals are generally estimated quantitatively using reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs). The RfD, expressed in units of daily dose (mg/kg-day), is an estimate of the daily maximum level of exposure to human populations (including sensitive sub-populations) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects [EPA, 1989]. For inhalation exposures, EPA has derived RfCs for some chemicals. In concept, an inhalation RfC is similar to an RfD. If the concentration of a chemical in air to which a human is exposed is lower than the RfC then there is no appreciable risk for noncarcinogenic health effects from that exposure.

The threshold dose (i.e., RfD/RfC) for a compound is usually estimated from the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) or the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), as determined from animal studies or human data. The NOAEL is the highest dose at which no adverse effects are identified, while the LOAEL is the lowest dose at which adverse effects are detectable. Safety factors are applied to either the NOAEL or the LOAEL to estimate an RfD/RfC in order to account for uncertainties such as: the extrapolation from animals to humans, the time period of exposure, and the potential for sensitive individuals within the human population.

Noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria are typically only available for oral (RfD) and inhalation (RfC) exposures. In this risk assessment, dermal RfDs were extrapolated from the oral RfDs using a constituent-specific gastrointestinal absorption factor (GIABS- unitless). This factor represents the relationship between an administered dose

OU 2 001848

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-15 01/07/15

and an absorbed dose for the oral route, essentially estimating the dose that enters a receptor’s circulation and elicits a toxic effect. Constituent-specific oral absorption factors were obtained from RAGS Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment [EPA, 2004b].

5.3.2 Carcinogenic Chemicals

For regulatory purposes, the EPA generally makes the conservative assumption that carcinogenic chemicals do not exhibit a response threshold [EPA, 1986]. However, this assumption is an oversimplification of carcinogenic responses. A growing number of chemicals have been shown to elicit carcinogenic effects in experimental animals via mechanisms that are either not relevant to human biological processes, or are not expected to occur in humans at significantly lower, environmentally relevant doses [James and Saranko, 2000]. The EPA has recently revised the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment [2005g], in which they recognize these issues and provide alternative approaches for addressing them within the regulatory framework for cancer risk assessment.

Potential carcinogenic effects resulting from human exposure to chemicals are estimated quantitatively using cancer slope factors (SFs), which represent theoretical increased risk per milligram of constituent intake per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg-day)-1, or inhalation unit risks (IURs), which are theoretical increased risk at a defined exposure concentration (mg/m3)-1. SFs or IURs are used to estimate a theoretical upper-bound lifetime probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen.

SFs and IURs are derived by the EPA from the results of chronic animal bioassays, human epidemiological studies, or both. Animal bioassays are usually conducted at dose levels much higher than those likely to be achieved by human exposure to environmental media. Such high levels are used in order to detect possible adverse effects in the relatively small test populations used in the studies. Therefore, a large degree of conservatism exists in the form of high-dose to low-dose extrapolation. Human epidemiological studies often are based on historical occupational exposures at levels much higher than those currently experienced in environmental settings, requiring quantitative extrapolation to account for the dose differences.

EPA has developed SFs specific to the oral route of exposure and IURs specific to the inhalation route of exposure. In accordance with EPA guidance [EPA 2004b], this SRE uses an extrapolation calculation to estimate dermal SFs from the oral SFs. The oral SF is multiplied by the GIABS dermal SF. Constituent-specific oral absorption factors were

OU 2 001849

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-16 01/07/15

obtained from RAGS Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment [EPA, 2004b].

5.4 Risk Characterization

In the risk characterization, toxicity factors (RfDs, RfCs, SFs, and IURs) are integrated with COPC concentrations and intake assumptions to estimate potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks. This section describes the risk calculation methodology and presents the numerical risk estimates for potential exposure to COPCs detected in upland soil at the Site.

The risk results appear in Tables SRE-6 through SRE-14 and are discussed further below.

5.4.1 Cancer Risks

Theoretical excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) for receptors is expressed as the estimated upper-bound probability of developing cancer over a lifetime due to exposure to Site-related constituents. These estimates do not reflect the background risk of cancer (e.g., one-in-three to one-in-five range), but only the highest additional incremental risk that is theoretically expected to result from exposure to Site constituents. COPC-specific ELCRs for each receptor are the sum of ELCRs for the three pathways of exposure: incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and outdoor air inhalation.

The EPA-accepted cancer risk range of one-in-one-million to one-in-ten-thousand (1×10-6 to 1×10-4) [EPA, 1989] was used as the benchmark for identifying potentially unacceptable risks. Individual constituents with a cancer risk greater than 1×10-6 for a given receptor-exposure scenario were identified as final Chemicals of Concern (COCs).

Tables SRE-6 through SRE-9 present the calculated ELCRs for the receptor groups evaluated quantitatively. Only two carcinogens were identified as COPCs, arsenic and 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. The maximum ELCR, 1×10-5 for a Site Worker, was due primarily to arsenic, with TCDD TEQ an order of magnitude lower. ELCR for other receptor groups were 1×10-6 or lower. Arsenic concentrations associated with the ELCR are consistent with background, as discussed further in Section 7.

OU 2 001850

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-17 01/07/15

5.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Hazards

Potential noncarcinogenic hazards for individual COPCs are expressed as HQs [EPA, 1989]. HQs are calculated for each noncarcinogenic COPC for each complete exposure pathway.

The COPC-specific HQs were summed to yield a multiple-COPC Hazard Index (HI). The HI serves as conservative summary of pathway and receptor noncarcinogenic HQs, since summing all the individual COPC HQs incorporate the assumption that their HQs are all additive when, in fact, different COPCs are expected to act through different mechanisms and on different target organs. The overall HIs are useful for rapidly excluding pathways or receptors with negligible potential for noncarcinogenic effects (i.e., where all the COPC HQs added together do not exceed an HI of one).

EPA guidance recognizes that noncarcinogenic effects are exhibited in specific target organs and that certain chemicals can act in an additive fashion on the same organ and requires the summing of noncarcinogenic hazards for constituents that affect the same target organs when the total HI exceeds one [EPA, 1989]. This step was not necessary in this SRE as all HIs were well below one.

The EPA acceptable HI is 1 (for groups of constituents that affect the same target organ, if a breakdown is necessary).

Tables SRE-10 through SRE-13 present the COPC-specific noncarcinogenic HQs. The total HIs were all below 1, indicating an absence of noncarcinogenic hazards at the Site.

5.4.3 Evaluation of Lead

The DTSC [2007] publishes LeadSpread, a model for evaluating exposure and the potential for adverse health effects resulting from exposure to lead in the environment. Worksheet 1 in Attachment 4 (DTSC LeadSpread8 [child]) is used for evaluating residential land use scenarios and is based on a target increase in blood lead level of 1 µg per deciliter (µg/dl). Worksheet 2 in Attachment 4 (Modified EPA ALM [adult]) is a modified version of EPA's 6/21/09 Adult Lead Model (ALM) that incorporates DTSC recommendations for evaluating worker exposures to lead in soil. The input factors were not adjusted to account for less-than-full-day Site exposure because exposure assumptions for other COPCs were also not prorated. However, the input for a child was changed to one day per week. This is still a very conservative estimate for an occasional Site Visitor that is assumed to be at the Site four days per year when evaluating potential exposures to the other COPCs.

OU 2 001851

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-18 01/07/15

The LeadSpread8 model results are included in Attachment 4. The Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) calculated by LeadSpread8 for lead is 540 mg/kg for a non-pica child (pica behavior is not expected by a Site Visitor). For adults, the PRG90 (lead concentration that is estimated to result in a 90th percentile estimate of target blood lead among fetuses of adult workers) is 318 mg/kg. The 95% UCL for lead at the Site is 49 mg/kg (Attachment 2), which is well below the PRGs of 540 mg/kg and 318 mg/kg for a Site Visitor and Site Worker, respectively.

Therefore, no unacceptable risk from exposure to lead detected at the Site is anticipated.

5.4.4 Potential Risks to Restoration Workers

According to FWS, restoration activities at the Site over a period of about three weeks would involve some soil contact by short-term workers down to a depth of 2 or 3 feet bgs. Risk assessment tools designed to assess exposure and risk on a chronic, or even subchronic (several-year) basis, are not designed to evaluate short-term exposures. Over a period of days or weeks, risks are generally related to acute toxicants such as cyanide, elemental mercury, or hexavalent chromium. None of these constituents have been identified as parameters of concern at the Site.

No unacceptable noncarcinogenic hazards were estimated for Site Workers assumed to be exposed to Site soils for 125 days per year for 15 years. While Restoration Workers could uncover slightly deeper material than Maintenance Workers in the course of planting and trail preparation, etc., the data evaluation indicates that in fact shallower soils have generally higher concentrations of COCs than deeper soils. Therefore, the absence of any hazard to Site Workers can be used to rule out unacceptable exposures to short-term workers.

5.5 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary

Overall, the evaluation indicates that there is no unacceptable risk to human health at the Site.

Risks for all the evaluated receptor groups are summarized in Table SRE-14. The ELCRs were within the EPA acceptable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 and the noncancer HIs were all below the target of 1. Concentrations of lead at the Site are well below the PRGs estimated by the LeadSpread and EPA ALM spreadsheets.

Qualitative evaluation of Restoration Workers indicates no concern with respect to acute exposures.

OU 2 001852

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-19 01/07/15

6. SCREENING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (SLERA)

The purpose of a SLERA is to evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological effects are occurring or may potentially occur as a result of the site-specific constituent concentrations in environmental media. This SLERA conservatively characterizes ecological risks potentially associated with the Site under unmitigated conditions.

This SLERA was performed in accordance with the EPA Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (ERAGS; [EPA, 1997a] eight-step process. The components of the ERAGs process are:

• Step 1 - Screening Level Problem Formulation; • Step 2 - Screening Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation; • Step 3 - Baseline Problem Formulation; • Step 4 - Study Design and Data Quality Objective Process; • Step 5 - Verification of Field Sampling Design; • Step 6 - Site Investigation and Data Analysis; • Step 7 - Risk Characterization; and • Step 8 - Risk Management.

Steps 1 and 2 comprise the SLERA. Briefly, the objectives of a SLERA are to:

• Evaluate if there is a potential for ecological receptors to be exposed to site-related constituents in environmental media (i.e., identify potentially complete exposure pathways);

• Identify COPCs and provide a conservative evaluation of the potential for adverse ecological effects related to constituent concentrations; and

• Identify potential data gaps.

Following completion of the SLERA, there is a scientific management decision point (SMDP) at which risk managers determine whether further ecological evaluation is warranted. Further evaluation is conducted for those habitats identified in the SLERA that have potentially unacceptable risks, provide significant ecological habitat, and where additional site-specific investigation may guide risk management decisions.

6.1 Step 1: SLERA Problem Formulation

The primary objective of the problem formulation step is to develop an ecological CSM. This step considers the Site setting and environment, nature and extent of

OU 2 001853

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-20 01/07/15

contamination, potential fate and transport processes, and ecological characteristics of the Site. This information is used to prepare a screening-level ecological CSM, identify likely categories of receptors with anticipated complete exposure pathways, and select assessment endpoints. This step also identifies the conservative screening values for subsequent use in the screening level risk calculations (Step 2).

6.1.1 Ecological Habitat Characterization

The Site is characterized by coastal sage scrub habitat with salt marsh along the fringes [FWS, 2006]. Two small areas of maritime succulent scrub were identified in the northeast portion and in the southern-southeastern portion of the Site.

The Site is also home to an array of wildlife native to the tidal marsh habitat. The Site, as part of the Sweetwater Marsh Unit, “provides for two federally endangered bird species, the California least tern and light-footed clapper rail, one threatened species of bird, the Western snowy plover, and one endangered plant species, the salt marsh bird’s beak [FWS, 2006]. In addition to these federally listed endangered species present at the Site, Belding’s savannah sparrow is listed as endangered by the State of California. The Refuge has also indicated that, in the future, portions of the Site may be managed to provide habitat for California gnatcatchers, which is a federally threatened species [FWS, 2010].

EPA’s Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling, which is an attachment to ERAGS [EPA, 1997] appears as Attachment 5.

6.1.2 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model

As discussed in previous sections, the Site is designated as a National Wildlife Refuge and is expected to remain so, and as such no soil mixing will result in deeper material being exposed surficially. Per DTSC guidance [DTSC, 1998], the 0 to 6 feet bgs depth interval should be considered accessible for wildlife unless elevated soil concentrations occur at depths of less than 6 feet bgs. Consistent with this guidance (and as previously detailed), the 0 to 2 feet depth interval has been selected for evaluation in this SLERA because it is characterized by higher concentration of COPCs than deeper soils.

6.1.2.1 Receptor Identification

Representative ecological receptors (assessment endpoints) from various feeding guilds were provided for evaluation by FWS and include the following:

• pocket gopher (Thomomy bottae – herbivorous mammal;

OU 2 001854

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-21 01/07/15

• California quail (Callipepla californica) – herbivorous bird; • savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) – omnivorous bird; • Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis) – insectivorous bird; • ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus) – insectivorous mammal; • American kestrel (Falco sparverius) – carnivorous bird; • short-tailed weasel (Mustelidae erminea) – carnivorous mammal; and • California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) – insectivorous bird.

The savannah sparrow and gnatcatcher are representative of species of special concern (SSC; e.g., threatened species) that may potentially be present at the Site. Plants and soil invertebrates are also identified as assessment endpoints for the Site.

6.1.2.2 Exposure Pathways

Since the medium of concern is soil, exposure pathways are related to direct contact with soil and dietary exposure through the food chain. Some constituents may be taken up by dietary components (plants or soil macroinvertebrates). In addition to diet, some species of both mammals and birds can ingest some quantity of soils incidentally through diet or grooming.

Assessment endpoints are representations of the ecological resources to be protected. For the SLERA, assessment endpoints are general and include “any likely adverse ecological effects on receptors for which exposure pathways are complete” [EPA, 1997]. Measurement endpoints are the tools used to evaluate impacts on the assessment endpoints. At the SLERA level, the screening ecotoxicity values serve as initial measurement endpoints. The screening -level ecological effects evaluation that identifies these threshold concentrations for constituents in environmental media below which adverse effects are not expected to occur. Constituents above screening levels are identified as COPCs. This step, summarized in Section 4.3.3, identified 17 metals, two nonmetallic elements (arsenic and selenium), perchlorate, and TCDD TEQ as COPCs.

Maximum concentrations of the COPCs are provided in Table SRE-5. These concentrations serve as EPCs in the SLERA.

6.2 Screening Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation

The following conservative assumptions are inherent to the SLERA exposure estimate:

OU 2 001855

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-22 01/07/15

• Ecological receptors spend 100% of their time in a given ecological exposure area (Area Use Factor, or AUF, is 1);

• Ecological receptors are exposed to maximum constituent concentrations 100% of the time;

• Ecological receptors consume only the food type in their diet that contains the highest concentrations of COPCs; and

• COPCs are 100% bioavailable.

These assumptions create uncertainty, and overestimation of risk is likely under these assumptions. Uncertainty associated with the exposure estimate is discussed below in Section 7.

6.3 Risks to Identified Receptor Species

Potential risks to populations of upper trophic level receptors were evaluated using food chain models. Food chain models estimate the dose of COPCs to upper trophic level receptors by combining measured soil concentrations and modeled food/prey item concentrations with receptor-specific life history data. The estimated dose (exposure level) is compared to a dietary TRV (effect level) to yield a quantitative estimate of risk (HQ). The food chain model uses measured concentrations in soil and modeled concentrations in food. Consistent with SLERA assumptions, flycatchers, gnatcatchers, sparrows and shrews were assumed to consume exclusively invertebrates; gopher and quail were assumed to eat plants; and weasels and kestrels were assumed to eat small mammals.

Upper trophic level receptors were assumed to be exposed to COPCs via incidental ingestion of soil and consumption of food/prey items that have bioaccumulated COPCs. Dietary intakes (exposure levels) were calculated using generic dose formulas from the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (WEFH; [EPA, 1993]). The following subsections present the results of the exposure analysis (food chain models and inputs), effects analysis (dietary toxicity reference values [TRVs]), and risk characterization. Receptor-specific exposure parameters (and their sources) used in the equation above are presented in Table SRE-16.

Equations for calculating exposure and risk appear in Attachment 3. Risk is expressed as an HQ, which is the ratio between intake and the TRV.

COPC concentrations in dietary sources (plants, invertebrates, and small mammals) were estimated using published uptake factors that describe the accumulation of

OU 2 001856

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-23 01/07/15

chemicals from soil. Some of the uptake factors are expressed as logarithmic equations, reflecting variable extent of uptake depending on how high the initial soil concentrations are. Uptake to invertebrates was represented by published equations for earthworms.

The calculation of EPCs in plants, earthworms, and small mammals are presented in Tables SRE-17 through SRE-19, respectively.

TRVs and their sources for mammalian and avian receptors appear in Tables SRE-20 and SRE-21, respectively. TRVs were obtained from EPA, DTSC, and the literature. NOAEL- and LOAEL-based TRVs were identified to provide bounded estimate of potential risks. The NOAEL is the highest dose at which no adverse effects are expected to occur. A receptor could be exposed at a level that exceeds the NOAEL and still not experience an adverse effect; thus, NOAELs are conservative and have the potential to overestimate risk. The LOAEL is the lowest dose at which adverse effects have been detected. While typically less conservative than NOAELs, LOAEL are generally more representative of natural toxicological response with meaningful ecological ramifications.

HQs were calculated based on both NOAEL and LOAEL TRVs. Calculated HQs for the receptor species appear in Tables SRE-22 through SRE-29.

Generally, the greater the HQ, the greater the likelihood an effect will occur. Although probabilities cannot be specified based on a point-estimate approach, an HQ of approximately 1 is generally regarded as indicating a low probability of adverse ecological effects. When a constituent has an HQ greater than 1, it is present at levels above its threshold concentration; however, this does not imply that adverse effects will occur, only that the potential for adverse effects exists.

The risks for identified receptor species are summarized in Table SRE-30. The EPA HQ threshold value of 1 was used for reference. Results are summarized in the table below. Overall, the highest NOAEL-based HQs were identified for lead for birds. These risks are driven by an extremely low TRV (see Section 7 for additional discussion). The largest number of elevated HQs was found for insectivores (i.e., the sparrow, flycatcher, gnatcatcher, and shrew).

NOAEL HQ<1 LOAEL HQ<1

NOAEL HQ>1 LOAEL HQ<1

NOAEL HQ>1 LOAEL HQ>1

• Cobalt • Antimony • Barium • Manganese • Arsenic • Cadmium

OU 2 001857

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-24 01/07/15

• Molybdenum • Boron • Lead • Silver • Chromium • Mercury • Strontium • Copper • Vanadium • Perchlorate • Nickel • TCDD • Selenium

• Zinc

6.3.1 Risks to Herpetiles

There are no published sets of exposure parameters or TRVs for reptiles or amphibians (herpetiles). The side-blotched lizard was identified by FWS as a resident species, but no quantitative assessment of risk to this receptor is possible. In this SLERA, risks to birds are used as a proxy for risks to herpetiles. The side-blotched lizard is an invertivore and would be expected to have similar dietary components as invertivorous avian species. Risk management decisions to protect insectivorous birds such as the flycatcher or gnatcatcher would be expected to be protective of herpetiles.

6.3.2 Risks to Plants and Invertebrates

Potential risks to invertebrate and plant communities are difficult to evaluate because the available benchmarks are for screening purposes and do not necessarily predict risk. These available benchmarks were included in the screening presented in Table SRE-2. However, to provide further perspective, comparison of EPCs specifically to the plant and invertebrate SLVs is presented in Attachment 6.

For plants, the largest number of benchmark exceedances is for manganese. Manganese also has the largest number of exceedances for invertebrates. For remaining COPCs, plant and invertebrate benchmark exceedances are spatially limited (i.e., occur in approximately 5 percent or less of samples) and/or are generally of low magnitude. Of note, manganese did not produce results of concern in the food chain analysis.

The manganese plant and invertebrate SLVs are 220 and 450 mg/kg, respectively. Background concentrations in Southern California reported by Kearney et al. (1996) range from 253 to 1,205 mg/kg, with an average of 524 mg/kg. No Site concentrations exceed the range of background and the Site average of 454 mg/kg is less than the regional background average. Given that manganese is an essential nutrient and Site concentrations are consistent with regional background, adverse effects to plants and invertebrates from manganese in soil are unlikely.

OU 2 001858

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-25 01/07/15

The overall pattern does not suggest that the exceedances of the SLVs for plants and invertebrates are likely to result in risks to these receptor groups.

OU 2 001859

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-26 01/05/15

7. UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION

Uncertainties are inherent in the process of quantitative risk assessment due to the use of environmental sampling results, assumptions regarding exposure, and the quantitative representation of chemical toxicity. Analysis of the critical areas of uncertainty in risk assessment provides a better understanding of the quantitative results through the identification of the uncertainties that most significantly affect the results.

EPA guidance stresses the importance of providing an in-depth analysis of uncertainties so that risk managers are better informed when evaluating risk assessment conclusions [EPA, 1989]. The following sources of uncertainty have been identified for this assessment.

7.1 Uncertainty in Conceptual Site Model

A key assumption for both human and ecological risk is that the Site will remain a refuge and that no excavation or other intrusive activities will occur. Due to the fact that the Site is under FWS control, this assumption appears to be fairly reliable. Human receptor groups other than those evaluated are not likely to be present.

There is higher uncertainly associated with the presence of ecological receptors. The ecological receptors selected for the SLERA were provided by FWS and represent the feeding guilds expected to be present at the Site. For example, the Pacific-slope flycatcher may have limited presence at the Site due to its habitat requirements, which are not likely to be present at the Site.

The dietary doses are derived from literature reports of intake rates, body weights, dietary composition, and consumption for receptors at other locations and, thus, not necessarily representative of receptors potentially present at the Site. As a result, site-specific risks may be under- or over-estimated. Dermal and inhalation exposure pathways for upper trophic level receptors are not explicitly evaluated in this assessment as methods are generally unavailable; this may lead to a potential underestimation of risks. However, ecological receptors’ constituent intake primarily occurs via ingestion of prey items; thus, uncertainty associated with dermal contact and inhalation is less likely to affect the overall outcome of the risk estimates.

7.2 Uncertainty in Dataset and COPC Selection

The dataset used in the HHRA and SLERA included soil samples collected during multiple field and analytical phases between 2007 and 2012. Most of these samples reflect recent field efforts and most likely provide a representative characterization of

OU 2 001860

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-27 01/05/15

current soil concentrations at the Site. Soil metals concentrations are not expected to change much over time.

NWR receptors were assumed to be exposed to soil in the interval 0 to 2 feet bgs. Samples that spanned a greater horizon (e.g., 0 to 4 feet bgs) were excluded to avoid biasing the concentrations low. The actual depth to which most human and many ecological receptors would be exposed is unknown, but probably shallower than 2 feet.

Constituents that were not detected (organics, primarily) were excluded from the risk evaluation. Given the number of samples collected at the Site, if a constituent were present to any significant extent, it would likely have been detected during the site investigation activities completed to date.

7.3 Uncertainty in Exposure Assessment

For human health, the UCL was used as the EPC for COPCs other than TCDD TEQ. Assumptions about the distribution of the data must be made in the calculation of a UCL and, therefore, contribute to uncertainty in the calculation. Since no unacceptable risks were identified, these uncertainties are not substantive. For constituents with small sample sizes and/or a low detection frequency, maximum detected concentrations are utilized, as was done here for TCDD TEQ, for which only four samples in the target depth range were collected. Although the concentrations were similar (within an order of magnitude), there is still considerable uncertainty as to the actual site-wide concentrations.

Using maximum detected concentrations as the EPC in the SLERA likely over-estimates risk. The receptors with the highest screening-level HQs have small home ranges, making it difficult to target a cluster of samples for which a UCL could be appropriately estimated.

Because the objective of the investigation process is to define the nature and extent of contamination, samples were not all collected from random locations. Rather, soil borings tend to be collected in areas of suspected impact. This bias leads to clustering, which tends to overestimate constituent concentrations to which receptors may be exposed. Samples were collected in many areas of the Site, but there are also large zones with no information. Overall, the concentration to which a receptor – especially one with a small home range – would actually be exposed to is always an estimate.

For human receptors, EPA default exposure factors (e.g., ingestion rates, dermal absorption factors) were combined with estimates from FWS to estimate long-term exposure. Exposure assumptions are based on limited data and are chosen to represent

OU 2 001861

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-28 01/05/15

a reasonably maximally exposed individual. Use of conservative values increases the overall uncertainty associated with estimates of constituent intake, but makes it unlikely that exposures are underestimated.

Constituent concentrations in food/prey items (i.e., invertebrates, mammals, and plants) were estimated by combining maximum detected constituent concentrations measured in abiotic media (soil) with generic uptake equations. This approach likely overestimates prey item concentrations as many prey species forage over a wider range than the area represented by the maximum concentration. Further, upper trophic level receptors, with even larger home ranges, are unlikely to consume prey from a single location. Multiplying these uptake assumptions in the food chain models magnifies the overall conservatism of the risk estimates. It should also be noted that all classes of invertebrates are represented in the SLERA by earthworms, although the receptor species are insectivores. Given that risks are driven by the consumption of earthworms, the bioaccumulation models likely represent one of the more significant sources of uncertainty.

Two of the selected species may have only partial presence at the Site. The short-tailed weasel (selected to represent a mammalian carnivore) is present though much of northern North America, but its home range within California is limited [Smithsonian, 2013]. However, other carnivores (canine, feline) do have home ranges include the Site and surrounding area. Since the weasel was not a risk driver, this uncertainty is likely to have minimal affect on the risk conclusions.

The Pacific-slope flycatcher may also have limited presence at the Site because its habitat during the breeding season, when it is expected to be in California [Cornell University, 2013], is described as “humid coniferous, dense second-growth, and mixed deciduous-conifer woodlands” [University of Michigan, 2013]. This habitat is dissimilar to the arid coastal conditions at the Site (there is a population of Pacific-slope flycatcher breeding on the Channel Islands off southern California that is considered a distinct species, but these islands are further north and not near the Site; [Cornell University, 2013]. Even if present, this bird is migratory and spends winters in Central America, well south of the Site. Hazards based on an AUF of 1 (which also assumes a seasonal use factor of 1) would be biased high.

Food chain models do not address potential population level effects. Thus, an elevated risk, particularly one based on a small area or limited number of locations, may have limited relevance to population dynamics and a sustainable food web within the ecosystem.

OU 2 001862

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-29 01/05/15

7.4 Uncertainty in Toxicity Assessment

Uncertainty is inherent in the toxicity values utilized in evaluating risk. Most of the toxicity values (i.e., RfDs and SFs) used in HHRA were developed by the EPA or DTSC for regulatory purposes and are intended to represent upper-bound estimates of potential toxicity. For example, most of the RfDs incorporate large uncertainty factors and probably lie well below the true threshold for toxicity in humans. While this helps ensure the protectiveness of decisions based on the RfD, it should be recognized that a dosage exceeding the RfD (i.e., the HQ is greater than one) does not necessarily indicate the likelihood for toxicity. Similarly, the SFs developed by the EPA incorporate a number of conservative choices in risk extrapolation. These include the assumption of a linear, non-threshold dose-response relationship for cancer, interpretation of animal carcinogenicity data, and dose-metrics for extrapolation of results from rodents to humans. As a result, cancer risk estimates using these values reflect upper-bound estimates of risk associated with specific exposures. Toxicity information was generally not available for dermal exposure; hence, several assumptions were made in order to calculate dermal-adjusted SFs and RfDs. These assumptions may overestimate or underestimate risk.

Given that most uncertainties are associated with high bias in the risk estimates, and no unacceptable risks were concluded, human health risk uncertainties are unlikely to affect risk management decisions at the Site.

There are even greater uncertainties with ecological TRVs. These TRVs vary by source and do not undergo the same level of rigorous review and achieve the same consensus as the human health toxicity factors. Toxicity data for measurement endpoints (i.e., effect levels) are usually generated under laboratory conditions, often with very bioavailable contaminant forms that may not reflect soil exposures. Extrapolation of those data to free-living receptors in the field is uncertain. One factor is that laboratory populations are more heterogeneous than wild populations and test populations often represent the most sensitive species and life stages. Many TRVs are based on single studies done years or decades ago that have not been replicated. Ecological TRVs also require extrapolation between often dissimilar species. At the Site, the highest risks were identified for lead in birds. For example, the lead TRVs of 8.75 mg/kg-day (LOAEL) and 0.014 mg/kg-day (NOAEL), based on 1983 and 1976 feeding studies in chicken and quail, respectively, are over 600-fold different. DTSC’s EcoNote [1996] presents avian toxicity criteria from other sources ranging from 0.19 mg/kg-day to 26 mg/kg-day. The large range in these criteria is an example of the difficulty in identifying appropriate ecological TRVs.

OU 2 001863

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-30 01/05/15

7.5 Uncertainty in Risk Characterization

The risk characterization identified several metals that have the potential to result in adverse ecological effects. However, concentrations of several of these are present at concentrations commonly associated with natural background, anthropogenic sources, and contamination associated with the historical fill. Thus, the concentrations at the Site may not be entirely attributable to site operations or release.

Four locations along the Site’s northern and eastern perimeter, GPP-B101 through GPP-B104, were selected in the investigation phase of the project as the best available representation of background. Metals were somewhat lower in these samples than in other areas of the Site, consistent with a conclusion of background. However, of the four samples on Site that were analyzed for dioxins/furans, the two samples designated as background showed comparable or higher TCDD TEQ than the two samples analyzed elsewhere on the Site. This latter observation suggests either that the samples do not represent background, or that background is impacted regionally by traces of dioxin/furan compounds.

Thus, there is uncertainty associated with determining whether the concentrations of some COPCs are Site related or are attributable to naturally occurring and/or anthropogenic background. Risk management for the Site should consider the potential role of naturally occurring inorganics and anthropogenic sources. Additional evaluation of background appears in Appendix C of the EE/CA report.

OU 2 001864

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-31 01/05/15

8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This SRE evaluated potential exposures of human and ecological receptors to the upland area at the Gunpowder Point Site in Chula Vista, California. The media of exposure are surface and near-subsurface soil.

Excess lifetime cancer risk estimates were within the EPA acceptable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for employees, volunteers, and Site Visitors. The highest cancer risk estimates were for arsenic, but site-wide (95 UCL) arsenic concentrations are below the site-specific background concentration. Additionally, noncancer Hazard Indices were below the target level of 1, indicating the absence of unacceptable noncarcinogenic hazards.

Based on the calculated risk estimates, consideration of regional background, and uncertainties, there is limited potential for adverse effects to human receptors that work at or visit the NWR. No further action regarding human health risk is recommended.

The SLERA indicated no unacceptable risk to plants and invertebrates. Screening-level HQs indicate the potential for ecological risk, primarily to insectivorous birds and mammals with small home ranges. NOAEL-based HQs exceeded 1 TCDD and for 13 metals: antimony, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.

Evaluation of these constituents in the context of background and contamination distribution at the Site is recommended to determine appropriate risk management.

OU 2 001865

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-32 01/05/15

9. DEVELOPMENT OF RISK-BASED CLEANUP GOALS

Geosyntec performed this SRE to identify endpoints and receptors of concern and serve as the basis for development of risk-based clean-up levels. Human health risks were determined to be within an acceptable risk range; therefore, RAOs on the basis of human health are not required. The SLERA identified screening-level HQs above 1 for some receptor-COPC combinations. The SLERA calculated HQs using maximum soil concentrations and both NOAEL and LOAEL toxicity benchmarks.

Generally, LOAEL benchmarks are likely to be more representative of actual field exposures and population-level effects. However, given that the Site is a wildlife Refuge, a NOAEL HQ of 1 was selected as the point-of-departure for identifying COPCs for consideration during the risk management step. TCDD and 13 metals had NOAEL HQs greater than 1. It should be noted that in addition to conservative assumptions about toxicity, the SLERA also incorporated several conservative assumptions about exposure, including:

• Area and seasonal use factors. The AUF and seasonal use factors of 1 used in the SLERA assume that an animal obtains its entire diet year-round from the Site. For migratory species or those with home ranges greater than the Site area, this assumption may not be valid.

• Bioavailability. There is insufficient information on how to adjust the screening-level HQs using bioavailability. Many TRVs are based on studies with food or water, which likely have higher bioavailability than Site soils. However, development of scaling factors is beyond the scope of this SLERA. It should be noted though that the HQs are conservative estimates and allow for a margin of safety based on bioavailability.

• Dietary Composition. Receptors’ diets were assumed to consist of a single prey item. Actual dietary composition is likely to be more variable and consist of prey/food items with variable body burdens of site-related constituents; thus, risks may be under- or over-estimated. In the case of insectivores, which were identified as the feeding guild with the greatest potential for adverse ecological effects, assuming a diet of only soil-dwelling invertebrates (i.e., earthworms) likely overestimated risks since other invertebrates, including tree-dwelling species with reduced soil exposure, are likely consumed. Some insectivorous species, such as the flycatcher, may also supplement their diets with vegetation, which generally bioaccumulates constituents to a lesser extent than soil.

• Uptake Factors. The use of earthworms to represent invertebrates is a key uncertainty in the SLERA. The target receptors are likely to be primarily

OU 2 001866

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-33 01/05/15

insectivorous rather than worm-eating. However, the information is limited in the literature regarding uptake from soils to invertebrates other than earthworms. The U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine [CHPPM 2004] developed a literature summary tabulation for uptake from soil to invertebrates such as insects and arachnids, but has not provided a recommended setup for uptake factors. In contrast, the earthworm uptake algorithms published by Oak Ridge National Laboratories [Sample et al., 1999] are validated and widely used in ecological risk evaluations.

9.1 Preliminary Remediation Goal Calculation

HQs are proportional to the soil concentration. Therefore, the soil concentration associated with a NOAEL HQ of 1 (the PRG) can be scaled from the existing HQs, which were estimated using the maximum observed soil concentrations (EPC). The PRG is calculated as follows:

PRG= EPCCalculated NOAEL HQ ×Target HQ

Preliminary risk-based PRGs are summarized in Table SRE-31. PRGs were calculated using upper-bound estimates of exposure and effect. The resulting risk-based concentrations are in some cases below naturally occurring background and, therefore, are not necessarily appropriate as clean-up levels. To develop final clean-up levels, additional evaluation was performed to integrate consideration of background. Results of this additional evaluation and background consideration are discussed in more detail below.

9.2 Background Evaluation

Four soil borings (GPP-B101 through GPP-B104) were advanced around the perimeter of the Site (Figure 2A of the EE/CA) to provide an estimate of regional background. The metal concentrations in the samples collected from these perimeter locations were generally lower than concentrations found elsewhere on the Site (Figures 2A through 2M). However, the concentrations of TCDD TEQ in the two samples analyzed for dioxins/furans in the central portion of the site were higher than the two samples analyzed in the western portion of the Site (Figure 3 of the EE/CA). While it is most likely that the dioxins and furans are of regional origin and these samples are in fact background with respect to the Site, it is also possible that these samples reflect Site impacts due to unknown historical soil relocation. Therefore, background evaluations for metals were performed two ways: 1) using only a published background data

OU 2 001867

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-34 01/05/15

[Bradford et al., 1996], selecting southern California background sample locations, and 2) using a combined dataset from the aforementioned published database and the site background samples (B-101 through B-104). These evaluations appear in Appendix C.

Both sets of background evaluations revealed no overall statistical difference between Site and background concentrations for the metal COPCs. The estimated upper 75th percentile background concentrations were virtually identical between the two data sets, with the combined data set yielding overall slightly lower (more conservative) concentrations. Therefore, the combined dataset was used going forward in this EE/CA.

Note that absence of a difference between site-wide concentrations and background does not necessarily mean that no cleanup is required. The background evaluation simply indicates that the localized areas of elevated concentrations are not high or widespread enough to statistically affect the site-wide concentrations. These limited areas still require cleanup if they contain concentrations associated with a potential ecological risk for receptors with small home ranges if the concentrations are above background.

9.2.1.1 Calculation of Background Threshold Values

The BTV represents the upper range of ambient conditions. A statistical evaluation of the background database was performed using ProUCL Version 5.0 [EPA 2013] to identify the appropriate BTVs for the COCs. The outputs appear in Appendix C.

Per DTSC [2009] policy in addressing arsenic, the upper limit of the background data set can be selected as the cleanup goal. For arsenic, DTSC uses the 95 percent confidence interval upper tolerance limit (UTL) with a coverage coefficient of 95 percent. Specifically, the 95 percent UTL with 95 percent coverage is the value below which 95 percent of the population values are expected to fall within 95 percent confidence. In other words, there is 95 percent certainty that the BTV is the concentration below which 19 out of 20 background values will fall.

To provide a larger margin of safety for the Site, the BTVs were calculated as the 95 percent UTL with 90 percent coverage. In other words, 18 of 20 background values will fall below this value with 95 percent confidence. This statistic produces slightly lower BTVs that are less likely to result in identification of Site concentrations as background and are therefore more protective.

OU 2 001868

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-35 01/05/15

9.3 Final Cleanup Levels

Minimum risk-based ecological PRGs and site-specific background concentrations for the Site COPCs are summarized in Table SRE-32. In most cases, minimum risk-based PRGs are below background concentrations and, as a result, the background concentration is selected as the final PRG. This trend is largely attributable to inherent conservatism of the calculations, which resulted from combining upper-bound estimates of exposure with upper-bound estimates of effect.

For species other than those of special concern, the population is generally the endpoint to be protected. While there is no specific guidance available for determining the threshold significance level for population-level impacts, it is typically assumed that most populations of most species (excluding species of special concern) can withstand some depletion or adverse effect, but remain functioning and viable components of a healthy ecosystem. This is because the reproductive potential of most wildlife populations exceeds what is needed to maintain a stable population, and a degree of higher mortality or a lowering of reproductive potential can be sustained without harm to the population. It is typically assumed that a LOAEL HQ of 1 is indicative of a threshold for population-level effects. As such, prior to selecting final PRGs, risk-based (NOAEL) PRGs based on non-SSC receptors were further reviewed. These are: antimony, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, selenium, and zinc. In each case, the ornate shrew was the most sensitive, non-SSC species.

For cadmium, nickel, and zinc, risk-based PRGs for SSC are also less than background and for antimony, SSC risks could not be quantified due to a lack of appropriate (avian) TRVs. Thus, for these COPCs, background concentrations are recommended as the final PRG to be protective of SSC individuals.

For arsenic, the ornate shrew PRG (18 mg/kg) is approximately 5-times lower than PRGs for the savannah sparrow and California gnatcatcher (both 100 mg/kg). LOAEL HQs for the ornate shrew were less than 1, indicating that population-level effects are unlikely. No unacceptable risks to SSC species were calculated for arsenic. Given these considerations, remedial actions for arsenic for the protection of ecological receptors are not necessary. Note also that the highest arsenic concentrations are co-located with inorganic COPCs that will be addressed during remediation, which will further reduce Site-wide arsenic concentrations.

For selenium, the ornate shrew PRG (0.31 mg/kg) is approximately 3-times lower than PRGs for the savannah sparrow (0.86 mg/kg) and California gnatcatcher (0.83 mg/kg). LOAEL HQs for the ornate shrew were less than 1, indicating that population-level

OU 2 001869

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-36 01/05/15

effects are unlikely. Notably, in the vast majority of locations where selenium concentrations are above the ornate shrew PRG, but below the gnatcatcher PRG, no other COPCs are elevated relative to final PRGs. This lack of co-location coupled with the lack of markedly elevated concentrations supports that the presence of selenium is not related to historic site operations. Given these considerations, the PRG based on the California gnatcatcher rather than the ornate shrew is recommended as the final PRG.

In summary, with the exception of selenium, final PRGs represent the higher of (i) the minimum risk-based ecological NOAEL PRG and (ii) the site-specific background concentration.

OU 2 001870

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-37 01/07/15

10. REFERENCES

Baes, CFI., Sharp, RD, Sjoreen, AL and RW Shor, 1984. A review and analysis of parameters for assessing transport of environmentally released radionuclides through agriculture. ORNL-5786. U. S. Dept. of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN.

Bechtel Jacobs, 1998. Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. United States Department of Energy. BJC/OR-133.

Beyer, W.N., E. Conner, and S. Gerould, 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J. Wildl. Manage. 58: 375-382.

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM). 2007. Wildlife Toxicity Assessment for Perchlorate. Health Effects Research Program, Environmental Health Risk Assessment Program. USACHPPM Document No. 87-MA02T6-05D. February.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. All About Birds. California Quail. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/California_Quail/lifehistory

Department of Energy (DOE). 2013. Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS). Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) Office through a contract between Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC. and the University of Tennessee. http://rais.ornl.gov/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2011a. Recommended DTSC Default Exposure Factors for Use in Risk Assessment at California Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities. Office of Human And Ecological Risk (HERO). Human and Ecological Risk Division (HERD). HERO HHRA Note Number 1. May 20.

DTSC. 2011b. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors. Appendix C. Use of the Toxicity Equivalency Factor (TEFWHO-05) Scheme for Estimating Toxicity of Mixtures of Dioxin-Like Chemicals. January 28.

DTSC. 2007. LeadSpread 8. A tool for evaluating exposure and the potential for adverse health effects resulting from exposure to lead in the environment. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/leadspread8.cfm

OU 2 001871

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-38 01/07/15

DTSC. 1998. Depth of soil samples used to set exposure point concentration for burrowing mammals and burrow-dwelling birds in an ecological risk assessments. HERD ERA Note Number: 1. May15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013a. ProUCL Version 5.0.00. http://www.epa.gov/osp/hstl/tsc/software.htm.

EPA. 2013b. Regional Screening Level User's Guide. May. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/usersguide.

EPA. 2009. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment), EPA 540-R-070-002. January.

EPA. 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Manganese. Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington D.C. OSWER Directive 9285.7-71. Issue April 2007.

EPA. 2007b. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSLs), Attachment 4-1 Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Derivation of Wildlife EcoSSLs. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. Issued November 2003, updated February 2005 and April 2007.

EPA. 2005a et seq.. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Documents. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Released 2005 through 2009.

EPA. 2005b. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/P-03/001F. March.

EPA. 2004a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS)(Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), EPA 540-R-99-005.

EPA. 2003. Release of Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) and Eco-SSLs for Nine Contaminants. OSWER 9285.7 55. Updates 2005.

EPA Region 9. 2002a. Recommended Toxicity Values for Mammals. Region 9 Biological Assistance Group. November. Available from: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/assessingrisk/upload/eco_btag-mammal-bird-trv-table.pdf.

OU 2 001872

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-39 01/07/15

EPA. 2002b. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER 9355.4-24. December.

EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Edison, NJ. EPA 540-R-97-OCS.EPA.

EPA. 1993a. Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA. Office of Solid Waste and Agency Emergency Response, Washington, DC. 9360.0-32. EPA540•R-93-057. August.

EPA. 1993b. Risk Assessment: Technical Guidance Manual. Selecting Exposure Routes and Contaminants of Concern by Risk-Based Screening. Region 3 Hazardous Waste Management Division. EPA/R 93 001. January.

EPA. 1993c. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R 93/187a.

EPA. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Toxics Integration Branch. OSWER Directive 9385.6-03. March 25.

EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I – Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/1-89/002a. December.

EPA. 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 1986. September. EPA/630/R-00/004.Efroymson RA, ME Will, GW Suter III, and AC Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. November.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2013a. Soil Screening Numbers – Updated Table. Updated 9/23/10. http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chhsltable.html#table1

FWS. 2011. Final Preliminary Assessment Site Investigation (PA/SI) Report, Gunpowder Point Project, Chula Vista, California. October 2011.

OU 2 001873

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-40 01/07/15

FWS. 2010. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. September 29.

FWS. 2006. San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, (Sweetwater Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units), Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). September 29.

James, RC and Saranko, CJ. 2000. Carcinogenesis. In: Principles of Toxicology: Environmental and Industrial Applications, Second Edition. (Williams, P.L., James, R.C. and Roberts, S.M., eds.), New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Klaassen, C, Ed. 2001. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. McGraw-Hill, Medical Publishing Division, New York, NY. pp. 64-78; 92-93.

Morgan, JE, Richards, SPG, and JA Morgan. 2002. Contrasting accumulative patterns of two cationic analogues, Ca and Sr, in ecophysiologically contrasting earthworm species (Aporrectodea longa and Allolobophora chlorotica) from the field. Applied Soil Ecology 21 (2002) 11–22.

Nahmani, J., M.E. Hodson, S. Black. 2007. A review of studies performed to assess metal uptake by earthworms. Env Poll. 145, 402-424.

OEHHA. 2013a. Cal/Ecotox Exposure Factors for Sideblotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana). http://oehha.ca.gov/cal_ecotox/report/utastef.pdf.

OEHHA 2013b. Toxicity Criteria Database. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/tcdb/index.asp

Nagy, KA 2001. Food requirements of wild animals: predictive equations for free-living mammals, reptiles, and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 71, 21 R-31 R.

Nussbaum, RA. and LV. Diller, 1976. The life history of the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana Baird and Girard, in north-central Oregon. Northwest Sci. 50(4):243-260.

Sample, B., J.J. Beauchamp, R. Efroymson, G.W. Suter, II, and T. Ashwood. 1998. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-220.

OU 2 001874

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107 F-41 01/07/15

Sample, B., J.J. Beauchamp, R. Efroymson, G.W. Suter, II, and T. Ashwood. 1999. Literature-derived Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms: Development and Validation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.18: 2110-20.

Sample BE, Opresko DM, Suter GW. 1996. Toxicological benchmarks for wildlife. 1996 revision. ES/ERM-86/R3. Office of Environmental Management, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. North American Mammals. Mustela ermine (Ermine). Accessed November 22. 2013.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=191.

University of Michigan. Animal Diversity Web. Empidonax difficilis, Pacific-slope flycatcher. Accessed November 22, 2013.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Empidonax_difficilis/#habitat

OU 2 001875

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107

TABLES

OU 2 001876


FIGURES

OU 2 001877


ATTACHMENT 1

CALCULATION OF DIOXIN/FURAN TOXICITY EQUIVALENT QUOTIENTS

OU 2 001878


ATTACHMENT 2

ProUCL OUPUTS

OU 2 001879


ATTACHMENT 3

EXPOSURE AND RISK ALGORITHMS

OU 2 001880


ATTACHMENT 4

LeadSpread OUTPUT

OU 2 001881


ATTACHMENT 5

CHECKLIST FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/SAMPLING

OU 2 001882


ATTACHMENT 6

COMPARISON OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO PLANT AND INVERTEBRATE

SCREENING LEVELS

OU 2 001883

GPP SRE_Revised_20150107.docx

TABLES

OU 2 001884

TABLE SRE 1GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CA

STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONDEPTH EVALUATION OF SOIL DATABASE

Perchlorate Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgUSEPA: residential screening level soil 55 77000 31 0.39 15000 160 16000 70 -- 23 3100 55000California: CHHSL-res screening level soil -- -- 30 0.07 5200 150 -- 1.7 100000 660 300 --ECO-SSL: plant screening level soil -- -- -- 18 -- -- -- 32 -- -- 70 --USEPA: bird screening level soil -- -- -- 43 -- -- -- 0.77 -- -- 28 --USEPA: invertebrate screening level soil -- -- -- -- 330 40 -- 140 -- -- 80 --USEPA: mammal screening level soil -- -- -- 46 2000 21 -- 0.36 -- -- 49 --Most stringent - Human Health 55 77000 30 0.07 5200 150 16000 1.7 100000 23 300 55000Most stringent - Ecological Health no SLV no SLV no SLV 18 330 21 no SLV 0.36 no SLV no SLV 28 no SLV

Shallower7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E1 0 12 0.0030 10200 -- 7 109 0.275 28.5 0.315 14 -- 12.5 14800

4/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-23 0 6 0.0018 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --4/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-24 0 6 0.0015 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E2 0 12 0.0030 10500 -- 3.53 109 0.297 19.6 0.315 16.1 -- 17.1 177007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E3 0 12 0.0007 11500 -- 4.1 162 0.326 13.6 0.364 16.5 -- 18.3 190007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E4 0 12 0.0017 12700 -- 6.7 233 0.325 23 0.967 17.4 -- 32.7 210007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 12 0.0019 10200 -- 8.47 156 0.275 34.8 0.847 13.6 -- 22.7 208007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 12 0.0014 9570 -- 2.77 98.6 0.265 18 0.119 12.2 -- 11.1 133007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 12 0.0008 11400 -- 9.5 671 0.289 25.9 0.876 15 -- 33.6 182007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 12 0.0005 11400 -- 6.57 123 0.315 21.5 0.49 15 -- 22.1 190007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 12 0.0051 12300 -- 2.58 106 0.325 18.7 0.275 17.5 -- 21.1 212007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N4 0 12 0.0013 9040 -- 6.8 361 0.239 32 0.956 12.8 -- 36.4 129007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N5 0 12 0.0059 11000 -- 3.75 126 0.315 20.6 0.371 15.9 -- 16.9 157007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 12 0.0094 10600 -- 15.5 162 0.304 40.6 3.11 17.2 -- 50.2 418007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 0 12 0.2710 2710 -- 9.84 62.3 0.033 U 12.5 0.106 3.56 -- 8.45 93407/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 0 12 0.0954 8180 -- 9.56 76.4 0.2 18.7 0.4 13.2 -- 21.6 148007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 0 12 0.0072 11000 -- 6.6 128 0.28 23.3 0.559 15.3 -- 30.6 194007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 0 12 0.0599 8470 -- 13.4 236 0.242 25.3 2.87 15.2 -- 43.4 285007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W1 0 12 0.0112 11600 -- 3.98 252 0.33 16.1 0.785 17 -- 20.2 217007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W2 0 12 0.0187 15600 -- 3.01 103 0.474 26.8 0.0777 24.2 -- 14.8 275007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W3 0 12 0.0242 14900 -- 5.4 321 0.365 21.2 1.98 20.6 -- 23.7 250007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W4 0 12 0.007 8910 -- 8.9 132 0.262 43.2 0.973 14.9 -- 25.9 294007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W5 0 12 0.0202 8830 -- 7.19 220 0.236 21.7 0.586 12.4 -- 23 161007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W6 0 12 0.0228 10700 -- 6.13 376 0.326 19.9 1.3 17.4 -- 26.5 22200

4/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-04 0 24 0.0011 U 18000 -- 2.5 73 1.6 U 5.3 U 2.7 U 20 -- 19 190004/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-07 0 24 0.0021 U 8800 -- 4.7 70 1.5 U 5.2 U 2.6 U 13 -- 81 140004/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-08 0 24 0.0012 U 16000 -- 4.5 97 1.8 U 7.8 0.56 22 -- 34 210004/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10 0 24 4.7 18000 -- 3.5 100 1.7 U 5.5 U 2.8 U 23 -- 15 21000

11/16/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10A 0 24 7.7 16000 -- 14 100 0.44 120 0.081 24 -- 16 200004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13 0 24 0.092 2100 -- 4 58 1.6 U 34 2.7 U 17 -- 10 16000

11/17/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13A 0 24 0.0037 20000 -- 1.3 69 0.34 34 0.14 21 -- 13 180004/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-14 0 24 0.0025 2400 -- 3.2 140 1.6 U 5.4 U 2.7 U 19 -- 15 210004/22/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18 0 24 1.2 650 -- 25 140 1.7 U 12 2.9 U 5.2 -- 12 14000

11/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18A 0 24 6.5 2500 -- 21 75 0.34 U 17 0.56 U 4.6 -- 7.3 140004/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-21 0 24 0.011 3900 -- 11 74 1.6 U 11 2.6 U 19 -- 170 160004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-25 0 24 0.0022 U 3200 -- 2.9 57 1.6 U 16 2.7 U 21 -- 15 200004/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-28 0 24 0.008 19000 -- 2.6 85 0.39 16 0.13 21 -- 15 180004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-29 0 24 0.0026 21000 -- 2.2 77 0.39 14 0.25 22 -- 36 25000

11/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-41 0 24 0.0038 16000 -- 2.2 92 0.33 17 0.073 21 -- 13 1900011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-42 0 24 0.0033 22000 -- 1.8 72 0.37 17 0.54 U 24 -- 13 2200011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-43 0 24 0.0035 20000 -- 2 70 0.42 28 0.57 U 27 -- 13 2500011/17/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-46 0 24 0.011 U 29000 -- 1.4 190 0.52 40 0.14 34 -- 21 2600011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-48 0 24 0.0054 15000 -- 0.91 78 0.37 17 0.54 U 23 -- 53 2000011/16/2009 Soil 1 GPP-49 0 24 0.0072 21000 -- 6.3 110 0.44 18 0.13 27 -- 18 2400011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-51 0 24 0.021 9000 -- 16 77 0.2 300 1.3 13 -- 25 12000

7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 48 0.0009 11400 -- 2.9 109 0.327 31.7 0.189 17.4 -- 16.2 182007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 48 0.0027 12000 -- 2.42 132 0.427 20.7 0.0363 U 21.8 -- 14.2 226007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 48 0.0011 10600 -- 3.68 99.6 0.305 27.9 0.364 17.1 -- 18 184007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 48 0.0006 15100 -- 3.1 95.2 0.418 28.7 0.21 22.9 -- 17.5 232007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 48 0.0006 12200 -- 2.11 95.8 0.371 29.2 0.111 18.9 -- 14.7 200007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 48 0.0131 14700 -- 4.1 246 0.493 31.6 0.123 21.9 -- 15.1 260007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 0 48 0.0071 12200 -- 3.56 159 0.384 30 1.18 17.8 -- 14.2 17800

4/21/2009 Soil 10 GPP-01 0 48 0.001 U 7100 -- 2.6 U 45 1.5 U 5.2 U 2.6 U 12 -- 9.7 120004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-03 0 48 0.006 17000 -- 4.3 110 1.6 U 9.1 2.7 U 24 -- 20 220004/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-09 0 48 0.0012 U 12000 -- 6.1 170 1.8 U 15 1 19 -- 56 160004/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-11 0 48 0.003 15000 -- 2.7 89 1.6 U 5.4 U 2.7 U 23 -- 18 22000

11/17/2009 Soil 1 GPP-12A 0 48 0.002 8400 -- 7.1 240 0.4 8.3 0.11 12 -- 17 130004/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22 0 48 0.0052 3200 -- 15 810 1.7 U 52 1.6 22 -- 26 19000

11/17/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22A 0 48 0.015 18000 -- 7 540 0.35 60 0.76 24 -- 19 1900011/16/2009 Soil 19 GPP-38 0 48 0.0011 19000 -- 1.9 91 0.28 14 0.37 24 -- 18 2100011/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-39 0 48 0.0018 29000 -- 1.7 120 0.42 21 0.5 35 -- 25 33000

Bottom of Sample

Sample Date

matrix AOCSample

LocationTop of Sample

1 of 6

OU 2 001885





Bottom of Sample

Sample Date

matrix AOCSample


11/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-40 0 48 0.002 25000 -- 1.9 90 0.51 21 0.79 36 -- 28 2400011/16/2009 Soil 2, 6 GPP-44 0 48 0.018 28000 -- 2.6 94 0.49 35 0.071 31 -- 19 2600011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-45 0 48 0.003 27000 -- 2.4 100 0.54 33 0.07 27 -- 16 2400011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-47 0 48 0.0022 9100 -- 9 1300 0.21 28 2.6 17 -- 91 1500011/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-50 0 48 1.8 7300 -- 32 94 0.078 36 0.58 U 14 -- 25 16000

2/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 6 6 0.043 -- 0.963 76.7 114 0.25 U -- 1.36 2.88 2.21 113 --1/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B101 12 12 0.0026 -- 0.75 U 4.18 105 0.577 -- 0.707 26.6 13.4 13.1 --1/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B102 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 2.1 65.2 0.261 -- 0.592 16.8 6.5 20.6 --2/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B103 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 1.21 51.2 0.25 U -- 0.5 U 7.52 4.57 5.52 --2/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B104 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 1.37 56.4 0.288 -- 0.5 U 9.8 7.07 6.08 --

1/30/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B106 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 3.48 92.5 0.425 -- 1.67 26.1 10.6 33 --2/2/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B119 12 12 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B110 18 18 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B114 18 18 0.0051 -- 0.75 U 2.67 48.1 0.448 -- 0.5 U 15.7 12.5 10.4 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B115 18 18 0.0023 -- 0.75 U 2.21 65.9 0.299 -- 0.5 U 11.2 7.53 8.42 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B116 18 18 0.0029 -- 0.75 U 11.6 100 0.29 -- 1.93 11.8 9.28 20.4 --2/3/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B105 24 24 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 3.27 116 0.477 -- 1.32 25 11.4 22.9 --2/3/2012 Soil 2 GPP-B107 24 24 0.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B109 24 24 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 1.66 52.3 0.25 U -- 0.5 U 9.15 7.26 8.01 --2/2/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B111 24 24 0.0034 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B112 24 24 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B113 24 24 0.0046 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B117 24 24 0.0083 -- 0.75 U 6.87 412 0.295 -- 1.05 12.2 7.83 13.6 --2/2/2012 Soil 18 GPP-B118 24 24 0.0032 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Deeper11/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18A 24 96 0.37 27000 -- 15 170 0.4 35 0.6 U 32 -- 25 270004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-25 24 96 0.0023 U 19000 -- 1.6 91 0.34 5.7 U 0.57 U 23 -- 15 210004/21/2009 Soil 3, 4, 5 GPP-27 24 96 0.0012 U 26000 -- 2.3 150 0.39 5.1 0.11 27 -- 18 260004/22/2009 Soil 1 GPP-30 24 96 0.0022 U 11000 -- 0.98 51 0.19 5.5 U 0.55 U 16 -- 8.4 140004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-04 24 144 0.0011 U 9500 -- 2.8 U 51 1.7 U 5.6 U 2.8 U 12 -- 8.5 120004/22/2009 Soil 17 GPP-05 24 144 0.0024 U 14000 -- 2.1 100 1.8 U 5.9 U 2.9 U 22 -- 15 220004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-06 24 144 0.0046 12000 -- 2.2 91 1.7 U 4.8 2.8 U 17 -- 19 170004/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-07 24 144 0.0012 U 10000 -- 3 U 67 1.8 U 5.9 U 3 U 13 -- 18 130004/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10 24 144 0.84 14000 -- 4.8 100 1.7 U 5.7 U 2.9 U 20 -- 13 19000

11/16/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10A 24 144 0.75 18000 -- 6.2 79 0.31 34 0.56 U 22 -- 14 190004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13 24 144 0.0034 3000 -- 3.6 100 1.7 U 13 2.9 U 22 -- 13 23000

11/17/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13A 24 144 0.0038 21000 -- 0.8 100 0.37 27 0.57 U 27 -- 14 220004/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-14 24 144 0.0023 U 2400 -- 2.9 U 110 1.8 U 2.5 2.9 U 22 -- 14 200004/22/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-15 24 144 0.0023 U 3100 -- 2.8 U 77 1.7 U 7.9 2.8 U 24 -- 16 230004/21/2009 Soil 3, 4, 5 GPP-16 24 144 0.0032 3300 -- 2.9 U 99 1.8 U 5.9 2.9 U 24 -- 17 230004/21/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-17 24 144 0.0072 2000 -- 2.8 U 93 1.7 U 4.2 2.8 U 21 -- 16 190004/22/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18 24 144 0.24 3800 -- 4.9 100 1.8 U 10 2.9 U 26 -- 20 240004/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-19 24 144 0.0011 U 2500 -- 3.7 130 1.7 U 7.2 2.8 U 16 -- 240 160004/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-21 24 144 0.0011 U 2600 -- 7 68 1.7 U 8.5 2.8 U 18 -- 27 170004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-29 24 144 0.0023 U 12000 -- 0.92 82 0.22 5.7 U 0.57 U 18 -- 11 16000

11/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-41 24 144 0.0023 12000 -- 1.6 66 0.26 9.3 0.068 18 -- 11 1500011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-42 24 144 0.0016 12000 -- 1.3 68 0.21 11 0.56 U 17 -- 10 1400011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-43 24 144 0.0029 17000 -- 1.8 90 0.23 16 0.074 21 -- 13 1800011/17/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-46 24 144 0.0058 24000 -- 0.79 120 0.35 21 0.58 U 26 -- 19 2400011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-48 24 144 0.0017 17000 -- 0.6 93 0.28 16 0.54 U 21 -- 24 1900011/16/2009 Soil 1 GPP-49 24 144 0.0031 18000 -- 6.1 100 0.3 12 0.076 22 -- 18 2000011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-51 24 144 0.002 22000 -- 1.4 79 0.33 67 0.56 U 22 -- 12 200001/30/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B106 30 30 -- -- 0.75 U 2.23 96.6 0.468 -- 0.574 20 11.5 10.9 --2/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 36 36 -- -- 0.75 U 2.46 49 0.397 -- 0.5 U 13.4 11.1 8.15 --2/3/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B105 48 48 0.0031 -- 0.75 U 4.13 163 0.472 -- 0.722 25.9 10.3 13.7 --2/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B112 48 48 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B114 48 48 -- -- 0.75 U 2.81 60.8 0.413 -- 0.5 U 16.6 7 8.55 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B115 48 48 -- -- 0.75 U 2.13 69.7 0.285 -- 0.5 U 13.8 5.17 8.16 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B116 48 48 -- -- 0.75 U 2.06 102 0.385 -- 0.5 U 18.2 15.2 7.69 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B117 48 48 -- -- 0.75 U 3.35 72.2 0.435 -- 0.5 U 17.3 11.1 9.11 --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 48 72 0.0009 16500 -- 2.7 123 0.444 31 0.163 23.6 -- 20.4 253007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 48 72 0.000291 U 14500 -- 1.71 132 0.42 15.7 0.0384 U 24.2 -- 16.8 24000

2 of 6

OU 2 001886





Bottom of Sample

Sample Date

matrix AOCSample


7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 48 72 0.0224 11000 -- 1.86 108 0.259 12.1 0.169 15.7 -- 11.5 168007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 48 96 0.0009 13400 -- 1.93 108 0.391 22.8 0.0898 22.4 -- 17.6 238007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 48 96 0.0018 11200 -- 1.09 117 0.243 9.15 0.0356 U 15.2 -- 11.2 172007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 48 96 0.0014 13400 -- 1.3 111 0.357 19 0.0375 U 22.9 -- 16.5 233007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 48 96 0.0052 13200 -- 2.62 114 0.383 18.3 0.624 19.4 -- 14.1 22500

4/21/2009 Soil 10 GPP-01 48 96 0.0011 U 11000 -- 2.8 U 70 1.7 U 5.6 U 2.8 U 15 -- 8.9 150004/21/2009 Soil 10 GPP-02 48 96 0.0011 U 12000 -- 2.8 U 55 1.7 U 5.5 U 2.8 U 14 -- 9 150004/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-09 48 96 0.0011 U 23000 -- 7.1 160 1.7 U 43 2.8 U 28 -- 22 260004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-03 48 144 0.0024 11000 -- 2.8 U 70 1.7 U 5.6 U 2.8 U 16 -- 11 170004/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-11 48 144 0.0011 U 1200 -- 2.7 32 1.7 U 3.1 2.8 U 10 -- 5.9 110004/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-20 48 144 0.0013 2100 -- 2.3 79 1.7 U 2.6 2.9 U 18 -- 13 170004/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22 48 144 0.0061 4400 -- 3.8 250 1.8 U 14 3 U 31 -- 23 30000

11/17/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22A 48 144 0.0058 15000 -- 0.72 110 0.25 15 0.57 U 21 -- 11 1800011/16/2009 Soil 19 GPP-38 48 144 0.0012 13000 -- 1.9 91 0.19 9.8 0.41 20 -- 16 1600011/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-39 48 144 0.0014 10000 -- 1.5 90 0.22 8.9 0.26 19 -- 14 1500011/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-40 48 144 0.0028 22000 -- 2.1 1200 0.38 12 2.6 34 -- 89 1700011/16/2009 Soil 2, 6 GPP-44 48 144 0.011 24000 -- 1.9 130 0.38 19 0.59 U 25 -- 17 2300011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-45 48 144 0.0023 11000 -- 1.8 94 0.23 12 0.11 17 -- 12 1400011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-47 48 144 0.0013 17000 -- 0.9 160 0.36 25 0.12 22 -- 16 1900011/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-50 48 144 0.15 15000 -- 0.58 U 90 0.24 19 0.58 U 18 -- 11 180004/21/2009 Soil 1 GPP-12 48 168 0.0015 1600 -- 1.9 50 1.6 U 5.3 U 2.6 U 13 -- 7.4 14000

11/17/2009 Soil 1 GPP-12A 48 192 0.0007 10000 -- 1.4 72 0.13 9.6 0.54 U 15 -- 8.7 140002/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 72 72 -- -- 0.75 U 3.18 126 0.325 -- 0.5 U 13.7 5.72 9.41 --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 72 120 0.000294 U 16400 -- 2.74 116 0.348 17.5 0.15 24.2 -- 21 267007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 96 120 0.000278 U 2530 -- 1.09 30.1 0.0371 U 2.02 0.0371 U 3.49 -- 2.91 37407/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 96 132 0.0015 7930 -- 0.775 101 0.206 6.76 0.037 U 11.7 -- 8.01 133002/3/2012 Soil 2, 6 GPP-B108 180 180 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 -- -- 0.0005 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 -- -- 0.0013 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 -- -- 0.0002 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 -- -- 0.0006 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 -- -- 0.0106 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 -- -- 0.0314 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 -- -- 0.0415 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 -- -- 0.1134 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 -- -- 0.0163 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 -- -- 0.0500 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W1 -- -- 0.039 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Depth AssessmentAverage of Detections

0"-12" 0.03 10514 all ND 6.88 197 0.30 23.9 0.85 15.3 all ND 24.2 204250"-24" 1.27 13502 all ND 6.33 90.7 0.38 42.3 0.31 20.0 all ND 29.3 19286

Comment deeper more conservative

deeper more conservative all ND comparable

shallower more conservative

deeper more conservative





comparable comparable

Overall Shallower (starting 0-24", ending 6"-48") 0.35 12940 0.963 6.90 159 0.35 30.6 0.74 18.4 8.4 25.4 20040Overall Deeper (starting ≥24", ending ≤30") 0.06 12251 all ND 2.69 115 0.32 15.5 0.39 19.8 9.6 18.7 18864

Commenthigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowercomparable comparable

higher shallower

higher shallower

3 of 6

OU 2 001887



USEPA: residential screening level soilCalifornia: CHHSL-res screening level soilECO-SSL: plant screening level soilUSEPA: bird screening level soilUSEPA: invertebrate screening level soilUSEPA: mammal screening level soilMost stringent - Human HealthMost stringent - Ecological Health

Shallower7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E1 0 12

4/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-23 0 64/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-24 0 67/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W1 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W6 0 12

4/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-04 0 244/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-07 0 244/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-08 0 244/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10 0 24

11/16/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10A 0 244/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13 0 24

11/17/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13A 0 244/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-14 0 244/22/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18 0 24

11/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18A 0 244/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-21 0 244/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-25 0 244/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-28 0 244/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-29 0 24

11/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-41 0 2411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-42 0 2411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-43 0 2411/17/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-46 0 2411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-48 0 2411/16/2009 Soil 1 GPP-49 0 2411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-51 0 24

7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 0 48




Bottom of Sample

Sample Date

matrix AOCSample


Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg -- mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg400 -- 1800 10 390 1500 -- 390 390 -- 47000 0.78 -- 23000150 -- -- 18 380 1600 -- 380 380 -- -- 5 530 23000120 -- 220 -- -- -- -- 0.52 -- -- -- -- -- 16011 -- 4300 -- -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -- -- 7.8 46

1700 -- 450 -- -- -- -- 4.1 -- -- -- -- -- 12056 -- 4000 -- -- -- -- 0.63 -- -- -- -- 280 79

150 no SLV 1800 10 380 1500 no SLV 380 380 no SLV 47000 0.78 530 2300011 no SLV 220 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 0.52 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 7.8 46

17.7 3380 442 0.018 0.226 6.36 4270 0.166 U -- 751 56.1 -- 40.3 52.6-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --19 3590 469 0.0132 0.238 8.23 4140 0.163 U -- 337 57.5 -- 42.2 63.6

17.4 3640 490 0.0163 0.079 U 8.3 4210 0.368 -- 543 51.1 -- 48 7144.6 4130 600 0.0246 0.361 10.6 4390 0.546 -- 527 146 -- 47.9 14265.4 4870 453 0.123 0.211 8.06 4180 0.346 -- 867 165 -- 35.6 1168.93 2650 342 0.00625 U 0.287 5.67 3500 0.157 U -- 470 24.6 -- 35.3 35.3317 4100 385 0.199 0.29 9.52 4190 0.398 -- 472 225 -- 43.5 10430 3590 423 0.0551 0.225 9 4430 0.348 -- 434 117 -- 45.2 75.3

32.6 4000 554 0.0227 0.191 10 5240 0.168 U -- 564 39.9 -- 50 86.752.2 5130 336 0.034 0.211 7.77 3760 0.352 -- 628 167 -- 32.6 14720.7 4590 524 0.00635 U 0.2 8.32 4620 0.172 U -- 2540 85.7 -- 45.3 51.4174 4760 477 3.6 0.632 13.1 4290 0.646 -- 916 264 -- 43.4 53226.5 296 75 0.00615 U 0.175 1.92 2710 0.49 -- 319 22.8 -- 6.15 12.532.3 1840 382 0.0471 0.253 7.27 3660 0.522 -- 478 127 -- 32.7 65.554 4010 393 0.0551 0.171 9.43 4480 0.411 -- 1060 117 -- 39.1 97.2

93.7 3510 392 0.534 0.569 12.2 3380 0.788 -- 1220 184 -- 35.9 40127.2 3660 496 0.0329 0.312 11.7 4680 0.455 -- 1340 83.8 -- 47.8 64.48.31 4720 542 0.0063 U 0.087 U 9.93 6870 0.174 U -- 2660 15.5 -- 71.5 41.830.6 4770 483 0.211 0.511 16.9 5530 1.57 -- 801 88.2 -- 59.3 92.244.1 4940 486 0.143 0.489 11.8 3010 0.477 -- 685 209 -- 37.3 70.347.8 2920 398 0.106 0.346 9.55 3110 0.63 -- 635 88.8 -- 36.3 83.159.9 4250 482 0.884 0.342 12.5 5250 0.732 -- 1570 129 -- 42.8 11820 3400 410 0.04 -- 13 4900 5.3 U -- 560 16 -- 56 4260 2100 280 0.16 -- 10 2300 5.2 U -- 360 19 -- 39 6217 5100 400 0.043 -- 15 4900 6 U -- 5700 120 -- 56 61

2.8 U 5100 360 0.022 U -- 10 7100 5.5 U -- 4100 16 -- 68 393.8 3500 550 0.022 U -- 9.5 11000 0.8 -- 8700 11 -- 64 383.3 2600 530 0.021 U -- 10 4800 5.3 U -- 4600 18 -- 51 284 3100 610 0.021 U -- 9 5200 0.37 -- 2800 18 -- 60 32

26 4700 380 0.022 U -- 13 5500 5.4 U -- 1400 17 -- 68 5820 450 36 0.023 U -- 5.8 U 4800 1.1 -- 2700 28 -- 13 7.712 370 38 0.023 U -- 1.2 4400 0.99 -- 2000 26 -- 8.2 623 2600 500 1.4 -- 9.4 3300 5.2 U -- 410 30 -- 53 4811 3200 320 0.021 U -- 8.7 4600 5.4 U -- 1000 7.7 -- 64 368.8 3600 640 0.022 U -- 8.3 5300 0.27 -- 2100 28 -- 62 4351 3900 720 0.039 -- 10 5900 0.24 -- 1100 21 -- 72 726.9 3200 430 0.021 U -- 8.1 4100 0.38 -- 520 18 -- 65 343.9 4300 280 0.022 U -- 8.7 5000 0.36 -- 1800 17 -- 70 364.9 5300 330 0.023 U -- 9.2 7500 0.37 -- 2500 18 -- 81 406.4 5000 740 0.021 U -- 14 7000 0.53 -- 2100 25 -- 83 487.1 3700 410 0.021 U -- 8.5 4200 0.45 -- 1600 16 -- 68 346.7 4300 840 0.022 U -- 11 5600 0.39 -- 800 15 -- 78 4727 3400 260 0.023 U -- 13 6500 0.78 -- 5500 500 -- 38 81

9.16 3790 628 0.0142 0.0875 U 8.18 5260 0.176 U -- 677 37.2 -- 50.9 49.24.51 4910 546 0.0065 U 0.091 U 8.24 5670 0.182 U -- 2020 18.7 -- 64.9 39.815.7 2990 504 0.0335 0.087 U 8.33 4620 0.174 U -- 384 84.6 -- 44.7 58.38.12 4470 498 0.00675 U 0.0915 U 10.1 6800 0.183 U -- 801 50 -- 59 52.117.1 3980 585 0.0156 0.222 8.48 5510 0.168 U -- 714 24.2 -- 55.4 45.78.07 4870 573 0.119 0.0905 U 25.7 6140 0.18 U -- 2390 29 -- 67.9 5515.8 3990 473 0.0365 0.337 12.1 4780 0.899 -- 1300 54.8 -- 53 58.55.6 1600 360 0.012 -- 5.4 2600 5.2 U -- 270 11 -- 36 4916 4300 610 0.014 -- 12 5900 0.83 -- 1100 19 -- 71 5974 5000 270 0.065 -- 26 4700 5.9 U -- 4600 140 -- 62 1506 4500 830 0.015 -- 12 5600 5.4 U -- 1000 19 -- 69 43

12 3700 720 0.013 -- 6.2 2600 0.31 -- 1500 25 -- 36 4052 7900 510 0.022 U -- 12 5400 0.92 -- 1300 170 -- 64 4825 6800 600 0.022 U -- 11 6400 0.62 -- 2700 97 -- 64 395.2 4100 220 0.019 -- 8.1 4900 0.26 -- 380 24 -- 67 418.1 6000 580 0.022 U -- 14 6900 0.57 -- 420 32 -- 87 56

4 of 6

OU 2 001888




Bottom of Sample

Sample Date

matrix AOCSample


11/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-40 0 4811/16/2009 Soil 2, 6 GPP-44 0 4811/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-45 0 4811/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-47 0 4811/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-50 0 48

2/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 6 61/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B101 12 121/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B102 12 122/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B103 12 122/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B104 12 12

1/30/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B106 12 122/2/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B119 12 122/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B110 18 182/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B114 18 182/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B115 18 182/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B116 18 182/3/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B105 24 242/3/2012 Soil 2 GPP-B107 24 242/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B109 24 242/2/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B111 24 242/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B112 24 242/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B113 24 242/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B117 24 242/2/2012 Soil 18 GPP-B118 24 24

Deeper11/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18A 24 964/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-25 24 964/21/2009 Soil 3, 4, 5 GPP-27 24 964/22/2009 Soil 1 GPP-30 24 964/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-04 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 17 GPP-05 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-06 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-07 24 1444/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10 24 144


11/17/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13A 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-14 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-15 24 1444/21/2009 Soil 3, 4, 5 GPP-16 24 1444/21/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-17 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-19 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-21 24 1444/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-29 24 144

11/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-41 24 14411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-42 24 14411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-43 24 14411/17/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-46 24 14411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-48 24 14411/16/2009 Soil 1 GPP-49 24 14411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-51 24 1441/30/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B106 30 302/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 36 362/3/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B105 48 482/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B112 48 482/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B114 48 482/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B115 48 482/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B116 48 482/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B117 48 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 48 727/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 48 72



1700 -- 450 -- -- -- -- 4.1 -- -- -- -- -- 12056 -- 4000 -- -- -- -- 0.63 -- -- -- -- 280 79

150 no SLV 1800 10 380 1500 no SLV 380 380 no SLV 47000 0.78 530 2300011 no SLV 220 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 0.52 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 7.8 468.8 4700 610 0.057 -- 13 6200 0.71 -- 400 29 -- 79 605.7 5100 550 0.023 U -- 13 6900 0.46 -- 2000 23 -- 78 486.4 4600 450 0.022 U -- 13 6500 0.55 -- 1400 20 -- 79 4764 7000 180 0.044 -- 18 2500 1.1 -- 1700 160 -- 40 11048 1100 79 0.052 -- 220 5000 2 -- 2600 44 -- 310 15

56.8 -- -- 0.0835 U 1.34 14.6 -- 0.75 U 0.764 -- -- 0.75 U 12.5 2457.57 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 10.4 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 81.5 49.48.35 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 5.15 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 29.7 41.52.14 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.04 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 20.8 14.52.87 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.25 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 31.1 19.911.3 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 8.8 -- 0.75 U 0.575 -- -- 0.75 U 53 64.3

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

4.46 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.77 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 56.1 27.83.51 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.24 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 37.6 18.327.4 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.88 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 33.1 4337.58 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 9.32 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 62.6 50.7

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --5 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.76 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 31.9 18.6-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15.6 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 6.96 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 36.3 35.9-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4.7 6300 200 0.024 U -- 11 8300 0.47 -- 2200 19 -- 85 527.8 5100 300 0.023 U -- 6.7 6100 0.23 -- 2200 15 -- 82 435.8 6200 720 0.023 U -- 11 7900 0.29 -- 1900 35 -- 91 472.4 2400 230 0.022 U -- 4.3 2200 1.1 U -- 810 12 -- 50 224.7 2300 240 0.023 U -- 9.1 3000 5.6 U -- 1000 11 -- 36 277 5100 300 0.024 U -- 16 5300 5.9 U -- 2000 23 -- 67 58

15 3300 410 0.18 -- 12 4200 5.7 U -- 1700 18 -- 49 507.8 2200 190 0.095 -- 10 2600 5.9 U -- 1100 16 -- 38 3502.9 4700 290 0.023 U -- 9.4 6800 5.7 U -- 4100 14 -- 60 382.9 4100 260 0.023 U -- 9 7400 0.48 -- 4700 14 -- 62 363.6 4800 360 0.023 U -- 12 6200 5.7 U -- 1900 14 -- 79 413 5500 380 0.023 U -- 10 6400 0.44 -- 2300 20 -- 71 36

3.8 4800 750 0.023 U -- 13 4700 5.8 U -- 2100 16 -- 69 364 4900 480 0.023 U -- 13 5500 5.7 U -- 1800 14 -- 73 46

2.9 U 5600 350 0.023 U -- 13 6800 5.8 U -- 1800 17 -- 73 435.7 4200 400 0.023 U -- 12 4500 5.6 U -- 1600 16 -- 68 353.6 4900 260 0.023 U -- 9.3 6200 5.8 U -- 2100 14 -- 79 488.7 3100 190 0.023 U -- 6.5 3300 5.7 U -- 2200 26 -- 51 358.4 3200 320 0.7 -- 7.3 3800 5.6 U -- 1300 14 -- 54 372.8 3500 570 0.023 U -- 5.2 3900 1.1 U -- 1400 14 -- 56 284.4 2800 210 0.022 U -- 6.3 3200 0.29 -- 1000 16 -- 49 303.2 2800 250 0.022 U -- 6.3 3100 1.1 U -- 920 16 -- 49 266.4 4100 280 0.022 U -- 7.7 4800 1.1 U -- 1400 28 -- 60 413.3 6300 290 0.024 U -- 11 7100 1.2 U -- 2800 22 -- 75 455.3 4300 260 0.022 U -- 8.2 4500 1.1 U -- 2200 23 -- 61 345.1 4000 310 0.022 U -- 8.4 4500 1.1 U -- 1700 14 -- 67 413.9 4100 300 0.023 U -- 8.5 7300 0.38 -- 2400 18 -- 62 30

4.91 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.84 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 64.6 35.13.9 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 6.52 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 43.7 23.4

4.34 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 9.31 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 77 48.2-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3.47 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 6.32 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 54.3 33.12.66 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.94 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 36.6 29.33.31 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.22 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 59.1 333.67 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.57 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 59.7 34.214.6 5330 517 0.0153 0.089 U 11.3 7690 0.178 U -- 1110 49.4 -- 64.6 61.24.56 6400 374 0.0072 U 0.096 U 9.69 8660 0.192 U -- 1370 21.1 -- 65.3 50.8

5 of 6

OU 2 001889




Bottom of Sample

Sample Date

matrix AOCSample


7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 48 727/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 48 967/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 48 967/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 48 967/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 48 96

4/21/2009 Soil 10 GPP-01 48 964/21/2009 Soil 10 GPP-02 48 964/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-09 48 964/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-03 48 1444/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-11 48 1444/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-20 48 1444/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22 48 144

11/17/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22A 48 14411/16/2009 Soil 19 GPP-38 48 14411/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-39 48 14411/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-40 48 14411/16/2009 Soil 2, 6 GPP-44 48 14411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-45 48 14411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-47 48 14411/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-50 48 1444/21/2009 Soil 1 GPP-12 48 168

11/17/2009 Soil 1 GPP-12A 48 1922/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 72 727/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 72 1207/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 96 1207/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 96 1322/3/2012 Soil 2, 6 GPP-B108 180 1807/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W1 -- --

Depth AssessmentAverage of Detections

0"-12"0"-24"

Comment

Overall Shallower (starting 0-24", ending 6"-48")Overall Deeper (starting ≥24", ending ≤30")

Comment



1700 -- 450 -- -- -- -- 4.1 -- -- -- -- -- 12056 -- 4000 -- -- -- -- 0.63 -- -- -- -- 280 79

150 no SLV 1800 10 380 1500 no SLV 380 380 no SLV 47000 0.78 530 2300011 no SLV 220 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 0.52 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 7.8 469.9 4090 318 0.151 0.232 6.99 3970 0.178 U -- 1910 29.3 -- 42.4 54.3

6.52 5520 492 0.00695 U 0.225 9.32 7040 0.184 U -- 1610 22.8 -- 66.8 52.12.94 4650 325 0.00695 U 0.191 7.41 5490 0.178 U -- 1740 17.5 -- 46.3 35.53.73 6360 483 0.00735 U 0.191 10.3 8020 0.188 U -- 2000 13.2 -- 63.8 48.212 5980 284 0.0175 0.233 10 7720 0.548 -- 2260 28.7 -- 56.6 51.4

2.8 U 2800 280 0.022 U -- 5.7 3500 5.6 U -- 1500 12 -- 48 323.1 2900 250 0.022 U -- 6.2 3500 5.5 U -- 1400 9.7 -- 45 308.6 5600 600 0.022 U -- 13 10000 5.6 U -- 2900 76 -- 78 552.5 3700 350 0.022 U -- 10 4700 5.6 U -- 1400 9.7 -- 50 311.3 2000 140 0.023 U -- 6.7 2100 5.7 U -- 1400 9 -- 38 162.6 3900 290 0.023 U -- 6.7 4100 5.8 U -- 1800 14 -- 58 489.9 8100 550 0.024 U -- 14 9900 5.9 U -- 2700 30 -- 89 603.6 4000 360 0.023 U -- 7.5 4800 0.32 -- 2100 19 -- 63 264.5 3200 280 0.021 U -- 7.2 3500 0.26 -- 450 29 -- 51 343.4 3500 230 0.021 U -- 6 3300 0.41 -- 410 32 -- 54 3161 3300 520 0.013 -- 22 3800 1.2 -- 690 19 -- 88 1205.4 6000 360 0.024 U -- 10 6700 1.2 U -- 2300 24 -- 71 455.6 3300 310 0.023 U -- 6.4 3500 0.45 -- 1200 23 -- 49 386.9 4000 430 0.023 U -- 9.8 5000 0.31 -- 2600 26 -- 59 413.7 4200 150 0.024 U -- 8.2 4100 0.34 -- 2100 15 -- 56 271.8 2800 160 0.021 U -- 7.7 3200 5.3 U -- 760 15 -- 50 192.7 2700 220 0.021 U -- 5.4 3000 1.1 U -- 1200 12 -- 47 24

3.38 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 5.23 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 47.8 30.49.53 6060 486 0.0149 0.277 10.3 7820 0.17 U -- 1240 51.4 -- 60.2 62.9

0.613 964 35.9 0.00695 U 0.093 U 1.21 1330 0.186 U -- 758 8.15 -- 15.1 7.042.2 3350 240 0.00635 U 0.0925 U 4.98 3740 0.185 U -- 1260 12.4 -- 38.6 25-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

55.6 3788 437 0.34 0.31 9.46 4268 0.57 all ND 901 112 all ND 41.7 11516.1 3472 432 0.34 all ND 9.98 5424 0.54 all ND 2493 46.9 all ND 58.0 42.5



comparable comparableshallower more

conservativedeeper more conservative


shallower more conservative all ND deeper more

conservativeshallower more

conservative all ND deeper more conservative


28.4 3932 454 0.22 0.35 12.9 4979 0.62 0.67 1591 71.3 all ND 55.0 74.25.98 4246 336 0.15 0.22 8.79 5181 0.43 all ND 1756 20.5 all ND 59.2 44.3

higher shallower

comparablehigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowerhigher

shallowercomparable

higher shallower

higher shallower

comparablehigher

shallowerall ND comparable

higher shallower

6 of 6

OU 2 001890


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONCHEMICAL OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPC) SCREENING

Perchlorate Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Ironmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

USEPA: residential screening level soil 55 77000 31 0.39 15000 160 16000 70 120000 23 3100 55000California: CHHSL-res screening level soil -- -- 30 0.07 5200 150 -- 1.7 100000 660 300 --ECO-SSL: plant screening level soil -- -- -- 18 -- -- -- 32 -- -- 70 --USEPA: bird screening level soil -- -- -- 43 -- -- -- 0.77 -- -- 28 --USEPA: invertebrate screening level soil -- -- 78 -- 330 40 -- 140 -- -- 80 --USEPA: mammal screening level soil -- -- 0.27 46 2000 21 -- 0.36 -- -- 49 --

Most stringent - Human Health 55 77000 30 0.07 5200 150 16000 1.7 100000 23 300 55000

Most stringent - Ecological Health no SLV no SLV 0.27 18 330 21 no SLV 0.36 no SLV no SLV 28 no SLV

mg/kg7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E1 0 12 0.00301 10200 -- 7.00 109 0.275 28.5 0.315 14.0 -- 12.5 14800

4/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-23 0 6 0.0018 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --4/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-24 0 6 0.0015 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E2 0 12 0.0030 10500 -- 3.53 109 0.297 19.6 0.315 16.1 -- 17.1 177007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E3 0 12 0.0007 11500 -- 4.10 162 0.326 13.6 0.364 16.5 -- 18.3 190007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E4 0 12 0.0017 12700 -- 6.70 233 0.325 23.0 0.967 17.4 -- 32.7 210007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 12 0.0019 10200 -- 8.47 156 0.275 34.8 0.847 13.6 -- 22.7 208007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 12 0.0014 9570 -- 2.77 98.6 0.265 18.0 0.119 12.2 -- 11.1 133007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 12 0.0008 11400 -- 9.50 671 0.289 25.9 0.876 15.0 -- 33.6 182007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 12 0.0005 11400 -- 6.57 123 0.315 21.5 0.490 15.0 -- 22.1 190007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 12 0.0051 12300 -- 2.58 106 0.325 18.7 0.275 17.5 -- 21.1 212007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N4 0 12 0.0013 9040 -- 6.80 361 0.239 32.0 0.956 12.8 -- 36.4 129007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N5 0 12 0.0059 11000 -- 3.75 126 0.315 20.6 0.371 15.9 -- 16.9 157007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 12 0.0094 10600 -- 15.5 162 0.304 40.6 3.110 17.2 -- 50.2 418007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 0 12 0.2710 2710 -- 9.84 62.3 0.0330 U 12.5 0.106 3.56 -- 8.45 93407/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 0 12 0.0954 8180 -- 9.56 76.4 0.200 18.7 0.400 13.2 -- 21.6 148007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 0 12 0.0072 11000 -- 6.60 128 0.280 23.3 0.559 15.3 -- 30.6 194007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 0 12 0.0599 8470 -- 13.4 236 0.242 25.3 2.87 15.2 -- 43.4 285007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W1 0 12 0.0112 11600 -- 3.98 252 0.33 16.1 0.785 17 -- 20.2 217007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W2 0 12 0.0187 15600 -- 3.01 103 0.474 26.8 0.0777 24.2 -- 14.8 275007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W3 0 12 0.0242 14900 -- 5.4 321 0.365 21.2 1.98 20.6 -- 23.7 250007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W4 0 12 0.007 8910 -- 8.9 132 0.262 43.2 0.973 14.9 -- 25.9 294007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W5 0 12 0.0202 8830 -- 7.19 220 0.236 21.7 0.586 12.4 -- 23 161007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W6 0 12 0.0228 10700 -- 6.13 376 0.326 19.9 1.3 17.4 -- 26.5 22200

4/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-04 0 24 0.0011 U 18000 -- 2.5 73 1.6 U 5.3 U 2.7 U 20 -- 19 190004/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-07 0 24 0.0021 U 8800 -- 4.7 70 1.5 U 5.2 U 2.6 U 13 -- 81 140004/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-08 0 24 0.0012 U 16000 -- 4.5 97 1.8 U 7.8 0.56 22 -- 34 210004/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10 0 24 4.7 18000 -- 3.5 100 1.7 U 5.5 U 2.8 U 23 -- 15 21000

11/16/2009 Soil 2 GPP-10A 0 24 7.7 16000 -- 14 100 0.44 120 0.081 24 -- 16 200004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13 0 24 0.092 2100 -- 4 58 1.6 U 34 2.7 U 17 -- 10 16000

11/17/2009 Soil 7 GPP-13A 0 24 0.0037 20000 -- 1.3 69 0.34 34 0.14 21 -- 13 180004/22/2009 Soil 11 GPP-14 0 24 0.0025 2400 -- 3.2 140 1.6 U 5.4 U 2.7 U 19 -- 15 210004/22/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18 0 24 1.2 650 -- 25 140 1.7 U 12 2.9 U 5.2 -- 12 14000

11/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18A 0 24 6.5 2500 -- 21 75 0.34 U 17 0.56 U 4.6 -- 7.3 140004/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-21 0 24 0.011 3900 -- 11 74 1.6 U 11 2.6 U 19 -- 170 160004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-25 0 24 0.0022 U 3200 -- 2.9 57 1.6 U 16 2.7 U 21 -- 15 200004/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-28 0 24 0.008 19000 -- 2.6 85 0.39 16 0.13 21 -- 15 180004/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-29 0 24 0.0026 21000 -- 2.2 77 0.39 14 0.25 22 -- 36 25000

11/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-41 0 24 0.0038 16000 -- 2.2 92 0.33 17 0.073 21 -- 13 1900011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-42 0 24 0.0033 22000 -- 1.8 72 0.37 17 0.54 U 24 -- 13 2200011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-43 0 24 0.0035 20000 -- 2 70 0.42 28 0.57 U 27 -- 13 2500011/17/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-46 0 24 0.011 U 29000 -- 1.4 190 0.52 40 0.14 34 -- 21 2600011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-48 0 24 0.0054 15000 -- 0.91 78 0.37 17 0.54 U 23 -- 53 2000011/16/2009 Soil 1 GPP-49 0 24 0.0072 21000 -- 6.3 110 0.44 18 0.13 27 -- 18 2400011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-51 0 24 0.021 9000 -- 16 77 0.2 300 1.3 13 -- 25 12000

7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 48 0.0009 11400 -- 2.90 109.0 0.327 31.7 0.19 17.4 -- 16.2 182007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 48 0.0027 12000 -- 2.42 132.0 0.427 20.7 0.04 U 21.8 -- 14.2 226007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 48 0.0011 10600 -- 3.68 99.6 0.305 27.9 0.36 17.1 -- 18.0 184007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 48 0.0006 15100 -- 3.10 95.2 0.418 28.7 0.21 22.9 -- 17.5 232007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 48 0.0006 12200 -- 2.11 95.8 0.371 29.2 0.11 18.9 -- 14.7 200007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 48 0.0131 14700 -- 4.1 246 0.493 31.6 0.12 21.9 -- 15.1 260007/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 0 48 0.0071 12200 -- 3.56 159.0 0.384 30.0 1.18 17.8 -- 14.2 17800

4/21/2009 Soil 10 GPP-01 0 48 0.001 U 7100 -- 2.6 U 45 1.5 U 5.20 U 2.6 U 12 -- 9.7 120004/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-03 0 48 0.006 17000 -- 4.3 110 1.6 U 9.1 2.7 U 24 -- 20 220004/21/2009 Soil 16 GPP-09 0 48 0.0012 U 12000 -- 6.1 170 1.8 U 15 1 19 -- 56 160004/21/2009 Soil 2 GPP-11 0 48 0.003 15000 -- 2.7 89 1.6 U 5.4 U 2.7 U 23 -- 18 22000

11/17/2009 Soil 1 GPP-12A 0 48 0.002 8400 -- 7.1 240 0.4 8.3 0.11 12 -- 17 130004/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22 0 48 0.0052 3200 -- 15 810 1.7 U 52 1.6 22 -- 26 19000

Bottom of Sample

Sample Date matrix AOCSample


1 of 4

OU 2 001891



Perchlorate Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Ironmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

USEPA: residential screening level soil 55 77000 31 0.39 15000 160 16000 70 120000 23 3100 55000California: CHHSL-res screening level soil -- -- 30 0.07 5200 150 -- 1.7 100000 660 300 --ECO-SSL: plant screening level soil -- -- -- 18 -- -- -- 32 -- -- 70 --USEPA: bird screening level soil -- -- -- 43 -- -- -- 0.77 -- -- 28 --USEPA: invertebrate screening level soil -- -- 78 -- 330 40 -- 140 -- -- 80 --USEPA: mammal screening level soil -- -- 0.27 46 2000 21 -- 0.36 -- -- 49 --

Most stringent - Human Health 55 77000 30 0.07 5200 150 16000 1.7 100000 23 300 55000

Most stringent - Ecological Health no SLV no SLV 0.27 18 330 21 no SLV 0.36 no SLV no SLV 28 no SLV

mg/kg

Bottom of Sample



11/17/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22A 0 48 0.015 18000 -- 7 540 0.35 60 0.76 24 -- 19 1900011/16/2009 Soil 19 GPP-38 0 48 0.0011 19000 -- 1.9 91 0.28 14 0.37 24 -- 18 2100011/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-39 0 48 0.0018 29000 -- 1.7 120 0.42 21 0.5 35 -- 25 3300011/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-40 0 48 0.002 25000 -- 1.9 90 0.51 21 0.79 36 -- 28 2400011/16/2009 Soil 2, 6 GPP-44 0 48 0.018 28000 -- 2.6 94 0.49 35 0.071 31 -- 19 2600011/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-45 0 48 0.003 27000 -- 2.4 100 0.54 33 0.07 27 -- 16 2400011/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-47 0 48 0.0022 9100 -- 9 1300 0.21 28 2.6 17 -- 91 1500011/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-50 0 48 1.8 7300 -- 32 94 0.078 36 0.58 U 14 -- 25 16000

2/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 6 6 0.043 -- 0.963 76.7 114 0.25 U -- 1.36 2.88 2.21 113 --1/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B101 12 12 0.0026 -- 0.75 U 4.18 105 0.577 -- 0.707 26.6 13.4 13.1 --1/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B102 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 2.1 65.2 0.261 -- 0.592 16.8 6.5 20.6 --2/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B103 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 1.21 51.2 0.25 U -- 0.5 U 7.52 4.57 5.52 --2/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B104 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 1.37 56.4 0.288 -- 0.5 U 9.8 7.07 6.08 --

1/30/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B106 12 12 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 3.48 92.5 0.425 -- 1.67 26.1 10.6 33 --2/2/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B119 12 12 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B110 18 18 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B114 18 18 0.0051 -- 0.75 U 2.67 48.1 0.448 -- 0.5 U 15.7 12.5 10.4 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B115 18 18 0.0023 -- 0.75 U 2.21 65.9 0.299 -- 0.5 U 11.2 7.53 8.42 --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B116 18 18 0.0029 -- 0.75 U 11.6 100 0.29 -- 1.93 11.8 9.28 20.4 --2/3/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B105 24 24 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 3.27 116 0.477 -- 1.32 25 11.4 22.9 --2/3/2012 Soil 2 GPP-B107 24 24 0.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B109 24 24 0.002 U -- 0.75 U 1.66 52.3 0.25 U -- 0.5 U 9.15 7.26 8.01 --2/2/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B111 24 24 0.0034 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B112 24 24 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B113 24 24 0.0046 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --2/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B117 24 24 0.0083 -- 0.75 U 6.87 412 0.295 -- 1.05 12.2 7.83 13.6 --2/2/2012 Soil 18 GPP-B118 24 24 0.0032 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

COPC ScreeningMaximum 7.70 29000 0.963 76.7 1300 0.58 300 3.11 36.0 15.2 240 41800Human Health COPC YES YESEcological COPC YES (1) YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

2 of 4

OU 2 001892



USEPA: residential screening level soilCalifornia: CHHSL-res screening level soilECO-SSL: plant screening level soilUSEPA: bird screening level soilUSEPA: invertebrate screening level soilUSEPA: mammal screening level soil

Most stringent - Human Health

Most stringent - Ecological Health

mg/kg7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E1 0 12

4/22/2009 Soil 20 GPP-23 0 64/22/2009 Soil 14 GPP-24 0 67/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W1 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W2 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W3 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W4 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W5 0 127/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W6 0 12




11/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-18A 0 244/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-21 0 244/21/2009 Soil 13 GPP-25 0 244/22/2009 Soil 8, 9 GPP-28 0 244/22/2009 Soil 7 GPP-29 0 24

11/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-41 0 2411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-42 0 2411/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-43 0 2411/17/2009 Soil 11, 18 GPP-46 0 2411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-48 0 2411/16/2009 Soil 1 GPP-49 0 2411/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-51 0 24

7/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E5 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 E6 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N1 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N2 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 N3 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 S1 0 487/1/2008 Soil 3, 4, 5 W7 0 48



Bottom of Sample



Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Thallium Vanadium Zincmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg -- mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

400 -- 1800 10 390 1500 -- 390 390 -- 47000 0.78 -- 23000150 -- -- 18 380 1600 -- 380 380 -- -- 5 530 23000120 -- 220 -- -- -- -- 0.52 -- -- -- -- -- 16011 -- 4300 -- -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -- -- 7.8 46

1700 -- 450 -- -- -- -- 4.1 -- -- -- -- -- 12056 -- 4000 -- -- 13.6 -- 0.63 -- -- -- -- 280 79

150 no SLV 1800 10 380 1500 no SLV 380 380 no SLV 47000 0.78 530 23000

11 no SLV 220 no SLV no SLV 13.6 no SLV 0.52 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 7.8 46

17.7 3380 442 0.018 0.22600 6.36000 4270 0.16600 -- 751 56.1 -- 40.3 52.6-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --19 3590 469 0.0132 0.2380 8.2300 4140 0.1630 -- 337 57.5 -- 42.2 63.6

17.4 3640 490 0.0163 0.0790 8.3000 4210 0.3680 -- 543 51.1 -- 48.0 71.044.6 4130 600 0.0246 0.3610 10.6000 4390 0.5460 -- 527 146 -- 47.9 14265.4 4870 453 0.123 0.2110 8.0600 4180 0.3460 -- 867 165 -- 35.6 1168.93 2650 342 0.00625 0.2870 5.6700 3500 0.1570 -- 470 24.6 -- 35.3 35.3317 4100 385 0.199 0.2900 9.5200 4190 0.3980 -- 472 225 -- 43.5 10430 3590 423 0.0551 0.2250 9.0000 4430 0.3480 -- 434 117 -- 45.2 75.3

32.6 4000 554 0.0227 0.1910 10.0000 5240 0.1680 -- 564 39.9 -- 50.0 86.752.2 5130 336 0.034 0.2110 7.7700 3760 0.3520 -- 628 167 -- 32.6 14720.7 4590 524 0.00635 U 0.2 8.32 4620 0.172 U -- 2540 85.7 -- 45.3 51.4174 4760 477 3.6 0.6320 13.1000 4290 0.6460 -- 916 264 -- 43.4 53226.5 296 75 0.00615 U 0.1750 1.9200 2710 0.4900 -- 319 22.8 -- 6.2 12.532.3 1840 382 0.0471 0.2530 7.2700 3660 0.5220 -- 478 127 -- 32.7 65.554 4010 393 0.0551 0.1710 9.4300 4480 0.4110 -- 1060 117 -- 39.1 97.2

93.7 3510 392 0.534 0.569 12.2 3380 0.788 -- 1220 184 -- 35.9 40127.2 3660 496 0.0329 0.312 11.7 4680 0.455 -- 1340 83.8 -- 47.8 64.48.31 4720 542 0.0063 U 0.087 U 9.93 6870 0.174 U -- 2660 15.5 -- 71.5 41.830.6 4770 483 0.211 0.511 16.9 5530 1.57 -- 801 88.2 -- 59.3 92.244.1 4940 486 0.143 0.489 11.8 3010 0.477 -- 685 209 -- 37.3 70.347.8 2920 398 0.106 0.346 9.55 3110 0.63 -- 635 88.8 -- 36.3 83.159.9 4250 482 0.884 0.342 12.5 5250 0.732 -- 1570 129 -- 42.8 11820 3400 410 0.04 -- 13 4900 5.3 U -- 560 16 -- 56 4260 2100 280 0.16 -- 10 2300 5.2 U -- 360 19 -- 39 6217 5100 400 0.043 -- 15 4900 6.0 U -- 5700 120 -- 56 612.8 U 5100 360 0.022 U -- 10 7100 5.5 U -- 4100 16 -- 68 393.8 3500 550 0.022 U -- 9.5 11000 0.8 -- 8700 11 -- 64 383.3 2600 530 0.021 U -- 10 4800 5.3 U -- 4600 18 -- 51 284 3100 610 0.021 U -- 9 5200 0.37 -- 2800 18 -- 60 32

26 4700 380 0.022 U -- 13 5500 5.4 U -- 1400 17 -- 68 5820 450 36 0.023 U -- 5.8 U 4800 1.1 -- 2700 28 -- 13 7.712 370 38 0.023 U -- 1.2 4400 0.99 -- 2000 26 -- 8.2 623 2600 500 1.4 -- 9.4 3300 5.2 U -- 410 30 -- 53 4811 3200 320 0.021 U -- 8.7 4600 5.4 U -- 1000 7.7 -- 64 368.8 3600 640 0.022 U -- 8.3 5300 0.27 -- 2100 28 -- 62 4351 3900 720 0.039 -- 10 5900 0.24 -- 1100 21 -- 72 726.9 3200 430 0.021 U -- 8.1 4100 0.38 -- 520 18 -- 65 343.9 4300 280 0.022 U -- 8.7 5000 0.36 -- 1800 17 -- 70 364.9 5300 330 0.023 U -- 9.2 7500 0.37 -- 2500 18 -- 81 406.4 5000 740 0.021 U -- 14 7000 0.53 -- 2100 25 -- 83 487.1 3700 410 0.021 U -- 8.5 4200 0.45 -- 1600 16 -- 68 346.7 4300 840 0.022 U -- 11 5600 0.39 -- 800 15 -- 78 4727 3400 260 0.023 U -- 13 6500 0.78 -- 5500 500 -- 38 81

9.16 3790 628 0.0142 0.0875 U 8.18 5260 0.176 U -- 677 37.2 -- 50.9 49.24.51 4910 546 0.0065 U 0.0910 U 8.24 5670 0.182 U -- 2020 18.7 -- 64.9 39.815.7 2990 504 0.0335 0.0870 U 8.33 4620 0.174 U -- 384 84.6 -- 44.7 58.38.12 4470 498 0.00675 U 0.0915 U 10.10 6800 0.183 U -- 801 50.0 -- 59.0 52.117.1 3980 585 0.0156 0.2220 8.48 5510 0.168 U -- 714 24.2 -- 55.4 45.78.07 4870 573 0.119 0.0905 U 25.7 6140 0.18 U -- 2390 29.0 -- 67.9 5515.8 3990 473 0.0365 0.34 12.1 4780 0.90 -- 1300 54.8 -- 53.0 58.55.6 1600 360 0.012 -- 5.4 2600 5.2 U -- 270 11 -- 36 4916 4300 610 0.014 -- 12 5900 0.83 -- 1100 19 -- 71 5974 5000 270 0.065 -- 26 4700 5.9 U -- 4600 140 -- 62 1506 4500 830 0.015 -- 12 5600 5.4 U -- 1000 19 -- 69 43

12 3700 720 0.013 -- 6.2 2600 0.31 -- 1500 25 -- 36 4052 7900 510 0.022 U -- 12 5400 0.92 -- 1300 170 -- 64 48

3 of 4

OU 2 001893



USEPA: residential screening level soilCalifornia: CHHSL-res screening level soilECO-SSL: plant screening level soilUSEPA: bird screening level soilUSEPA: invertebrate screening level soilUSEPA: mammal screening level soil

Most stringent - Human Health

Most stringent - Ecological Health

mg/kg

Bottom of Sample



11/17/2009 Soil 14 GPP-22A 0 4811/16/2009 Soil 19 GPP-38 0 4811/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-39 0 4811/17/2009 Soil 19 GPP-40 0 4811/16/2009 Soil 2, 6 GPP-44 0 4811/16/2009 Soil 6 GPP-45 0 4811/17/2009 Soil 20 GPP-47 0 4811/17/2009 Soil 15 GPP-50 0 48

2/1/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B121 6 61/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B101 12 121/30/2012 Soil B GPP-B102 12 122/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B103 12 122/1/2012 Soil B GPP-B104 12 12

1/30/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B106 12 122/2/2012 Soil 20 GPP-B119 12 122/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B110 18 182/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B114 18 182/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B115 18 182/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B116 18 182/3/2012 Soil 19 GPP-B105 24 242/3/2012 Soil 2 GPP-B107 24 242/1/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B109 24 242/2/2012 Soil 13 GPP-B111 24 242/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B112 24 242/2/2012 Soil 7 GPP-B113 24 242/2/2012 Soil 15 GPP-B117 24 242/2/2012 Soil 18 GPP-B118 24 24

COPC ScreeningMaximumHuman Health COPCEcological COPC

Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Thallium Vanadium Zincmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg -- mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

400 -- 1800 10 390 1500 -- 390 390 -- 47000 0.78 -- 23000150 -- -- 18 380 1600 -- 380 380 -- -- 5 530 23000120 -- 220 -- -- -- -- 0.52 -- -- -- -- -- 16011 -- 4300 -- -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -- -- 7.8 46

1700 -- 450 -- -- -- -- 4.1 -- -- -- -- -- 12056 -- 4000 -- -- 13.6 -- 0.63 -- -- -- -- 280 79

150 no SLV 1800 10 380 1500 no SLV 380 380 no SLV 47000 0.78 530 23000

11 no SLV 220 no SLV no SLV 13.6 no SLV 0.52 no SLV no SLV no SLV no SLV 7.8 46

25 6800 600 0.022 U -- 11 6400 0.62 -- 2700 97 -- 64 395.2 4100 220 0.019 -- 8.1 4900 0.26 -- 380 24 -- 67 418.1 6000 580 0.022 U -- 14 6900 0.57 -- 420 32 -- 87 568.8 4700 610 0.057 -- 13 6200 0.71 -- 400 29 -- 79 605.7 5100 550 0.023 U -- 13 6900 0.46 -- 2000 23 -- 78 486.4 4600 450 0.022 U -- 13 6500 0.55 -- 1400 20 -- 79 4764 7000 180 0.044 -- 18 2500 1.1 -- 1700 160 -- 40 11048 1100 79 0.052 -- 220 5000 2.0 -- 2600 44 -- 310 15

56.8 -- -- 0.0835 U 1.34 14.6 -- 0.75 U 0.764 -- -- 0.75 U 12.5 2457.57 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 10.4 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 81.5 49.48.35 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 5.15 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 29.7 41.52.14 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.04 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 20.8 14.52.87 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.25 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 31.1 19.911.3 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 8.8 -- 0.75 U 0.575 -- -- 0.75 U 53 64.3

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

4.46 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.77 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 56.1 27.83.51 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.24 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 37.6 18.327.4 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.88 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 33.1 4337.58 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 9.32 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 62.6 50.7

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --5 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.76 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 31.9 18.6-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

15.6 -- -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 6.96 -- 0.75 U 0.25 U -- -- 0.75 U 36.3 35.9-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

317 8100 840 3.60 1.34 220 11000 2.0 0.764 8700 500 310 532YES (2) (2) (2)YES (2) YES YES YES YES (2) YES YES (2) YES (3) YES YES

Notes:-- Indicates no results

COPCs are analytes with maximum concentrations over the most stringent SLV. If there is no SLV, the analyte was retained, except where noted.Italicized results were nondetects that were excluded form the risk calculations due to elevated reporting limits.

(1) Aluminum is not considered an ecological COPC unless the soil pH<5 (see text). A review of soil pH values (Table _ of the EE/CA) indicates an average soil pH of 7.7.(2) Common nutritional elements (calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium) are not carried through risk evaluation.(3) There is no ecological SLV for thallium. However, thallium was not detected in any samples and has therefore been screened out.

4 of 4

OU 2 001894

TABLE SRE-3GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CA

STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONHUMAN HEALTH RISK EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS

Value StatisticArsenic 7440-38-2 mg/kg 75/76 6.82 9.051 LN 76.7 9.051 95% KM (BCA) UCLCadmium 7440-43-9 mg/kg 54/65 0.694 0.819 G 3.11 0.819 95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCLLead (7) 7439-92-1 mg/kg 75/76 28.0 49.4 N/A 317 49.35 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (8) 193-39-5 mg/kg 4 / 4 4.09E-05 N/A (9) 5.54E-05 5.54E-05 Maximum

Notes:(1) Detected chemicals were identified as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) if the maximum detected concentration exceeded the most stringent SLV

(see Table SRE-2).(2) Arithmetic mean calculated using ½ the reporting limit (RL) for non-detect results; elevated ND observations were removed from the database to avoid bias

(see Table SRE-2).(3) Upper confidence limit on the mean (UCLs) calculated using EPA's ProUCL 5 statistical software (EPA, 2013a).(4) At the 5% significance level, the data appear to have the following distribution:

LN = lognormal N/A = not discernableN = normal G = gamma

(5) Maximum detected concentration.(6) Exposure point concentration (EPC) is the UCL statistic recommended by ProUCL software; where more than one UCL was listed, the maximum highest

was selected; where more than the exception was 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxins; see Attachment 1), for which the maximum was used as the EPC.(7) Lead was evaluated using LeadSpread (DTSC, 2007; see Attachment 4).(8) Expressed as the mammalian toxicity equivalence quotient (TEQ; DTSC, 2011b); see Attachment 1.(9) Due to the small number of observations the maximum is used as the EPC.

Notes:COPC = chemical of potential concernmg/kg = milligrams per kilogramft bgs = feet below ground surfaceUCL = upper confidence limit on the meanBCA = bias corrected accelerated percentile bootstrap method

COPC (1) HHRA EPC(6)

Average (2) UCL (Distribution) (3,4) Maximum (5)CAS No. Units

Soil Summary Statistics (0-3 ft bgs)

Detection Frequency

1 of 1

OU 2 001895


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS

CURRENT AND FUTURE

MAINTENANCE WORKER

ADULT VISITOR CHILD VISITOR TEEN VOLUNTEER

adult adult ages 3-13 ages 13-16Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units

EPC Exposure Point Concentration mg/kg soil medium-specific medium-specific medium-specific medium-specific See Table SRE-3IRS Soil Ingestion Rate mg soil/day 100 100 200 100 (1)FI Fraction ingested from Site unitless 1 1 1 1 (2)EF Exposure Frequency days/year 125 4 4 12ED Exposure Duration years 15 10 10 3CF1 Conversion Factor 1 kg soil/mg soil 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06BW Body Weight kg 70 70 28 45.5 (3)ATc Averaging Time - Noncarcinogens days 5,475 3,650 3,650 1,095 (4)ATnc Averaging Time - Carcinogens days 25,550 25,550 25,550 25,550 (4)ABS Dermal Absorption Factor unitless chemical specific chemical specific chemical specific chemical specific See Table SRE-5

GIABS Gastrointestinal Absorption Factor unitless chemical specific chemical specific chemical specific chemical specific See Table SRE-5SA Skin Surface Area cm2/day 5,700 5,700 3,700 4,512 (5)AF Soil-to-Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2 0.2 0.07 0.2 0.2

PEF Particulate Emission Factor m3air/kg soil 1.316E+09 1.32E+09 1.32E+09 1.316E+09 (6)ET Exposure Time hours/day 8 4 4 5 (7)CF2 Conversion Factor 1 µg/mg 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03CFt Conversion Factor 3 days/hour 4.17E-02 4.2E-02 4.2E-02 4.2E-02

Notes:(1)

(2) FI = 1: Assumes 100% of soil ingestion occurs at the Site.(3) Average body weight.for males and females ages 3-12 (child) and 13-16 (teen); from Table 8-10 of Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 2011).(4) ATc: 365 days/year x 70 years (lifetime); ATnc: 365 days/year x 25 year ED.(5) Average of head, face hands, and forearms for ages 3-13. These body parts are the basis of default 5,700 cm2 for adults (EPA, 2004).

Surface area for child visitor is slightly higher than the DTSC default of 2,900 cm2 (for ages 0-6 years) due to older age group.(6) Teen volunteer assumed to have same soil adherence as a worker.(7) An 8-hour day is assumed for a worker. Visitor and Volunteer exposure time based on FWS (2012) information.

Assumptions are from DTSC, 2011a, except where shaded to indicate USFWS-specific exposure estimates (FWS, 2012b) based on Site knowledge. See text for additional discussion.

1 of 1

OU 2 001896


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY FACTORS

RfDd (2) CSFd (5) RBA (7) GIABS (8) ABS (9)

Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-05 C 9.5E+00 C 9.5E+00 3.3E-03 0.6 1 0.03Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0E-03 2.5E-05 1.0E-05 -- -- 4.2E-03 C 1 0.025 0.001

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 1746-01-6 7.0E-10 7.0E-10 4.0E-08 C 1.3E+05 C 1.3E+05 3.8E+01 C 1 1 0.03

Notes:Values from the EPA Regional Screening level tables May 2013 except where noted with a "C" to indicate a more conservative California value (OEHHA, 2013)http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.aspLead is evaluated with LeadSpreaad and is not shown on the risk tables.

(1) RfDo = Oral reference dose.(2) RfDd = Dermal reference dose; calculated as RfDo x GIABS.(3) RfC = Reference Concentration.(4) CSFo = Oral carcinogenic slope factor.(5) CSFd = Dermal carcinogenic slope factor; calculated as CSFo x GIABS.(6) IUR = Inhalation unit risk.(7) RBA = Relative bioavailability factor; these values are shown for reference only and were not used in the intake calculations. Lead value taken from child module of

Leadspread.(8) GIABS = Gastrointestinal absorption efficiency; from Regional Screening Level tables (EPA, 2013b)..(9) ABS = Dermal absorption efficiency; lead value taken from LeadSpread.

COPC CAS No.RfC (3)

Non-Cancer Endpoints Cancer Endpoints Chemical-Specific ParametersIUR (6)RfDo (1) CSFo (4)

1 of 1

OU 2 001897


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR SITE WORKER

Ingestion LADD CSFo Dermal LADD CSFd Inhalation LADE URFmg/kg mg/kg-day (mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day (mg/kg-day)-1 µg/m3 (µg/m3)-1

Arsenic 9.05 9.5E-07 9.5E+00 3.2E-07 9.5E+00 1.7E-07 3.3E-03 9E-06 3E-06 6E-10 1E-05Cadmium 0.8 -- -- -- -- 1.5E-08 4.2E-03 -- -- 6E-11 6E-11

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 5.8E-12 1.3E+05 2.0E-12 1.3E+05 1.0E-12 3.8E+01 8E-07 3E-07 4E-11 1E-06

Total: 1E-05 3E-06 7E-10 1E-05

Notes:COPC = chemical of potential concernEPC = exposure point concentrationCSFo = oral cancer slope factorCSFd = dermal cancer slope factorURF = inhalation unit risk factormg/kg = milligram per kilogramµg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter of air"--" value not available/calculatedTCDD = tetrachlorodibenzodioxinTEQ = toxic equivalency quotient

EPCCalculation of Lifetime Average Daily Dose/Exposure (LADD/LADE)

COPCInhalation Exposure

Routes Total

Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk

Ingestion Dermal

1 of 1

OU 2 001898


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR

Ingestion LADD CSFo Dermal LADD CSFd Inhalation LADE URFmg/kg mg/kg-day (mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day (mg/kg-day)-1 mg/kg-day (µg/m3)-1



Total: 2E-07 2E-08 7E-12 2E-07


COPCEPC

Calculation of Lifetime Average Daily Dose/Exposure (LADD/LADE) Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk

Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure Routes Total

1 of 1

OU 2 001899


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR CHILD SITE VISITOR




Total: 1E-06 1E-07 7E-12 1E-06


COPCEPC



1 of 1

OU 2 001900


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR TEEN VOLUNTEER



0.0E+002,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 1.7E-13 1.3E+05 4.6E-14 1.3E+05 1.2E-14 3.8E+01 2E-08 6E-09 5E-13 3E-08

Total: 3E-07 8E-08 8E-12 4E-07


COPCEPC



1 of 1

OU 2 001901


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARDS FOR SITE WORKER

Ingestion ADD RfDo Dermal ADD RfDd Inhalation ADE RfCmg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/m3 mg/m3

Arsenic 9.05 4.4E-06 3.0E-04 1.5E-06 3.0E-04 7.9E-10 1.5E-05 1E-02 5E-03 5E-05 2E-02Cadmium 0.8 4.0E-07 1.0E-03 4.6E-09 2.5E-05 7.1E-11 1.0E-05 4E-04 2E-04 7E-06 6E-04

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 2.7E-11 7.0E-10 9.3E-12 7.0E-10 4.8E-15 4.0E-08 4E-02 1E-02 1E-07 5E-02

Total: 5E-02 2E-02 6E-05 7E-02


COPCEPC

Calculation of Average Daily Dose/Exposure (ADD/ADE) Non-Cancer Hazard Quotient (HQ)

Ingestion HQ Dermal HQ Inhalation HQ Exposure Routes Total

1 of 1

OU 2 001902


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARDS FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR

Ingestion ADD RfDo Dermal ADD RfDd Inhalation ADE RfCmg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/m3


0.0E+002,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 8.7E-13 7.0E-10 1.0E-13 7.0E-10 7.7E-17 4.0E-08 1E-03 1E-04 2E-09 1E-03

Total: 2E-03 2E-04 1E-06 2E-03

Notes:COPC = chemical of potential concernEPC = exposure point concentrationRfDo = oral reference doseRfDd = dermal reference doseRfC = inhalation reference concentrationmg/kg = milligram per kilogrammg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter of air"--" value not available/calculatedTCDD = tetrachlorodibenzodioxinTEQ = toxic equivalency quotient

COPCEPC



1 of 1

OU 2 001903


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARDS FOR CHILD SITE VISITOR



0.0E+002,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 4.3E-12 7.0E-10 4.8E-13 7.0E-10 7.7E-17 4.0E-08 6E-03 7E-04 2E-09 7E-03

Total: 9E-03 1E-03 1E-06 1E-02


COPCEPC



1 of 1

OU 2 001904


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARDS FOR TEEN VOLUNTEER


Arsenic 9.05 6.5E-07 3.0E-04 1.8E-07 3.0E-04 4.7E-11 1.5E-05 2.2E-03 5.9E-04 3.1E-06 2.8E-03Cadmium 0.8 5.9E-08 1.0E-03 5.3E-10 2.5E-05 4.3E-12 1.0E-05 5.9E-05 2.1E-05 4.3E-07 8.1E-05Lead 49.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 4.0E-12 7.0E-10 1.1E-12 7.0E-10 2.9E-16 4.0E-08 5.7E-03 1.5E-03 7.2E-09 7.3E-03

Total: 8.0E-03 2.2E-03 3.6E-06 1.0E-02


COPCEPC



1 of 1

OU 2 001905


STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATIONSUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH RISKS

mg/kgArsenic 9.05 1E-05 2E-07 1E-06 3E-07 2E-02 5E-04 3E-03 3E-03Cadmium 0.82 6E-11 7E-13 7E-13 8E-13 6E-04 1E-05 7E-05 8E-05

2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 5.54E-05 1E-06 2E-08 9E-08 3E-08 5E-02 1E-03 7E-03 7E-03

Total (HI): 1E-05 2E-07 1E-06 4E-07 7E-02 2E-03 1E-02 1E-02

Notes:COPC = chemical of potential concernEPC = exposure point concentration"--" value not available/calculatedTCDD = tetrachlorodibenzodioxinTEQ = toxic equivalency quotientHI - Hazard Index

Child VisitorCOPC EPC

Non-Cancer Hazard Quaotient

Employee VolunteerAdult VisitorEmployee VolunteerAdult Visitor Child Visitor

Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR)

1 of 1

OU 2 001906

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTEXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SLERA

Inorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 0.963Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 76.7Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1300Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 300Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.11Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 36.0Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 13.4Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 170Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 41800Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 317Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 840Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.60Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.34Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 220Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 0.764Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 500Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 310Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 532Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.70

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.54E-05Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.35E-04

EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (see Table SRE-2)

Class COPCs CAS No. EPC (Maximum)

OU 2 001907

1 of 2


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTEXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS

Species Common Name Units Pocket Gopher California Quail Savannah Sparrow Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Sideblotched Lizard Ornate Shrew American Kestrel Short-Tailed Weasel California

Gnatcatcher

Genus species Thomomy bottae Callipepla californica Passerculus sandwichensis Empidonax difficilis Uta stansburiana Sorex ornatus Falco sparverius Mustelidae erminea Polioptila californica

Feeding Guild Burrowing mammalian herbivore Avian herbivore Groundfeeding avian

insectivore Avian insectivore Reptilian insectivore Mammalian insectivore Avian predator Mammalian predator Avian insectivore

Body Weight (1) grams 104 185 18.7 10.0 2.8 5.2 121 67 6.0Daily Food Ingestion (2) kg/day 0.0130 0.00922 0.00574 0.00274 0.0000261 0.00104 0.0204 0.0051 0.00191Dietary Breakdown (3)

Plants proportion 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Invertebrates proportion 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1Small mammals proportion 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (4) kgsoil /day 0.0010 0.0000922 0.000597 0 UNK 0.0000250 0.001160 0.000219 0.000199AUF (5) proportion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Notes:UNK - UnknownSpecies list provided by FWS (2012a) based on Site knowledge.

Pocket gopher(1) Body weight (BW) for Botta's pocket gopher (Nagy, 2001).(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) from Nagy (2001) for Botta's pocket gopher.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% plant material.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 7.7% based on the estimated percent soil/sediment in a burrowing rodent's diet (Beyer, 1994).(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA.

California quail(1) Body weight (BW) = Midpoint of reported body weight range (140-230 g) (Cornell Lab of Ornithology) http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/California_Quail/lifehistory(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) = 0.088 x [BW(g)^0.891] x 0.001 from Nagy (2001) for galliformes.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% plant material.

(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA..

Savannah sparrow(1) Body weight (BW) for Savannah sparrow (Nagy, 2001).(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) from Nagy (2001) for Savannah sparrow.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% invertebrates.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 10.4% based on the estimated percent soil/sediment in an woodcock's diet (EPA, 1993c).(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA (presence is seasonal).

Pacific-slope flycatcher(1) Body weight (BW) = Midpoint of reported range of 8-12 g (Cornell Lab of Ornithology). http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Pacific-slope_Flycatcher/lifehistory(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) = 0.540 × [BW (g)^0.705] x 0.001 (kg/g). Equation 59 from Nagy (2001) for insectivorous birds.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% invertebrates.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) is assumed to be zero based on feeding habists of catching insects in the air from tree branches (Univeristy of Michigan, 2013).http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Empidonax_difficilis/(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA.

(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 1% based on the minimum grit intake of birds (<2%) and the finding that bobwhite quail "consume little grit" (EPA, 1993c).

OU 2 001908

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/California_Quail/lifehistory

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Pacific-slope_Flycatcher/lifehistory

2 of 2


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTEXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS

Notes (continued):Sideblotched lizard: not quantitatively evaluated; assumed to be protected by estimates for avian insectivore; values shown for reference only(1) Body weight (BW) = midpoint of range of lowest range of 1.84-3.88 reported by OEHHA (2013a). http://www.oehha.org/scripts/cal_ecotox/exposurefactordescription.asp(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) from OEHHA.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% invertebrates.

Ornate shrew(1) Body weight (BW) = Midpoint of reported range of 4.17-6.23 (OEHHA, 2013a). http://www.oehha.org/cal_ecotox/report/sorexef.pdf(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) = 0.432 × [BW (g)^0.678] x 0.001 (kg/g). Equation 33 from Nagy (2001) for omnivorous mammals.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% invertebrates.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 2.4% based on the estimated percent soil/sediment in a Meadow vole's diet (USEPA, 1993).(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA.

American kestrel(1) Body weight (BW) = Midpoint of reported range of 103-138 g (USEPA, 1993c). (2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) = 0.849 × [BW (g)^0.663] x 0.001 (kg/g) from Nagy (2001) for carnivorous avian.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% small mammals.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 5.7% based on the estimated percent soil/sediment in a red-tailed hawk's diet (USEPA, 2005). (5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA. http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=191

Short-tailed weasel(1) Body weight (BW) = Average of male and female body weights (Smithsonian, 2013).(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) = 0.153 × [BW (g)^0.834] x 0.001 (kg/g). Equation 25 from Nagy (2001) for carnivorous mammals.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% small mammals.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 4.3% based on the estimated percent soil/sedimentfor the long-tailed weasel (EPA, 2005).(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA.

California gnatcatcher(1) Body weight (BW) = Value reported by US Fish and Wildlife Service http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08X(2) Daily Food (dry matter) Ingestion (DFI) = 0.540 × [BW (g)^0.705] x 0.001 (kg/g). Equation 59 from Nagy (2001) for insectivorous birds.(3) Diet = Assumed to eat 100% invertebrates.(4) Daily Incidental Soil Ingestion (DSI) = [Soil Ingestion Diet Proportion (%) × DFI (kg/day)]; the assumed diet proportion is 10.4% based on the estimated percent soil/sediment in an woodcock's diet (EPA, 1993c).(5) Area Use Factor (AUF) = Assumed to be 100% for the SLERA.

OU 2 001909

http://www.oehha.org/scripts/cal_ecotox/exposurefactordescription.asp

http://www.oehha.org/cal_ecotox/report/sorexef.pdf

http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=191

1 of 1

Soil PlantInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 3.8E-02 Cp = exp[0.938 x ln(Cs) + -3.233] regression equation from measured dataInorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 2.9E+00 0.03752 (BAF) regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 2.0E+02 0.156 (BAF) Baes et al 1984Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 2.0E+02 4 (BAF) Baes et al 1984Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 1.2E+00 Cp = exp[0.546 x ln(Cs) + -0.475] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 1.5E+00 0.041 (BAF) regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 1.0E-01 0.0075 (BAF) regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 1.5E+01 Cp = exp[0.394 x ln(Cs) + 0.668] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 1.7E+02 0.004 (BAF) Baes et al 1984Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 6.7E+00 Cp = exp[0.561 x ln(Cs) + -1.328] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 6.6E+01 0.079 (BAF) regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 7.6E-01 Cp = exp[0.538 x ln(Cs) + -0.958] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 3.4E-01 0.25 (BAF) Baes et al 1984Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 6.1E+00 Cp = exp[0.748 x ln(Cs) + -2.223] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 1.1E+00 Cp = exp[1.104 x ln(Cs) + -0.677] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 1.1E-02 0.014 (BAF) regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 1.3E+03 2.5 (BAF) Baes et al 1984Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 1.5E+00 0.00485 (BAF) regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 1.6E+02 Cp = exp[0.554 x ln(Cs) + 1.575] regression equation (Bethel Jacobs 1998)Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 7.7E+00 1.0 Assumed

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.5E-05 2.4E-07 0.00438 (BAF) DOE, 2013Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 5.9E-07 0.00438 (BAF) DOE, 2013

Notes:Cs = Concentration in soilCp = Concentration in plantBAF = Biota soil accumulation factormg/kg dw = Milligrams per kilogram dry weightEPC = Exposure point concentration (see Table SRE-15)

EPCs (mg/kg dw)

SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT


CALCULATION OF UPTAKE INTO PLANTS

Class COPCs CAS No. Soil-to-PlantUptake Equation/ Factor Source

OU 2 001910

1 of 1

Soil(1) EarthwormInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 9.6E-01 1 AssumedInorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 5.2E+00 Ce = exp[0.706 x ln(Cs) + -1.421] Sample et al 1999Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 1.2E+02 0.091 (BAF) Sample et al 1998Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 3.0E+02 1 AssumedInorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 2.0E+01 Ce = exp[0.795 x ln(Cs) + 2.114] Sample et at. 1999Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 9.4E+00 Ce = exp[-0.067 x ln(Cs) + 2.481] Sample et al 1998Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 1.6E+00 0.122 (BAF) Sample et al 1998Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 8.8E+01 0.515 (BAF) Sample et al 1999Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 4.2E+04 1 AssumedInorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 8.4E+01 Ce = exp[0.807 x ln(Cs) + -0.218] Sample et al 1999Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 4.4E+01 Ce = exp[0.682 x ln(Cs) + -0.809] Sample et al 1999Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 5.9E-01 Ce = exp[0.118 x ln(Cs) + -0.684] Sample et al 1999Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1 AssumedInorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 9.7E+00 Ce = exp[-0.26 x ln(Cs) + 3.677] Sample et al 1998Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 1.5E+00 Ce = exp[0.733 x ln(Cs) + -0.075] Sample et al 1999Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 1.6E+00 2.045 (BAF) Sample et al 1998Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 2.9E+02 Ce = (0.583 x Cs) + 1.543 Morgan et al 2002Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 1.3E+01 0.042 (BAF) Sample et al 1998Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 6.7E+02 Ce = exp[0.328 x ln(Cs) + 4.449] Sample et al 1999Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 7.7E+00 1 Assumed

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.5E-05 2.8E-04 Ce = exp[1.182 x ln(Cs) + 3.533] Sample et al 1999Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 8.0E-04 Ce = exp[1.182 x ln(Cs) + 3.533] Sample et al 1999

Notes:Cs = Concentration in soilCe = Concentration in earthwormsBAF = Biota soil accumulation factormg/kg dw = Milligrams per kilogram dry weightEPC = Exposure point concentration (see Table SRE-15)

EPCs (mg/kg dw)

TABLE SRE-18GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CA`

SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF UPTAKE INTO EARTHWORMS

Class COPCs CAS No. Soil-to-EarthwormUptake Equation/ Factor Source

OU 2 001911

1 of 1

Concentration in diet

assuming = Soil Small Mammal concn in worm

Inorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 4.8E-02 Cm = 0.05 x Cd 9.6E-01 Baes et al 1984Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 2.7E-01 Cm = exp[0.8188 x ln(Cs) + -4.8471] 5.2E+00 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 8.9E-01 Cm = 0.0075 x Cd 1.2E+02 Baes et al 1984Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 3.0E+02 1.0 3.0E+02 AssumedInorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 4.9E-01 Cm = exp[0.4723 x ln(Cs) + -1.2571] 2.0E+01 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 3.2E+00 Cm = exp[0.7338 x ln(Cs) + -1.4599] 9.4E+00 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 3.4E-01 Cm = exp[1.307 x ln(Cs) + -4.4669] 1.6E+00 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 1.6E+01 Cm = exp[0.1444 x ln(Cs) + 2.042] 8.8E+01 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 4.3E+02 Cm = exp[0.5969 x ln(Cs) + -0.2879] 4.2E+04 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 1.4E+01 Cm = exp[0.4422 x ln(Cs) + 0.0761] 8.4E+01 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 1.7E+01 0.0205 (BAF) 4.4E+01 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 2.1E-01 Cm = exp[-0.8965 x ln(Cs) + -0.40341] 5.9E-01 Sample et al 1998 (equation for omnivore)Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.0 1.3E+00 AssumedInorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 9.6E+00 Cm = exp[0.4658 x ln(Cs) + -0.2462] 9.7E+00 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 8.6E-01 Cm = exp[0.3764 x ln(Cs) + -0.4158] 1.5E+00 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 3.1E-03 0.004 (BAF) 1.6E+00 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.0 2.9E+02 AssumedInorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 3.8E+00 0.0123 (BAF) 1.3E+01 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 1.2E+02 Cm = exp[0.0706 x ln(Cs) + 4.3632] 6.7E+02 Sample et al 1998Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 7.7E+00 1.0 7.7E+00 Assumed

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.5E-05 4.3E-05 Cm = exp[1.0993 x ln(Cs) + 0.8113] 2.8E-04 Sample et al 1998; general equation for TCDDDioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 1.2E-04 Cm = exp[1.0993 x ln(Cs) + 0.8113] 8.0E-04 Sample et al 1998; general equation for TCDD

Notes:Cs = Concentration in soilCp = Concentration in preyCd = Concentration in diet - assumed to be represented by worm concentration (Cw)BAF = Biota soil accumulation factormg/kg dw = Milligrams per kilogram dry weightEPC = Exposure point concentration (see Table SRE-15)

Class COPCs CAS No. Soil-to-Small MammalUptake Equation/ Factor Source


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF UPTAKE INTO SMALL MAMMALS

EPCs (mg/kg dw)

OU 2 001912

1 of 1

Category COPCs CAS No.NOAEL TRV

(mg/kg bw/day)

LOAEL TRV (mg/kg bw/day)

Test Species Source Comment

Inorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 0.059 0.59 rat EPA 2005aNOAEL - Reproduction (Highest bounded NOAEL lower than lowest bounded LOAEL for

reproduction, growth, and survival).LOAEL - Paired value from selected NOAEL study

Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.32 4.7 rat EPA 2002 (Region 9) Growth, cancer, serum chemistries, kidney, pulmonary

Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 51.8 87 NOAEL - multipleLOAEL - rat EPA 2005a NOAEL - Geometric mean of NOAELs for reproduction and growth

LOAEL - Growth (lowest paired LOAEL higher than the selected NOAEL)Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 28 93.6 rat Sample et al 1996 Reproduction; chronic NOAEL and chronic LOAELInorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.06 2.64 mouse EPA 2002 (Region 9) Reproductive

Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.28 13.14 rat Sample et al 1996 NOAEL - Body Weight and Food Consumption (Cr+6)LOAEL - Mortality (Cr+6)

Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.2 20 multiple EPA 2002 (Region 9) ReproductiveInorganic Copper 7440-50-8 2.67 632 mouse EPA 2002 (Region 9) Immunotoxicity, mortality, growth, water consumptionInorganic Iron 7439-89-6 -- -- -- -- --

Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 1 241 NOAEL - ratLOAEL - mouse EPA 2002 (Region 9) NOAEL - Kidney

LOAEL - Growth, liver, kidneyInorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 13.7 159 mouse EPA 2002 (Region 9) ReproductiveInorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 0.027 0.27 mink EPA 2002 (Region 9) Reproductive, developmental; TRVs for rat are 0.25 and 4.0

Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 0.26 2.6 mouse Sample et al 1996 Reproduction; chronic LOAEL; NOAEL calculated from chronic LOAEL using 10x UF

Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 0.133 31.6 rat EPA 2002 (Region 9) Reproduction

Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 0.05 1.21 mouse EPA 2002 (Region 9) NOAEL - LiverLOAEL - Reproductive

Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 6.02 60.2 pig EPA (2006) Survival (NOAEL is lowest LOAEL for growth, reproduction, and survival divided by 10)

Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 263 -- rat Sample et al 1996 Body weight and bone changes; chronic NOAEL

Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 4.16 8.31 mouse EPA 2005aNOAEL - Highest bounded NOAEL lower than lowest bounded LOAEL for reproduction,

growth, or survivalLOAEL - x (Paired LOAEL from selected NOAEL study)

Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 9.60 411 NOAEL - mouseLOAEL - rat EPA 2002 (Region 9) Pancreas, adrenal cortex, developmental

Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 6.4 32 rabbit CHPPM 2007 Lethality; moderate confidence

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 rat Sample et al 1996 Reproduction (reduced fertility and neonatal survival); rat; NOAEL

Notes:NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect LevelLOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect LevelTRV = Toxicity Reference Valuemg/kg bw/day = milligrams per kilogram body weight per day-- = Not available

TABLE SRE-20

TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES FOR MAMMALS

GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CASCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT

OU 2 001913

1 of 1

TABLE SRE-21

Category COPCs CAS No.NOAEL TRV

(mg/kg bw/day)

LOAEL TRV (mg/kg bw/day)

Test Species Source Comment

Inorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 -- -- -- -- --

Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.5 22 mallard duck USEPA 2009 (Region 9) Reproductive

Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 20.8 41.7 chicks Sample et al 1996 Mortality (includes a 100x safety factor applied by Sample to study NOAEL and LOAEL)

Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 28.8 100 mallard duck Sample et al 1996 Reproductive

Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.7 1.00 multiple species USEPA 2009 (Region 9)

NOAEL - wood duck - kidney histologyLOAEL - Mallard kidney histology

Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 2.66 5

NOAEL - multiple species

LOAEL - black duck

USEPA (2008) NOAEL - Geometric mean of NOAELs for reproduction and growth (trivalent chromium)

LOAEL - Reproduction (duckling survival)both for trivalent chromium

Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 7.61 18.3 multiple EPA 2005a NOAEL - Geometric mean of NOAELs for growthLOAEL - Geometric mean of LOAELs for growth

Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 2.3 52.3 chicken USEPA 2009 (Region 9)

NOAEL - GrowthLOAEL - Growth, gizzard erosion

Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 -- -- -- -- --

Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 0.014 8.75 NOAEL - quailLOAEL - chicken EPA 2009 (Region 9) NOAEL – quail (reproduction)

LOAEL – chicken (reproduction)Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 77.6 776 quail EPA 2009 (Region 9) Neurobehavioral

Mercury Mercury 7439-97-6 0.039 0.18 mallard duck EPA 2009 (Region 9) NOAEL - ReproductiveLOAEL - Mortality, neurological

Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 3.5 35 chicken Sample et al 1996 Reproduction; chronic LOAEL; NOAEL calculated from chronic LOAEL using 10x UF

Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 1.38 56.3 mallard duck EPA 2009 (Region 9) GrowthInorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 0.23 0.93 mallard duck EPA 2009 (Region 9) Reproductive

Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 2.02 20.2 turkey EPA 2005a Growth (lowest LOAEL for reproduction or growth); LOAEL divided by 10 for NOAEL use

Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 -- -- -- -- --

Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 0.344 1.7 NOAEL - chickenLOAEL - multiple EPA 2005a

NOAEL - Growth (Highest bounded NOAEL lower than lowest bounded LOAEL for reproduction, growth, or survival)

LOAEL - Geometric mean of LOAELs for reproduction and growth.Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 17.2 172 mallard duck EPA 2009 (Region 9) growth, reproduction, multiple organsInorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 13 26 bobwhite quail CHPPM 2007 Growth; UF of 10 applied due to single species

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 0.000014 0.00014 Ring-necked Pheasant Sample et al 1996 Egg production/hatchability; intraperitoneal route of exposure

Notes:NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect LevelLOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect LevelTRV = Toxicity Reference Valuemg/kg bw/day = milligrams per kilogram body weight per day-- = no value available

GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CASCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT

TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES FOR BIRDS

OU 2 001914

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE POCKET GOPHER

Representative Species: Pocket Gopher (Thomomy bottae)

EPC (1) ADDsoil EPC (1) ADDprey

mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 9.3E-03 3.8E-02 4.8E-03 1.4E-02 5.9E-02 5.9E-01 2E-01 2E-02Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 7.4E-01 2.9E+00 3.6E-01 1.1E+00 3.2E-01 4.7E+00 3E+00 2E-01Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 1.3E+01 2.0E+02 2.5E+01 3.8E+01 5.2E+01 8.7E+01 7E-01 4E-01Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 2.9E+00 2.0E+02 2.5E+01 2.8E+01 2.8E+01 9.4E+01 1E+00 3E-01Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 3.0E-02 1.2E+00 1.4E-01 1.7E-01 6.0E-02 2.6E+00 3E+00 7E-02Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 3.5E-01 1.5E+00 1.8E-01 5.3E-01 3.3E+00 1.3E+01 2E-01 4E-02Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 1.3E-01 1.0E-01 1.3E-02 1.4E-01 1.2E+00 2.0E+01 1E-01 7E-03Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 1.6E+00 1.5E+01 1.8E+00 3.5E+00 2.7E+00 6.3E+02 1E+00 6E-03Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 4.0E+02 1.7E+02 2.1E+01 4.2E+02 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 3.1E+00 6.7E+00 8.4E-01 3.9E+00 1.0E+00 2.4E+02 4E+00 2E-02Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 8.1E+00 6.6E+01 8.3E+00 1.6E+01 1.4E+01 1.6E+02 1E+00 1E-01Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 3.5E-02 7.6E-01 9.6E-02 1.3E-01 2.7E-02 2.7E-01 5E+00 5E-01Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 1.3E-02 3.4E-01 4.2E-02 5.5E-02 2.6E-01 2.6E+00 2E-01 2E-02Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 2.1E+00 6.1E+00 7.6E-01 2.9E+00 1.3E-01 3.2E+01 2E+01 9E-02Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 1.9E-02 1.1E+00 1.4E-01 1.6E-01 5.0E-02 1.2E+00 3E+00 1E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 7.4E-03 1.1E-02 1.3E-03 8.7E-03 6.0E+00 6.0E+01 1E-03 1E-04Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 4.8E+00 1.3E+03 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 2.6E+02 -- 6E-01 --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 3.0E+00 1.5E+00 1.9E-01 3.2E+00 4.2E+00 8.3E+00 8E-01 4E-01Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 5.1E+00 1.6E+02 2.0E+01 2.5E+01 9.6E+00 4.1E+02 3E+00 6E-02Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 7.4E-02 7.7E+00 9.6E-01 1.0E+00 6.4E+00 3.2E+01 2E-01 3E-02

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.5E-05 5.3E-07 2.4E-07 3.0E-08 5.6E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 6E-01 6E-02

Notes:(1) Soil EPC is maximum measured concentration. Plant EPC is calculated from the maximum measured soil concentration; see Table SRE-17. EPC = Exposure Point Concentration

ADD = Average Daily DoseHQ = Total ADD/TRV where Total ADD = ADDsoil + ADD diet; see Attachment C for full algortihms. NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects Level

DFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.0130 kg/day BW (body weight) = 104 g LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.001001 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg TRV =Toxicity Reference Value

Fplant (diet % plants) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion HQ = Hazard Quotientmg/kg = milligram per kilogram

HQ > 1 -- = value not available/calculated

NOAEL TRV(mg/kg-day)

LOAEL TRV(mg/kg-day)

NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)

ADD = ([DFI x EPCplant x Fplant] + [DSI x EPCsoil]) * CF * AUF * (1/BW)

Category COPCs CAS No.Soil Plant Tissue

Total ADD (mg/kg-day)

OU 2 001915

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE CALIFORNIA QUAIL

Representative Species: California quail (Callipepla californica)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 4.8E-04 3.8E-02 1.9E-03 2.4E-03 -- -- -- --Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 3.8E-02 2.9E+00 1.4E-01 1.8E-01 5.5E+00 2.2E+01 3E-02 8E-03Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 6.5E-01 2.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.1E+01 2.1E+01 4.2E+01 5E-01 3E-01Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 1.5E-01 2.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+01 2.9E+01 1.0E+02 4E-01 1E-01Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 1.5E-03 1.2E+00 5.8E-02 5.9E-02 7.0E-01 1.0E+00 8E-02 6E-02Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 1.8E-02 1.5E+00 7.4E-02 9.1E-02 2.7E+00 5.0E+00 3E-02 2E-02Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 6.7E-03 1.0E-01 5.0E-03 1.2E-02 7.6E+00 1.8E+01 2E-03 6E-04Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 8.5E-02 1.5E+01 7.3E-01 8.2E-01 2.3E+00 5.2E+01 4E-01 2E-02Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 2.1E+01 1.7E+02 8.3E+00 2.9E+01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 1.6E-01 6.7E+00 3.3E-01 4.9E-01 1.4E-02 8.8E+00 4E+01 6E-02Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 4.2E-01 6.6E+01 3.3E+00 3.7E+00 7.8E+01 7.8E+02 5E-02 5E-03Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 1.8E-03 7.6E-01 3.8E-02 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 1.8E-01 1E+00 2E-01Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 6.7E-04 3.4E-01 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 3.5E+00 3.5E+01 5E-03 5E-04Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 1.1E-01 6.1E+00 3.0E-01 4.1E-01 1.4E+00 5.6E+01 3E-01 7E-03Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 1.0E-03 1.1E+00 5.4E-02 5.5E-02 2.3E-01 9.3E-01 2E-01 6E-02Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 3.8E-04 1.1E-02 5.3E-04 9.1E-04 2.0E+00 2.0E+01 5E-04 5E-05Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 2.5E-01 1.3E+03 6.2E+01 6.3E+01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 1.5E-01 1.5E+00 7.5E-02 2.3E-01 3.4E-01 1.7E+00 7E-01 1E-01Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 2.7E-01 1.6E+02 7.8E+00 8.1E+00 1.7E+01 1.7E+02 5E-01 5E-02Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 3.8E-03 7.7E+00 3.8E-01 3.9E-01 1.3E+01 3.2E+01 3E-02 1E-02

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 6.7E-08 5.9E-07 2.9E-08 9.7E-08 1.4E-05 1.4E-04 7E-03 7E-04

Notes:(1) Soil EPC is maximum measured concentration. Plant EPC is calculated from the maximum measured soil concentration; see Table SRE-17. EPC = Exposure Point Concentration

ADD = Average Daily DoseDFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.0092 kg/day BW (body weight) = 185 g NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00009 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects Level

Fplant (diet % plants) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion TRV =Toxicity Reference ValueHQ = Hazard Quotient

HQ > 1 mg/kg = milligram per kilogram-- = value not available/calculated



NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)

HQ = Total ADD/TRV where Total ADD = ADDsoil + ADD diet; see Attachment C for full algortihms.

Category COPCs CAS No.Soil Plant Tissue


OU 2 001916

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE SAVANNAH SPARROW

Representative Species: Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 3.1E-02 9.6E-01 3.0E-01 3.3E-01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 2.4E+00 5.2E+00 1.6E+00 4.0E+00 5.50E+00 2.20E+01 7E-01 2E-01Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 4.1E+01 1.2E+02 3.6E+01 7.8E+01 2.08E+01 4.17E+01 4E+00 2E+00Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 9.6E+00 3.0E+02 9.2E+01 1.0E+02 2.88E+01 1.00E+02 4E+00 1E+00Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 9.9E-02 2.0E+01 6.3E+00 6.4E+00 7.00E-01 1.00E+00 9E+00 6E+00Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 1.1E+00 9.4E+00 2.9E+00 4.0E+00 2.66E+00 5.00E+00 2E+00 8E-01Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 4.3E-01 1.6E+00 5.0E-01 9.3E-01 7.61E+00 1.83E+01 1E-01 5E-02Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 5.4E+00 8.8E+01 2.7E+01 3.2E+01 2.30E+00 5.23E+01 1E+01 6E-01Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 1.3E+03 4.2E+04 1.3E+04 1.4E+04 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 1.0E+01 8.4E+01 2.6E+01 3.6E+01 1.40E-02 8.75E+00 3E+03 4E+00Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 2.7E+01 4.4E+01 1.3E+01 4.0E+01 7.76E+01 7.76E+02 5E-01 5E-02Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 1.1E-01 5.9E-01 1.8E-01 3.0E-01 3.90E-02 1.80E-01 8E+00 2E+00Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 4.3E-02 1.3E+00 4.1E-01 4.5E-01 3.50E+00 3.50E+01 1E-01 1E-02Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 7.0E+00 9.7E+00 3.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.38E+00 5.63E+01 7E+00 2E-01Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 6.4E-02 1.5E+00 4.7E-01 5.4E-01 2.30E-01 9.30E-01 2E+00 6E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 2.4E-02 1.6E+00 4.8E-01 5.0E-01 2.02E+00 2.02E+01 2E-01 2E-02Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 1.6E+01 2.9E+02 8.9E+01 1.1E+02 -- -- -- --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 9.9E+00 1.3E+01 4.0E+00 1.4E+01 3.44E-01 1.70E+00 4E+01 8E+00Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 1.7E+01 6.7E+02 2.1E+02 2.2E+02 1.72E+01 1.72E+02 1E+01 1E+00Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 2.5E-01 7.7E+00 2.4E+00 2.6E+00 1.30E+01 2.60E+01 2E-01 1E-01

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 4.3E-06 8.0E-04 2.5E-04 2.5E-04 1.40E-05 1.40E-04 2E+01 2E+00

Notes:(1) Soil EPC is maximum measured concentration. Earthworm EPC is calculated from the maximum measured soil concentration ; see Table SRE-18. EPC = Exposure Point Concentration

ADD = Average Daily DoseDFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.0057 kg/day BW (body weight) = 18.7 g NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00060 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects LevelFinv (diet % invertebrates) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion TRV =Toxicity Reference Value

HQ = Hazard QuotientHQ > 1 mg/kg = milligram per kilogram

-- = value not available/calculated



NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)


Category COPCs CAS No.Soil Invertebrate Tissue


OU 2 001917

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE PACIFIC-SLOPE FLYCATCHER

Representative Species: Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 0E+00 9.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 0E+00 5.2E+00 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 5.5E+00 2.2E+01 3E-01 6E-02Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 0E+00 1.2E+02 3.2E+01 3.2E+01 2.1E+01 4.2E+01 2E+00 8E-01Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 0E+00 3.0E+02 8.2E+01 8.2E+01 2.9E+01 1.0E+02 3E+00 8E-01Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 0E+00 2.0E+01 5.6E+00 5.6E+00 7.0E-01 1.0E+00 8E+00 5.6E+00Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 0E+00 9.4E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+00 5.0E+00 1E+00 5E-01Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 0E+00 1.6E+00 4.5E-01 4.5E-01 7.6E+00 1.8E+01 6E-02 2E-02Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 0E+00 8.8E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.3E+00 5.2E+01 1E+01 5E-01Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 0E+00 4.2E+04 1.1E+04 1.1E+04 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 0E+00 8.4E+01 2.3E+01 2.3E+01 1.4E-02 8.8E+00 2E+03 3E+00Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 0E+00 4.4E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 7.8E+01 7.8E+02 2E-01 2E-02Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 0E+00 5.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 3.9E-02 1.8E-01 4E+00 9E-01Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 0E+00 1.3E+00 3.7E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E+00 3.5E+01 1E-01 1E-02Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 0E+00 9.7E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 1.4E+00 5.6E+01 2E+00 5E-02Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 0E+00 1.5E+00 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 2.3E-01 9.3E-01 2E+00 5E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 0E+00 1.6E+00 4.3E-01 4.3E-01 2.0E+00 2.0E+01 2E-01 2E-02Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 0E+00 2.9E+02 8.0E+01 8.0E+01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 0E+00 1.3E+01 3.6E+00 3.6E+00 3.4E-01 1.7E+00 1E+01 2E+00Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 0E+00 6.7E+02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 1.7E+01 1.7E+02 1E+01 1E+00Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 0E+00 7.7E+00 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 1.3E+01 2.6E+01 2E-01 8E-02

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 0E+00 8.0E-04 2.2E-04 2.2E-04 1.4E-05 1.4E-04 2E+01 2E+00


ADD = Average Daily DoseDFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.0027 kg/day BW (body weight) = 10 g NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00000 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects LevelFinv (diet % invertebrates) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion TRV =Toxicity Reference Value





NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)




OU 2 001918

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE ORNATE SHREW

Representative Species: Ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 4.6E-03 9.6E-01 1.9E-01 2.0E-01 5.9E-02 5.9E-01 3E+00 3E-01Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 3.7E-01 5.2E+00 1.0E+00 1.4E+00 3.2E-01 4.7E+00 4E+00 3E-01Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 6.2E+00 1.2E+02 2.4E+01 3.0E+01 5.2E+01 8.7E+01 6E-01 3E-01Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 1.4E+00 3.0E+02 6.0E+01 6.1E+01 2.8E+01 9.4E+01 2E+00 7E-01Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 1.5E-02 2.0E+01 4.1E+00 4.1E+00 6.0E-02 2.6E+00 7E+01 2E+00Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 1.7E-01 9.4E+00 1.9E+00 2.1E+00 3.3E+00 1.3E+01 6E-01 2E-01Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 6.4E-02 1.6E+00 3.3E-01 3.9E-01 1.2E+00 2.0E+01 3E-01 2E-02Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 8.2E-01 8.8E+01 1.8E+01 1.8E+01 2.7E+00 6.3E+02 7E+00 3E-02Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 2.0E+02 4.2E+04 8.4E+03 8.6E+03 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 1.5E+00 8.4E+01 1.7E+01 1.8E+01 1.0E+00 2.4E+02 2E+01 8E-02Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 4.0E+00 4.4E+01 8.8E+00 1.3E+01 1.4E+01 1.6E+02 9E-01 8E-02Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 1.7E-02 5.9E-01 1.2E-01 1.3E-01 2.7E-02 2.7E-01 5E+00 5E-01Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 6.4E-03 1.3E+00 2.7E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E+00 1E+00 1E-01Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 1.1E+00 9.7E+00 1.9E+00 3.0E+00 1.3E-01 3.2E+01 2E+01 9E-02Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 9.6E-03 1.5E+00 3.1E-01 3.2E-01 5.0E-02 1.2E+00 6E+00 3E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 3.7E-03 1.6E+00 3.1E-01 3.2E-01 6.0E+00 6.0E+01 5E-02 5E-03Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 2.4E+00 2.9E+02 5.8E+01 6.1E+01 2.6E+02 -- 2E-01 --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 1.5E+00 1.3E+01 2.6E+00 4.1E+00 4.2E+00 8.3E+00 1E+00 5E-01Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 2.6E+00 6.7E+02 1.3E+02 1.4E+02 9.6E+00 4.1E+02 1E+01 3E-01Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 3.7E-02 7.7E+00 1.5E+00 1.6E+00 6.4E+00 3.2E+01 2E-01 5E-02

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.5E-05 2.7E-07 2.8E-04 5.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 6E+01 6E+00


ADD = Average Daily DoseDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00002 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelFinv (diet % invertebrates) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects Level

TRV =Toxicity Reference ValueHQ > 1 HQ = Hazard Quotient

mg/kg = milligram per kilogram-- = value not available/calculated



NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)




OU 2 001919

1 of 1

TABLE 1SRE-27GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CA

SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE AMERICAN KESTREL

Representative Species: American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 9.3E-03 4.8E-02 8.1E-03 1.7E-02 -- -- -- --Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 7.4E-01 2.7E-01 4.6E-02 7.8E-01 5.5E+00 2.2E+01 1E-01 4E-02Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 1.3E+01 8.9E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E+01 2.1E+01 4.2E+01 6E-01 3E-01Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 2.9E+00 3.0E+02 5.1E+01 5.4E+01 2.9E+01 1.0E+02 2E+00 5E-01Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 3.0E-02 4.9E-01 8.2E-02 1.1E-01 7.0E-01 1.0E+00 2E-01 1E-01Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 3.5E-01 3.2E+00 5.4E-01 8.9E-01 2.7E+00 5.0E+00 3E-01 2E-01Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 1.3E-01 3.4E-01 5.8E-02 1.9E-01 7.6E+00 1.8E+01 2E-02 1E-02Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 1.6E+00 1.6E+01 2.7E+00 4.4E+00 2.3E+00 5.2E+01 2E+00 8E-02Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 4.0E+02 4.3E+02 7.3E+01 4.8E+02 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 3.1E+00 1.4E+01 2.3E+00 5.4E+00 1.4E-02 8.8E+00 4E+02 6E-01Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 8.1E+00 1.7E+01 2.9E+00 1.1E+01 7.8E+01 7.8E+02 1E-01 1E-02Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 3.5E-02 2.1E-01 3.6E-02 7.0E-02 3.9E-02 1.8E-01 2E+00 4E-01Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 1.3E-02 1.3E+00 2.3E-01 2.4E-01 3.5E+00 3.5E+01 7E-02 7E-03Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 2.1E+00 9.6E+00 1.6E+00 3.7E+00 1.4E+00 5.6E+01 3E+00 7E-02Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 1.9E-02 8.6E-01 1.4E-01 1.6E-01 2.3E-01 9.3E-01 7E-01 2E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 7.4E-03 3.1E-03 5.2E-04 7.9E-03 2.0E+00 2.0E+01 4E-03 4E-04Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 4.8E+00 5.0E+02 8.4E+01 8.9E+01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 3.0E+00 3.8E+00 6.4E-01 3.6E+00 3.4E-01 1.7E+00 1E+01 2E+00Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 5.1E+00 1.2E+02 2.1E+01 2.6E+01 1.7E+01 1.7E+02 1E+00 1E-01Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 7.4E-02 7.7E+00 1.3E+00 1.4E+00 1.3E+01 3.2E+01 1E-01 4E-02

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 1.3E-06 1.2E-04 2.0E-05 2.2E-05 1.4E-05 1.4E-04 2E+00 2E-01

Notes:(1) Soil EPC is maximum measured concentration. Small mammal EPC is calculated from the maximum measured soil concentration; see Table SRE-19. EPC = Exposure Point Concentration

ADD = Average Daily DoseDFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.0204 kg/day BW (body weight) = 120.5 g NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00116 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects Level

Fmammal (diet % mammals) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion TRV =Toxicity Reference ValueHQ = Hazard Quotient




NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)


Category COPCs CAS No.Soil Small Mammal Tissue


OU 2 001920

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE SHORT-TAILED WEASEL

Representative Species: Short-tailed weasel (Mustelidae erminea)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 3.2E-03 4.8E-02 3.7E-03 6.8E-03 5.9E-02 5.9E-01 1E-01 1E-02Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 2.5E-01 2.7E-01 2.1E-02 2.7E-01 3.2E-01 4.7E+00 8E-01 6E-02Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 4.3E+00 8.9E-01 6.8E-02 4.3E+00 5.2E+01 8.7E+01 8E-02 5E-02Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 9.8E-01 3.0E+02 2.3E+01 2.4E+01 2.8E+01 9.4E+01 9E-01 3E-01Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 1.0E-02 4.9E-01 3.7E-02 4.7E-02 6.0E-02 2.6E+00 8E-01 2E-02Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 1.2E-01 3.2E+00 2.5E-01 3.6E-01 3.3E+00 1.3E+01 1E-01 3E-02Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 4.4E-02 3.4E-01 2.6E-02 7.0E-02 1.2E+00 2.0E+01 6E-02 3E-03Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 5.6E-01 1.6E+01 1.2E+00 1.8E+00 2.7E+00 6.3E+02 7E-01 3E-03Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 1.4E+02 4.3E+02 3.3E+01 1.7E+02 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 1.0E+00 1.4E+01 1.0E+00 2.1E+00 1.0E+00 2.4E+02 2E+00 9E-03Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 2.7E+00 1.7E+01 1.3E+00 4.1E+00 1.4E+01 1.6E+02 3E-01 3E-02Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 1.2E-02 2.1E-01 1.6E-02 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-01 1E+00 1E-01Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 4.4E-03 1.3E+00 1.0E-01 1.1E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E+00 4E-01 4E-02Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 7.2E-01 9.6E+00 7.3E-01 1.5E+00 1.3E-01 3.2E+01 1E+01 5E-02Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 6.5E-03 8.6E-01 6.5E-02 7.2E-02 5.0E-02 1.2E+00 1E+00 6E-02Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 2.5E-03 3.1E-03 2.3E-04 2.7E-03 6.0E+00 6.0E+01 5E-04 5E-05Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 1.6E+00 5.0E+02 3.8E+01 4.0E+01 2.6E+02 -- 2E-01 --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 1.0E+00 3.8E+00 2.9E-01 1.3E+00 4.2E+00 8.3E+00 3E-01 2E-01Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 1.7E+00 1.2E+02 9.3E+00 1.1E+01 9.6E+00 4.1E+02 1E+00 3E-02Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 2.5E-02 7.7E+00 5.9E-01 6.1E-01 6.4E+00 3.2E+01 1E-01 2E-02

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 5.5E-05 1.8E-07 4.3E-05 3.3E-06 3.5E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 3E+00 3E-01

Notes:(1) Soil EPC is maximum measured concentration. Small mammal EPC is calculated from the maximum measured soil concentration; see Table SRE-19. EPC = Exposure Point Concentration

ADD = Average Daily DoseDFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.005 kg/day BW (body weight) = 67 g NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00022 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects Level

Fmammal (diet % mammals) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion TRV =Toxicity Reference ValueHQ = Hazard Quotient




NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)


Category COPCs CAS No.Soil Small Mammal Tissue


OU 2 001921

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF INTAKE AND HAZARD FOR THE CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER

Representative Species: California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica)


mg/kg dw mg/kg-day mg/kg dw mg/kg-dayInorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 9.6E-01 3E-02 9.6E-01 3.1E-01 3.4E-01 -- -- -- --Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 7.7E+01 3E+00 5.2E+00 1.6E+00 4.2E+00 5.5E+00 2.2E+01 8E-01 2E-01Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 1.3E+03 4E+01 1.2E+02 3.8E+01 8.1E+01 2.1E+01 4.2E+01 4E+00 2E+00Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 3.0E+02 1E+01 3.0E+02 9.5E+01 1.1E+02 2.9E+01 1.0E+02 4E+00 1E+00Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3.1E+00 1E-01 2.0E+01 6.5E+00 6.6E+00 7.0E-01 1.0E+00 9E+00 6.6E+00Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 3.6E+01 1E+00 9.4E+00 3.0E+00 4.2E+00 2.7E+00 5.0E+00 2E+00 8E-01Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1.3E+01 4E-01 1.6E+00 5.2E-01 9.6E-01 7.6E+00 1.8E+01 1E-01 5E-02Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1.7E+02 6E+00 8.8E+01 2.8E+01 3.3E+01 2.3E+00 5.2E+01 1E+01 6E-01Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 4.2E+04 1E+03 4.2E+04 1.3E+04 1.5E+04 -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 3.2E+02 1E+01 8.4E+01 2.7E+01 3.7E+01 1.4E-02 8.8E+00 3E+03 4E+00Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 8.4E+02 3E+01 4.4E+01 1.4E+01 4.2E+01 7.8E+01 7.8E+02 5E-01 5E-02Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 3.6E+00 1E-01 5.9E-01 1.9E-01 3.1E-01 3.9E-02 1.8E-01 8E+00 2E+00Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 1.3E+00 4E-02 1.3E+00 4.3E-01 4.7E-01 3.5E+00 3.5E+01 1E-01 1E-02Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2.2E+02 7E+00 9.7E+00 3.1E+00 1.0E+01 1.4E+00 5.6E+01 8E+00 2E-01Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 2.0E+00 7E-02 1.5E+00 4.9E-01 5.6E-01 2.3E-01 9.3E-01 2E+00 6E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 7.6E-01 3E-02 1.6E+00 5.0E-01 5.2E-01 2.0E+00 2.0E+01 3E-01 3E-02Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 5.0E+02 2E+01 2.9E+02 9.3E+01 1.1E+02 -- -- -- --Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.1E+02 1E+01 1.3E+01 4.1E+00 1.4E+01 3.4E-01 1.7E+00 4E+01 8E+00Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 5.3E+02 2E+01 6.7E+02 2.1E+02 2.3E+02 1.7E+01 1.7E+02 1E+01 1E+00Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 7.7E+00 3E-01 7.7E+00 2.5E+00 2.7E+00 1.3E+01 2.6E+01 2E-01 1E-01

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a 1.4E-04 4E-06 8.0E-04 2.5E-04 2.6E-04 1.4E-05 1.4E-04 2E+01 2E+00

Notes:(1) Soil EPC is maximum measured concentration. Invertebrate EPC is calculated from the maximum measured soil concentration ; see Table SRE-18. EPC = Exposure Point Concentration

ADD = Average Daily DoseDFI (daily food ingestion) = 0.0019 kg/day BW (body weight) = 6 g NOAEL = No Observable Adverse Effects LevelDSI (daily soil ingestion) = 0.00020 kg/day CF (conversion factor) = 1,000 g/kg LOAEL = Lowest Observable Adverse Effects LevelFinv (diet % invertebrates) = 1 proportion AUF (area use factor) = 1 proportion TRV =Toxicity Reference Value





NOAEL HQ (unitless)

LOAEL HQ (unitless)




OU 2 001922

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTSUMMARY OF SCREENING-LEVEL HAZARD QUOTIENTS

NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL

Inorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 2E-01 2E-02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3E+00 3E-01 -- -- 1E-01 1E-02 -- -- 3E+00 3E-01

Inorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 3E+00 2E-01 3E-02 8E-03 7E-01 2E-01 3E-01 6.4E-02 4E+00 3E-01 1E-01 4E-02 8E-01 6E-02 8E-01 2E-01 4E+00 3E-01Inorganic Barium 7440-39-3 7E-01 4E-01 5E-01 3E-01 4E+00 2E+00 2E+00 7.8E-01 6E-01 3E-01 6E-01 3E-01 8E-02 5E-02 4E+00 2E+00 4E+00 2E+00Inorganic Boron 7440-42-8 1E+00 3E-01 4E-01 1E-01 4E+00 1E+00 3E+00 8.2E-01 2E+00 7E-01 2E+00 5E-01 9E-01 3E-01 4E+00 1E+00 4E+00 1E+00Inorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 3E+00 7E-02 8E-02 6E-02 9E+00 6E+00 8E+00 5.6E+00 7E+01 2E+00 2E-01 1E-01 8E-01 2E-02 9E+00 7E+00 7E+01 7E+00Inorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 2E-01 4E-02 3E-02 2E-02 2E+00 8E-01 1E+00 5.1E-01 6E-01 2E-01 3E-01 2E-01 1E-01 3E-02 2E+00 8E-01 2E+00 8E-01Inorganic Cobalt 7440-48-4 1E-01 7E-03 2E-03 6E-04 1E-01 5E-02 6E-02 2.4E-02 3E-01 2E-02 2E-02 1E-02 6E-02 3E-03 1E-01 5E-02 3E-01 5E-02Inorganic Copper 7440-50-8 1E+00 6E-03 4E-01 2E-02 1E+01 6E-01 1E+01 4.6E-01 7E+00 3E-02 2E+00 8E-02 7E-01 3E-03 1E+01 6E-01 1E+01 6E-01Inorganic Iron 7439-89-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Inorganic Lead 7439-92-1 4E+00 2E-02 4E+01 6E-02 3E+03 4E+00 2E+03 2.6E+00 2E+01 8E-02 4E+02 6E-01 2E+00 9E-03 3E+03 4E+00 3E+03 4E+00Inorganic Manganese 7439-96-5 1E+00 1E-01 5E-02 5E-03 5E-01 5E-02 2E-01 1.6E-02 9E-01 8E-02 1E-01 1E-02 3E-01 3E-02 5E-01 5E-02 1E+00 1E-01Inorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 5E+00 5E-01 1E+00 2E-01 8E+00 2E+00 4E+00 8.9E-01 5E+00 5E-01 2E+00 4E-01 1E+00 1E-01 8E+00 2E+00 8E+00 2E+00Inorganic Molybdenum 7439-98-7 2E-01 2E-02 5E-03 5E-04 1E-01 1E-02 1E-01 1.0E-02 1E+00 1E-01 7E-02 7E-03 4E-01 4E-02 1E-01 1E-02 1E+00 1E-01Inorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 2E+01 9E-02 3E-01 7E-03 7E+00 2E-01 2E+00 4.7E-02 2E+01 9E-02 3E+00 7E-02 1E+01 5E-02 8E+00 2E-01 2E+01 2E-01Inorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 3E+00 1E-01 2E-01 6E-02 2E+00 6E-01 2E+00 4.5E-01 6E+00 3E-01 7E-01 2E-01 1E+00 6E-02 2E+00 6E-01 6E+00 6E-01Inorganic Silver 7440-22-4 1E-03 1E-04 5E-04 5E-05 2E-01 2E-02 2E-01 2.1E-02 5E-02 5E-03 4E-03 4E-04 5E-04 5E-05 3E-01 3E-02 3E-01 3E-02Inorganic Strontium 7440-24-6 6E-01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2E-01 -- -- -- 2E-01 -- -- -- 6E-01Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 8E-01 4E-01 7E-01 1E-01 4E+01 8E+00 1E+01 2.1E+00 1E+00 5E-01 1E+01 2E+00 3E-01 2E-01 4E+01 8E+00 4E+01 8E+00Inorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 3E+00 6E-02 5E-01 5E-02 1E+01 1E+00 1E+01 1.1E+00 1E+01 3E-01 1E+00 1E-01 1E+00 3E-02 1E+01 1E+00 1E+01 1E+00Inorganic Perchlorate 14797-73-0 2E-01 3E-02 3E-02 1E-02 2E-01 1E-01 2E-01 8.1E-02 2E-01 5E-02 1E-01 4E-02 1E-01 2E-02 2E-01 1E-01 2E-01 1E-01

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5m 6E-01 6E-02 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6E+01 6E+00 n/a n/a 3E+00 3E-01 n/a n/a 6E+01 6E+00

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a n/a n/a 7E-03 7E-04 2E+01 2E+00 2E+01 1.6E+00 n/a n/a 2E+00 2E-01 n/a n/a 2E+01 2E+00 2E+01 2E+00

Definitions:HQ = Hazard quotient1<HQ≤1010<HQ≤100

HQ>100"--" = No TRV available"n/a" = Not applicableTRV = Toxicity Reference ValueCOPEC = Constituent of potential concernNOAEL = No observable adverse effect levelLOAEL = Lowest observable adverse effect level

Maximum Food Chain-Modeled HQsClass COPECs CAS No. Pocket Gopher California Quail California Gnatcatcher

Food Chain-Modeled HQs

Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Ornate Shrew American Kestrel Short-Tailed WeaselSavannah Sparrow

OU 2 001923

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTCALCULATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS

NOAEL NOAEL NOAEL NOAEL NOAEL NOAEL NOAEL NOAELInorganic Antimony 0.96 7440-36-0 4.1 -- -- -- 0.29 -- 8.3 -- 0.29 ShrewInorganic Arsenic 76.7 7440-38-2 22 2300 100 300 18 540 90 100 18 ShrewInorganic Barium 1300 7440-39-3 1800 2500 350 830 2300 2100 16000 340 340 GnatcatcherInorganic Boron 300 7440-42-8 300 840 85 110 140 160 350 82 82 GnatcatcherInorganic Cadmium 3.11 7440-43-9 1.1 37 0.34 0.39 0.046 19 4.0 0.33 0.046 ShrewInorganic Chromium 36 7440-47-3 220 1000 24 37 58 110 330 23 23 GnatcatcherInorganic Copper 170 7440-50-8 130 480 12 16 25 89 250 12 12 GnatcatcherInorganic Lead 317 7439-92-1 82 9.0 0.12 0.19 17 0.83 150 0.12 0.12 GnatcatcherInorganic Mercury 3.6 7439-97-6 0.75 3.5 0.48 0.87 0.72 2.0 3.5 0.46 0.46 GnatcatcherInorganic Nickel 220 7440-02-0 10 730 30 110 9.7 81 20 29 9.7 ShrewInorganic Selenium 2 7782-49-2 0.64 8.3 0.86 1.1 0.31 2.8 1.4 0.83 0.31 ShrewInorganic Vanadium 310 7440-62-2 410 470 7.7 30 320 29 990 7.4 7.4 GnatcatcherInorganic Zinc 532 7440-66-6 210 1100 41 50 37 360 460 40 37 Shrew

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 5.5E-05 193-39-5m 0.000098 n/a n/a n/a 0.00000098 n/a 0.000016 n/aDioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 1.4E-04 193-39-5a n/a 0.020 0.0000076 0.0000086 n/a 0.000087 n/a 0.0000073

Notes(1) Constituents of potential ecological concern are constituents with NOAEL HQs greater than 1.(2) PRG = EPC x THQ / HQSLERA

where:PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal for Soil (two significant figures; mg/kg)EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (maximum detected soil concentration; mg/kg)THQ = Target Hazard Quotient; for species of special concern the THQ is a NOAEL HQ of 1, otherwise the THQ is a LOAEL HQ of 1 (unitless)HQSLERA = Calculated Hazard Quotient (see Table SRE-30; unitless)

(3) Risk-based PRG is the minimum of the calculated PRGs.

DefinitionsCOPEC = Constituent of potential ecological concernNOAEL = No observed adverse effect levelLOAEL = Lowest observed adverse effect levelPRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal"n/a" = Not applicable"--" = Toxicity data not available

Short-Tailed Weasel

California Gnatcatcher*

Risk-BasedEcological PRG (Basis) (3)

0.00000098 Gnatcatcher

Ecological PRGs (2)

Pacific-Slope Flycatcher

OrnateShrew

American Kestrel

Class COPECs (1) CAS No. Savannah Sparrow*

PocketGopher

California Quail

EPC

OU 2 001924

1 of 1


SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENTSELECTION OF FINAL PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS

Inorganic Antimony 7440-36-0 0.29 Shrew 1.485 Gamma 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 1.485 BackgroundInorganic Arsenic 7440-38-2 18 Shrew 8.261 Normal 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 18 Eco-PRGInorganic Barium 7440-39-3 340 Gnatcatcher 738 Maximum value 738 BackgroundInorganic Boron 7440-42-8 82 Gnatcatcher 61.99 Normal 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 82 Eco-PRGInorganic Cadmium 7440-43-9 0.046 Shrew 1.097 Gamma 95% UTL 90% Coverage 1.097 BackgroundInorganic Chromium 7440-47-3 23 Gnatcatcher 95.9 Gamma 95% UTL 90% Coverage 95.9 BackgroundInorganic Copper 7440-50-8 12 Gnatcatcher 33.29 Normal 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 33.29 BackgroundInorganic Lead 7439-92-1 0.12 Gnatcatcher 48.98 Normal 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 48.98 BackgroundInorganic Mercury 7439-97-6 0.46 Gnatcatcher 0.9 Maximum value 0.9 BackgroundInorganic Nickel 7440-02-0 9.7 Shrew 39.74 Normal 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 39.74 BackgroundInorganic Selenium 7782-49-2 0.31 Shrew 0.43 Maximum value 0.83 Eco-PRG (5)

Inorganic Vanadium 7440-62-2 7.4 Gnatcatcher 230.9 Lognormal 95% UTL with 90% Coverage 230.9 BackgroundInorganic Zinc 7440-66-6 37 Shrew 180 Maximum value 180 Background

Dioxin TCDD TEQ (mammalian) 193-39-5mDioxin TCDD TEQ (avian) 193-39-5a

Notes(1) COPECs are constituents with NOAEL HQs greater than 1.(2) Risk-based PRGs are detailed in Table SRE-31.(3) Site-specific background concentration calculations are detailed in Appendix H of the EE/CA.(4) Unless otherwise noted, the final PRG is the higher of the minimum ecologically-based PRG and the site-specific background value.

DefinitionsCOPEC = Constituent of potential ecological concernPRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal"--" = Value not available

(5) The selected PRG corresponds to the NOAEL PRG for the California gnatcatcher. This value is also expected to be protective of individual species of special concern potential present at the Site and populations of non-listed species.

0.00000098 Eco-PRG

Minimum Risk-BasedEcological PRG (Basis) (3)

Class COPECs (1) CAS No.

Gnatcatcher 0.00000098-- --

Site-Specific BackgroundConcentration (Statistic) (3) Final PRG (Basis) (4)

OU 2 001925


FIGURES

OU 2 001926

1 of 1

FIGURE SRE-2ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELGUNPOWDER POINT EE/CASCREENING LEVEL RISK EVALUATION

Legend = Potentially complete migration/exposure pathway = Potentially complete exposure pathway for quantitative evaluation = Potentially complete exposure pathway but not quantitatively evaluated -- = Incomplete or de minimus exposure pathway ft bgs = Feet below ground surface

Mammalian Insectivore

--

-- -- --

Fugitive Dust Ingestion of Particluates

-- --

Percolation/ Infiltration

Subsurface Soil (2-6 ft bgs)(1) Direct Exposure

-- -- -- --

-- --

-- --

Biotic Uptake Food/Prey Ingestion -- --

Soil Invertebrate Reptile

Avian Herbivore

Avian Insectivore

Avian Predator

Mammalian Herbivore

(2) Includes ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation; only ingestion is quantitatively evaluated

(1) Ecological receptors are generally expsed to surifical soil, but burrowing mammals may encounter soils up to 6 ft deep. Exposures were evaluated using the 0-2-foot depth interval based on contamination profile; see text and Table SRE-1

Mammalian Predator

Historic Site Operations Spills/Leaks

Surface Soil (0-2 ft bgs)(1) Direct Exposure(2)

PRIMARY SOURCE

PRIMARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM

PRIMARY EXPOSURE

MEDIUM

SECONDARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM

SECONDARY EXPOSURE

MEDIUM

Potential On-Site Ecological Receptors

EXPOSURE ROUTE Vegetation

OU 2 001927

1 of 1

FIGURE SRE-1HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELGUNPOWDER POINT EE/CASCREENING LEVEL RISK EVALUATION

Legend = Potentially complete migration/exposure pathway = Potentially complete exposure pathway for quantitative evaluation = Potentially complete exposure pathway but not quantitatively evaluated -- = Incomplete or de minimus exposure pathway ft bgs = Feet below ground surface

(2) No VOCs above screening levels identified in Site soils

-- --

EXPOSURE POINT

Direct Exposure(3)

Indoor Air

Outdoor Air

Outdoor Air

Inhalation

Surface Soil (0-0.5 ft bgs)(1)

-- --

-- --

Fugitive Dust

(1) All soil evaluated as the 0-2-foot depth interval based on contamination profile; see text and Table SRE-1

Volatilization(2) Inhalation --

Percolation/ Infiltration

Subsurface Soil (0.5-6 ft bgs)(1) Direct Contact --Direct Exposure

Soil Gas(2) Soil Vapor Intrusion Inhalation -- -- -- -- --

Adult Visitor Child Visitor Teen Volunteer

Restoration Worker

Potential On-Site Human Receptors

(3) Includes ingestion and dermal contact

Historic Site Operations Spills/Leaks

Surface Soil (0-0.5 ft bgs)(1) Direct Contact

PRIMARY SOURCE

PRIMARY TRANSPORT MECHANISM

PRIMARY EXPOSURE

MEDIUMEXPOSURE

MEDIUM

SECONDARY RELEASE

MECHANISM

EXPOSURE ROUTE

NWR Worker

X

X

OU 2 001928


ATTACHMENT 1

CALCULATION OF DIOXIN/FURAN TOXICITY EQUIVALENT QUOTIENTS

OU 2 001929

1 of 4

ATTACHMENT SRE-1TABLE 1

GUNPOWDER POINT EE/CASCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

CALCULATION OF DIOXINAND FURAN TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE QUOTIENTSSOIL

unitless unitless2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 1 4E-05 U 2E-05 U 2E-05 U 6E-06 J 2E-05 U1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.1 0.1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 1E-06 J 5E-05 U 5E-05 UOCDD 0.0003 0.0001 2E-04 J 2E-06 J 3E-04 5E-06 J 7E-06 J1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.01 0.001 1E-05 J 5E-05 U 3E-05 J 1E-06 J 1E-06 JOCDF 0.0003 0.0001 3E-05 J 1E-04 U 2E-05 J 1E-04 U 8E-06 J1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.05 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1 1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.1 1 1E-04 U 2E-05 U 2E-06 J 2E-05 U 2E-05 U1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.01 0.01 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 0.3 1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 1E-06 J 5E-05 U 5E-05 U1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.03 0.1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 6E-07 J 5E-05 U1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.1 0.01 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 1E-06 J 7E-07 J1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.01 0.01 2E-05 J 5E-05 U 1E-05 J 5E-05 U 5E-05 U1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.1 0.1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.1 0.1 1E-04 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U 5E-05 U

Mammalian TEQ (4,5): 5.5E-05 2.7E-05 1.6E-05 1.8E-05 2.4E-05

Avian TEQ (4,5): 1.4E-04 5.3E-05 1.8E-05 4.4E-05 5.0E-05

Notes:

6. The SLERA exposure point concentration is the maximum calculated TEQ (shaded above).

Definitions:"J" = estimated concentration"U" = non-detect result; method reporting limit presentedmg/kg dw = milligram per kilogram dry weightTEF = Toxic equivalency factorTEQ = toxic equivalency quotient

GPP-B118TEFmammal (1) TEFavian

(2)

1. Mammal toxic equivalency factor (TEFmammal) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. Toxicol Sci 93: 223-241.2. Avian toxic equivalency factor (TEFavian) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, for Humans and Wildlife. Enviro Health Perspect 106(12) 775-792.

GPP-B109

3. Soil TEQ = Σ (Cs x TEF)4. If a given congener was not detected in soil, it was excluded from the TEQ; otherwise, non-detect results were included in the TEQ at one-half the reporting limit.

(12-12) (24-24) (24-24) (24-24)Soil (mg/kg dw) (3)

Dioxins

Furans

Congener (12-12)GPP-B102 GPP-B104 GPP-B105

OU 2 001930

2 of 4



CALCULATION OF DIOXINAND FURAN TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE QUOTIENTSPLANT TISSUE

GPP-B102 GPP-B104 GPP-B105 GPP-B109 GPP-B118(12-12) (12-12) (24-24) (24-24) (24-24)

unitless unitless unitless2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 1 1 9.66E-08 4.83E-08 4.83E-08 3.08E-08 4.83E-081,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.14 0.1 0.1 3.38E-08 1.69E-08 7.71E-10 1.69E-08 1.69E-08OCDD 0.012 0.0003 0.0001 1.05E-08 1.10E-10 1.83E-08 2.78E-10 4.00E-101,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.051 0.01 0.001 3.67E-09 6.16E-09 8.13E-09 2.46E-10 2.73E-10OCDF 0.016 0.0003 0.0001 2.32E-09 3.83E-09 1.50E-09 3.86E-09 6.17E-101,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.31 0.1 0.05 -- -- -- -- --1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 0.92 1 1 -- -- -- -- --2,3,7,8-TCDF 0.8 0.1 1 1.93E-07 3.86E-08 7.61E-09 3.86E-08 3.86E-081,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 0.39 0.01 0.01 -- -- -- -- --2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1.6 0.3 1 3.86E-07 1.93E-07 8.73E-09 1.93E-07 1.93E-071,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 0.22 0.03 0.1 -- -- -- -- --1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.19 0.1 0.1 4.59E-08 2.29E-08 2.29E-08 5.60E-10 2.29E-081,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.12 0.1 0.01 -- -- -- -- --2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 0.67 0.1 0.1 1.62E-07 8.09E-08 8.09E-08 3.53E-09 2.20E-091,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 0.011 0.01 0.01 8.66E-10 1.33E-09 5.13E-10 1.33E-09 1.33E-091,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.076 0.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- --1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 0.63 0.1 0.1 -- -- -- -- --


Avian TEQ (5,6): 7.00E-07 2.92E-07 7.51E-08 2.65E-07 2.84E-07

Notes:

6. The SLERA exposure point concentration is the maximum calculated TEQ (shaded above).

Definitions:BEF = Bioaccumulation equivalency factor"J" = estimated concentration"U" = non-detect result; method reporting limit presentedmg/kg dw = milligram per kilogram dry weightTEF = Toxic equivalency factorTEQ = toxic equivalency quotient

2. Mammal toxic equivalency factor (TEFmammal) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. Toxicol Sci 93: 223-241.3. Avian toxic equivalency factor (TEFavian) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, for Humans and Wildlife. Enviro Health Perspect 106(12) 775-792.

5. If a given congener was not detected in soil, it was excluded from the TEQ; otherwise, non-detect results were included in the TEQ at one-half the reporting limit.

Dioxins

Furans

4. From the Department of Energy (2013), Plant TEQ = Σ (Cs x 0.00483 x BEF)

1. Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factor (BEF) obtained from: EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005. March. Available on-line: http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/docs/usepa_baf_tsd.pdf

Plants (mg/kg dw) (4)Congener

BEFTCDD (1) TEFmammal

(2) TEFavian (3)

OU 2 001931

3 of 4



CALCULATION OF DIOXINAND FURAN TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE QUOTIENTSINVERTEBRATE TISSUE




Avian TEQ (5,6): 8.01E-04 2.87E-04 6.29E-05 2.59E-04 2.79E-04

Notes:

5. If a given congener was not detected in soil, it was excluded from the TEQ; otherwise, non-detect results were included in the TEQ at one-half the reporting limit.6. The SLERA exposure point concentration is the maximum calculated TEQ (shaded above).


4. From Sample et al. (1999), Invertebrate TEQ = Σ {exp[1.182 x ln(Cs) + 3.533] x BEF}

CongenerBEFTCDD

(1) TEFmammal (2) TEFavian

(3)

1. Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factor (BEF) obtained from: EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005. March. Available on-line: http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/docs/usepa_baf_tsd.pdf2. Mammal toxic equivalency factor (TEFmammal) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. Toxicol Sci 93: 223-241.3. Avian toxic equivalency factor (TEFavian) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, for Humans and Wildlife. Enviro Health Perspect 106(12) 775-792.

Invertebrates (mg/kg dw) (4)

Dioxins

Furans

OU 2 001932

4 of 4



CALCULATION OF DIOXINAND FURAN TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE QUOTIENTSSMALL MAMMAL TISSUE




Avian TEQ (5,6): 1.21E-04 4.63E-05 1.09E-05 4.19E-05 4.50E-05

Notes:

4. From Sample et al. (1998), Small Mammal TEQ = Σ {exp[1.0993 x ln(Cs) + 0.8113] x BEF}5. If a given congener was not detected in soil, it was excluded from the TEQ; otherwise, non-detect results were included in the TEQ at one-half the reporting limit.6. The SLERA exposure point concentration is the maximum calculated TEQ (shaded above).


1. Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factor (BEF) obtained from: EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005. March. Available on-line: http://www.epa.gov/gliclearinghouse/docs/usepa_baf_tsd.pdf2. Mammal toxic equivalency factor (TEFmammal) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. Toxicol Sci 93: 223-241.3. Avian toxic equivalency factor (TEFavian) obtained from: Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, for Humans and Wildlife. Enviro Health Perspect 106(12) 775-792.

Small Mammals (mg/kg dw) (4)

Dioxins

Furans

CongenerBEFTCDD

(1) TEFmammal (2) TEFavian

(3)

OU 2 001933


ATTACHMENT 2

ProUCL OUPUTS

OU 2 001934

L:\Clients\US_Fish_and_Wildlife_Service\Projects\PNG0519A_GunpowderPoint\Risk_Calcs\ProUCL\ProUCL_Input.wst

Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000

From File

Full Precision OFFConfidence Coefficient 95%

UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non-Detects

User Selected OptionsDate/Time of Computation 9/24/2013 1:11:04 PM

OU 2 001935

General StatisticsTotal Number of Observations 85 Number of Distinct Observations 68

Perchlorate

Variance Detects 1.776 Percent Non-Detects 18.82%Mean Detects 0.333 SD Detects 1.333

Minimum Detect 5.2400E-4 Minimum Non-Detect 0.001Maximum Detect 7.7 Maximum Non-Detect 0.011

Number of Detects 69 Number of Non-Detects 16Number of Distinct Detects 65 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 7

Normal GOF Test on Detects OnlyShapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.283 Normal GOF Test on Detected Observations Only

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Mean of Logged Detects -4.825 SD of Logged Detects 2.171

Median Detects 0.0046 CV Detects 4Skewness Detects 4.602 Kurtosis Detects 21.1

SD 1.199 95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.531 95% KM (t) UCL 0.489 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.497

Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statistics using Normal Critical Values and other Nonparametric UCLsMean 0.271 Standard Error of Mean 0.131

Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.469 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.107 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations OnlyA-D Test Statistic 13.23 Anderson-Darling GOF Test

5% A-D Critical Value 0.917 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

97.5% KM Chebyshev UCL 1.089 99% KM Chebyshev UCL 1.574

95% KM (z) UCL 0.486 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL 0.71490% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.664 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.842

Theta hat (MLE) 1.684 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.675nu hat (MLE) 27.3 nu star (bias corrected) 27.45

Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Onlyk hat (MLE) 0.198 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.199

K-S Test Statistic 0.372 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF5% K-S Critical Value 0.119 Detected Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Approximate Chi Square Value (8.66, α) 3.125 Adjusted Chi Square Value (8.66, β) 3.067 95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 0.75 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 0.764

Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statisticsk hat (KM) 0.051 nu hat (KM) 8.663

MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.333 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.747

Maximum 7.7 Median 0.00712SD 1.206 CV 4.427

For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVsFor gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates

Minimum 5.2400E-4 Mean 0.272

Gamma (KM) may not be used when k hat (KM) is < 0.1

Gamma ROS Statistics using Imputed Non-DetectsGROS may not be used when data set has > 50% NDs with many tied observations at multiple DLs

GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1

Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0472Approximate Chi Square Value (35.73, α) 23.05 Adjusted Chi Square Value (35.73, β) 22.87

nu hat (MLE) 35.65 nu star (bias corrected) 35.73MLE Mean (bias corrected) 0.272 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.594

k hat (MLE) 0.21 k star (bias corrected MLE) 0.21Theta hat (MLE) 1.299 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1.296

Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-DetectsMean in Original Scale 0.271 Mean in Log Scale -5.359

Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations OnlyLilliefors Test Statistic 0.175 Lilliefors GOF Test

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.107 Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

95% Gamma Approximate UCL (use when n>=50) 0.422 95% Gamma Adjusted UCL (use when n<50) 0.425

DL/2 StatisticsDL/2 Normal DL/2 Log-Transformed

Mean in Original Scale 0.271 Mean in Log Scale -5.222

95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.582 95% Bootstrap t UCL 0.722 95% H-UCL (Log ROS) 0.161

SD in Original Scale 1.206 SD in Log Scale 2.281 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 0.488 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.489

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.089

DL/2 is not a recommended method, provided for comparisons and historical reasons

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsData do not follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level

SD in Original Scale 1.206 SD in Log Scale 2.134 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 0.488 95% H-Stat UCL 0.12

OU 2 001936

Minimum Detect 0.91 Minimum Non-Detect 2.6Maximum Detect 76.7 Maximum Non-Detect 2.6


Arsenic


Mean of Logged Detects 1.508 SD of Logged Detects 0.833

Median Detects 3.98 CV Detects 1.433Skewness Detects 5.234 Kurtosis Detects 34.25


















For gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimatesMinimum 0.01 Mean 6.805


GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVs


nu hat (MLE) 176 nu star (bias corrected) 170.4MLE Mean (bias corrected) 6.805 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 6.428




5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.102 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level





Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal ROS Statistics Using Imputed Non-DetectsMean in Original Scale 6.828 Mean in Log Scale 1.495


Mean in Original Scale 6.822 Mean in Log Scale 1.491

KM SD (logged) 0.829 95% Critical H Value (KM-Log) 2.103KM Standard Error of Mean (logged) 0.0957

UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally DistributedKM Mean (logged) 1.496 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 7.692



Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (BCA) UCL 9.051


Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsDetected Data appear Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level


OU 2 001937

Minimum 45 Mean 162.3Maximum 1300 Median 101.5

Total Number of Observations 76 Number of Distinct Observations 64Number of Missing Observations 2

Barium

General Statistics

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.102 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance LevelData Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.29 Lilliefors GOF Test

Normal GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.547 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test

SD 187.5 Std. Error of Mean 21.51Coefficient of Variation 1.155 Skewness 4.033

Gamma GOF TestA-D Test Statistic 5.319 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test

5% A-D Critical Value 0.765 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 199.8

Assuming Normal Distribution 95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)

95% Student's-t UCL 198.1 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 208.3


Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Gamma Statisticsk hat (MLE) 1.855 k star (bias corrected MLE) 1.79

K-S Test Statistic 0.219 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test5% K-S Critical Value 0.104 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal GOF TestShapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.887 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test

Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 188 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 188.5

Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0468 Adjusted Chi Square Value 234.3

MLE Mean (bias corrected) 162.3 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 121.3Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 234.9

Maximum of Logged Data 7.17 SD of logged Data 0.662

Lognormal StatisticsMinimum of Logged Data 3.807 Mean of logged Data 4.796

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.102 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelData Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.4979E-7 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.163 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsData do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)

Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs

95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 204.4 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 227.9 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 273.9

Assuming Lognormal Distribution 95% H-UCL 175.1 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 187.5

90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 226.8 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 256.1 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 296.7 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 376.4

95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 229.1 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 199.5 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 210.9

95% CLT UCL 197.7 95% Jackknife UCL 198.1 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 198.4 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 223.1

Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Singh, and Iaci (2002)

and Singh and Singh (2003). However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets.For additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 256.1

OU 2 001938

Boron


Variance Detects 1562 Percent Non-Detects 9.375%Mean Detects 30.63 SD Detects 39.52

Minimum Detect 7.8 Minimum Non-Detect 5.2Maximum Detect 300 Maximum Non-Detect 5.5





















Maximum 300 Median 21SD 38.65 CV 1.392


















Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 49.14




OU 2 001939

Number of Distinct Detects 49 Number of Distinct Non-Detects 6Minimum Detect 0.07 Minimum Non-Detect 0.0363

Number of Missing Observations 11Number of Detects 54 Number of Non-Detects 11

Cadmium


Skewness Detects 1.559 Kurtosis Detects 2.319Mean of Logged Detects -0.803 SD of Logged Detects 1.087

Mean Detects 0.743 SD Detects 0.727Median Detects 0.53 CV Detects 0.978

Maximum Detect 3.11 Maximum Non-Detect 0.58Variance Detects 0.528 Percent Non-Detects 16.92%


5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.121 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance LevelDetected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.9244E-8 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.177 Lilliefors GOF Test





Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level


K-S Test Statistic 0.112 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF5% K-S Critical Value 0.124 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level


5% A-D Critical Value 0.777 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level







Approximate Chi Square Value (115.35, α) 91.55 Adjusted Chi Square Value (115.35, β) 91.0795% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 0.819 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 0.824





5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.121 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level





Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level





UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally DistributedKM Mean (logged) -0.992 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 0.948

Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.807 95% GROS Approximate Gamma UCL 0.81


Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsDetected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level




95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL 0.819

OU 2 001940

Chromium


Coefficient of Variation 0.369 Skewness 0.186

Maximum 36 Median 17.4SD 6.75 Std. Error of Mean 0.774

Number of Missing Observations 0Minimum 2.88 Mean 18.29

Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level


Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0731 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.102 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level


5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.413 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

5% K-S Critical Value 0.103 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance LevelDetected data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level

5% A-D Critical Value 0.754 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance LevelK-S Test Statistic 0.0918 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test


95% Student's-t UCL 19.58 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 19.58 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 19.59






Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 19.84 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 19.87







Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsData appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level



Suggested UCL to Use95% Student's-t UCL 19.58

90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 20.62 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 21.67 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 23.13 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 26




OU 2 001941


Cobalt

General Statistics


SD 3.263 Std. Error of Mean 0.942Coefficient of Variation 0.391 Skewness -0.168

Minimum 2.21 Mean 8.346Maximum 13.4 Median 7.68



5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.256 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance LevelData appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.146 Lilliefors GOF Test

K-S Test Statistic 0.171 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test5% K-S Critical Value 0.246 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level








5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.859 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.209 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test







5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.256 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelData appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level








Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not bereliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.



OU 2 001942

Copper





Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level


Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.269 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.102 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level


5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level






5% K-S Critical Value 0.104 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance LevelData Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level



MLE Mean (bias corrected) 25.26 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 17.03Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 293



5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.00301 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.113 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test













OU 2 001943

Minimum 9340 Mean 20040Maximum 41800 Median 19700


Iron

General Statistics

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.111 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance LevelData appear Approximate Normal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0176 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.0947 Lilliefors GOF Test


SD 5404 Std. Error of Mean 675.5Coefficient of Variation 0.27 Skewness 1.118



95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 21183


95% Student's-t UCL 21167 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 21252

Theta hat (MLE) 1347 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 1412nu hat (MLE) 1904 nu star (bias corrected) 1816



K-S Test Statistic 0.0701 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff Gamma GOF Test5% K-S Critical Value 0.111 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Gamma Distribution 95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 21182 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 21209

Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0463 Adjusted Chi Square Value 1716

MLE Mean (bias corrected) 20040 MLE Sd (bias corrected) 5320Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 1718


5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.111 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelData appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.986 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.0845 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test


95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 22950 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 24209 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 26683

Assuming Lognormal Distribution 95% H-UCL 21237 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 22042


95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 21416 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 21105 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 21287

95% CLT UCL 21151 95% Jackknife UCL 21167 95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 21187 95% Bootstrap-t UCL 21271





Suggested UCL to Use95% Student's-t UCL 21167

90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 22066 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 22984 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 24258 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 26761

OU 2 001944



Lead




Variance Detects 1864 Percent Non-Detects 1.316%Mean Detects 28.19 SD Detects 43.18























Maximum 317 Median 15.75SD 43.01 CV 1.546






SD in Original Scale 43 SD in Log Scale 1.071 95% t UCL (assumes normality of ROS data) 36.06 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 36.36

Detected Data appear Approximate Lognormal at 5% Significance Level





UCLs using Lognormal Distribution and KM Estimates when Detected data are Lognormally DistributedKM Mean (logged) 2.727 95% H-UCL (KM -Log) 35.15



Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 49.35


Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsDetected Data appear Approximate Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level

SD in Original Scale 43 SD in Log Scale 1.069 95% t UCL (Assumes normality) 36.06 95% H-Stat UCL 35.91

OU 2 001945

Minimum 36 Mean 454.1Maximum 840 Median 475


Manganese

General Statistics

5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.111 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance LevelData appear Normal at 5% Significance Level

5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.178 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.0813 Lilliefors GOF Test


SD 169.9 Std. Error of Mean 21.24Coefficient of Variation 0.374 Skewness -0.363





95% Student's-t UCL 489.6 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 488


















95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 489.3 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 489 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 488.9


Note: For highly negatively-skewed data, confidence limits (e.g., Chen, Johnson, Lognormal, and Gamma) may not bereliable. Chen's and Johnson's methods provide adjustments for positvely skewed data sets.




OU 2 001946


Mercury

Variance Detects 0.388 Percent Non-Detects 50%Mean Detects 0.219 SD Detects 0.623



Normal GOF Test on Detects OnlyShapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.366 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.938 Detected Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level



















For such situations, GROS method tends to yield inflated values of UCLs and BTVsFor gamma distributed detected data, BTVs and UCLs may be computed using gamma distribution on KM estimates

Minimum 0.00625 Mean 0.117

Gamma (KM) may not be used when k hat (KM) is < 0.1


GROS may not be used when kstar of detected data is small such as < 0.1




Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.169 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.144 Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations OnlyShapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.904 Shapiro Wilk GOF Test

5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.938 Detected Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level














OU 2 001947

Molybdenum









SD 0.22 95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.31795% KM (t) UCL 0.314 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.318













Gamma Kaplan-Meier (KM) Statisticsk hat (KM) 1.33 nu hat (KM) 109









Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.138 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.181 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.916 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level












Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (t) UCL 0.314 95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL 0.318


Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsDetected Data appear Lognormal Distributed at 5% Significance Level


OU 2 001948



Nickel































Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0468Approximate Chi Square Value (216.61, α) 183.5 Adjusted Chi Square Value (216.61, β) 183













OU 2 001949

Selenium









SD 0.34 95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.56395% KM (t) UCL 0.561 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.559











K-S Test Statistic 0.0822 Kolmogrov-Smirnoff GOF5% K-S Critical Value 0.133 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level

Approximate Chi Square Value (267.74, α) 230.9 Adjusted Chi Square Value (267.74, β) 230.195% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 0.566 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 0.568







Adjusted Level of Significance (β) 0.0463Approximate Chi Square Value (230.13, α) 196 Adjusted Chi Square Value (230.13, β) 195.3



Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0945 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.132 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level


5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.945 Detected Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level










95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL 0.566

Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.559 95% GROS Approximate Gamma UCL 0.558


Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL StatisticsDetected Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level




OU 2 001950


Silver


Median Detects 0.67 CV Detects 0.2Skewness Detects N/A Kurtosis Detects N/A



Not Enough Data to Perform GOF Test


Warning: Data set has only 2 Detected Values.This is not enough to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.

Normal GOF Test on Detects Only



95% KM (z) UCL 0.428 95% KM Bootstrap t UCL N/A 90% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.517 95% KM Chebyshev UCL 0.606

SD 0.161 95% KM (BCA) UCL N/A 95% KM (t) UCL 0.438 95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL N/A

MLE Mean (bias corrected) N/A MLE Sd (bias corrected) N/A

Theta hat (MLE) 0.0134 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) N/A nu hat (MLE) 199.4 nu star (bias corrected) N/A

Gamma GOF Tests on Detected Observations OnlyNot Enough Data to Perform GOF Test

Gamma Statistics on Detected Data Onlyk hat (MLE) 49.86 k star (bias corrected MLE) N/A

95% Gamma Approximate KM-UCL (use when n>=50) 0.414 95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL (use when n<50) 0.43





Lognormal GOF Test on Detected Observations OnlyNot Enough Data to Perform GOF Test







However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Warning: One or more Recommended UCL(s) not available!


These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

Suggested UCL to Use95% KM (t) UCL 0.438 95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL N/A

OU 2 001951


Strontium




Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level


Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.222 Lilliefors GOF Test5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.111 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level


5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 1.110E-16 Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level






5% K-S Critical Value 0.114 Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance LevelData Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level








95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 111.9 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 130.5 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 167










90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 102.2 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 116.3 97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 135.7 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 174

OU 2 001952

Minimum 6.15 Mean 54.73Maximum 310 Median 52


Vanadium

General Statistics
































OU 2 001953

Minimum 6 Mean 73.66Maximum 532 Median 49.3


Zinc

General Statistics










Theta hat (MLE) 44.69 Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 46.27nu hat (MLE) 250.5 nu star (bias corrected) 242









5% Shapiro Wilk P Value 0.0013 Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance LevelLilliefors Test Statistic 0.137 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test













OU 2 001954


ATTACHMENT 3

EXPOSURE AND RISK ALGORITHMS

OU 2 001955

ATTACHMENT SRE-3 EXPOSURE AND RISK ALGORITHMS

Page 1

Human Health Ingestion: LADD = EPC x IR x EF x ED x FI x CF1BW x AT ADD = EPC x IR x EF x ED x FI x CF1BW x AT ELCR = LADD x CSF HQ = ADDRfD Dermal: LADD = EPC x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED x CF1BW x AT ADD = EPC x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED x CF1BW x AT ELCR = LADD x CSF HQ = ADDRfD Inhalation: EC = EPC x PEF x EF x ED x FI x ET x CF2 x CF3AT EC = EPC x EF x ED x FI x CF2AT ELCR = EC x IUR HQ = ECRfC Cumulative Carcinogenic Risk and Noncarcinogenic Hazard: Total ELCR = ELCR HI = HQ

OU 2 001956


Page 2

Where: EPC = Soil Exposure Point Concentration (mg/kg soil) IRs = Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) FI = Fraction of Daily Exposure from Site (unitless) EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure Duration (years) CF1 = Conversion Factor 1 (10-6 kg soil/mg soil) SA = Skin Surface Area (cm2) AF = Adherence Factor (mg soil/cm2) ABS = Dermal absorption factor GIABS = Gastrointestinal absorption factor BW = Body Weight (kg) ATc = Averaging Time - Carcinogenic; (years) ATnc = Averaging Time - Noncarcinogenic; (years) ECc = Exposure Concentration – Carcinogenic ECnc = Exposure Concentration – Noncarcinogenic PEF = Particulate Emission Factor (m3 air/kg soil) ET = Exposure time (hours/day) CF2 = Conversion Factor 2 (0.0417 days/hour) CF3 = Conversion Factor 3 (103 µg/mg) ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (unitless) CSF = Carcinogenic Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1

IUR = Inhalation Unit Risk (µg/m3)-1

HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless) HI = Hazard Index (unitless) RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg-day) RfC = Reference Concentration (mg/m3)

OU 2 001957


Page 3

Ecological ADD = (∑( ADD = ( Total ADD = ADD + HQ = Total ADDTRV Total = HQ ADD = Average daily dietary intake (mg/kg-day) EPCsoil = Exposure Point Concentration in Soil (mg/kg) EPCdiet = Exposure Point Concentration in food (mg/kg) – calculated from the EPCsoil with uptake

factors or logarithmic equations; see Tables SRE-17 through SRE-20 UF = Uptake factor (unitless) DFI = Daily food ingestion rate (kg/day) DFI S Daily soil ingestion rate (kg/day) F = Fraction of diet composed of the individual food source CF = Conversion factor (1,000 g/kg) AUF = Area use factor (fraction of time spent foraging at the Site); assumed to equal 1(100%) BW = Body weight (kg) DFI = Daily soil ingestion rate (kg/day) TRV = Toxicity Reference Value (mg/kg-day) HQ = Hazard quotient

OU 2 001958


ATTACHMENT 4

LeadSpread OUTPUT

OU 2 001959

Variable UnitsPbS ug/g or ppm 318

Rfetal/maternal -- 0.9BKSF ug/dL per ug/day 0.4GSDi -- 1.8PbB0 ug/dL 0.0IRS g/day 0.1

AFS, D -- 0.12EFS, D days/yr 125ATS, D days/yr 365

PbBadult PbB of adult worker, geometric mean ug/dL 0.523PbBfetal, 0.90 90th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers ug/dL 1.0

PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL) ug/dL 1.0P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution % 10%

PRG90 318

MODIFIED VERSION OF USEPA ADULT LEAD MODEL

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

Description of VariableSoil lead concentration

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio Biokinetic Slope Factor

Geometric standard deviation PbBBaseline PbB

CALCULATIONS OF BLOOD LEAD CONCENTRATIONS (PbBs) AND PRELMIINARY REMEDIATION GOAL (PRG)

1 of 1

OU 2 001960

INPUT OUTPUT

MEDIUM LEVEL Percentile Estimate of Blood Pb (ug/dl) PRG-90

Lead in Soil/Dust (ug/g) 49.0 50th 90th 95th 98th 99th (ug/g)

Respirable Dust (ug/m3) 1.5 BLOOD Pb, CHILD 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 540

BLOOD Pb, PICA CHILD 0.10 0.18 0.21 0.26 0.30 271

unitsDays per week days/wkGeometric Standard Deviation PEF ug/dl percent PEF ug/dl percentBlood lead level of concern (ug/dl) Soil Contact 8.3E-6 0.0004 1% 0.0004 0%Skin area, residential cm2 Soil Ingestion 1.0E-3 0.05 99% 2.0E-3 0.10 100%Soil adherence ug/cm2 Inhalation 2.8E-7 0.000014 0% 0.000014 0%Dermal uptake constant (ug/dl)/(ug/day)Soil ingestion mg/daySoil ingestion, pica mg/dayIngestion constant (ug/dl)/(ug/day)Bioavailability unitlessBreathing rate m3/dayInhalation constant (ug/dl)/(ug/day)

0.16

6.80.192

100200

0.0001

0.44

200

LEAD RISK ASSESSMENT SPREADSHEET 8CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

PATHWAYSchildren

Pathway contribution Pathway contribution1.61

Pathway

2900

EXPOSURE PARAMETERStypical with picaCHILDREN

1

1 of 1

OU 2 001961


ATTACHMENT 5

CHECKLIST FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/SAMPLING

OU 2 001962

Appendix F, Attachment 5 Checklist for Ecological Assessment/Sampling

Page 1

I. SITE DESCRIPTION

1. Site Name: Gunpowder Point

Location: Upland Area of the Gunpowder Point Site located within the Sweetwater Marsh Unit of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge

County: San Diego City: Chula Vista State: CA

2. Latitude: 32.639519 Longitude: -117.112927

3. What is the approximate area of the site? 30 acres

4. Is this the first site visit? 0 yes X no If no, attach trip report of previous site visit(s), if available. See main body of EE/CA report for description of field activities with dates and Appendix B for the Field Sampling Sheets.

Date(s) of previous site visit(s): Field invest igat ions were conducted in 2007-2009; Jan.-Mar 2012.

Habitat information is based on observations and photographs over several years of field sampling events, and detailed information in the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Sweetwater Marsh and South San Diego Bay Units, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (FWS, 2006). http://www.fws.gov/sandiegorefuges/new/ccp/ccp.htm

5. Please attach to the checklist USGS topographic map(s) of the site, if available.

OU 2 001963


Page 2

6. Are aerial or other site photographs available? X yes 0 no If yes, please attach any available photo(s) to the site map at the conclusion of this section. See Figures in main body of EE/CA report. 7. The land use on the site is: Wildlife Refuge and Visitor’s Center The area surrounding the site is as follows:

Radius from site: 1 mile 2 mile% Urban % Rural % Residential 15 30% Industrial 20 15% Agriculture % Recreation % Undisturbed 5% Marsh 25 15% Other % Water 40 35

(Describe; note if it is a park, etc.) The Site is part of the Sweetwater Marsh Unit of the San Diego National wildlife Refuge (NWR), and is expected to remain so in the future. A portion of the Site is currently developed with the Living Coast Discovery Center, which includes an access road, a visitor’s center, offices, and maintenance building, as wells as walking paths. The majority of the Site provides wildlife habitat. In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, current uses are walking, wildlife observation/photography, and environmental education.

8. Has any movement of soil taken place at the site? X yes -assumed but unknown 0 no. If yes, please identify the most likely cause of this disturbance:

X Agricultural Use X Heavy Equipment Mining

Natural Events Erosion X Other

Please describe: Construction and demolition associated with historical use as an industrial complex (kelp and cottonseed oil processing); depressed areas of former settling basins and lagoons.

9. Do any potentially sensitive environmental areas exist adjacent to or in proximity to the site, e.g., Federal and State parks, National and State monuments, wetlands, prairie potholes? Remember, flood plains and wetlands are not always obvious; do not answer "no" without confirming information.

Please provide the source(s) of information used to identify these sensitive areas, and indicate their general location on the site map.

The Site itself is defined as the upland area of the NWR. However, the Site lies within the Sweetwater Marsh Unit (tidal wetlands) and is adjacent to San Diego Bay. The Sweetwater River runs along the northern side of Gunpowder Point, and many small streams are present through the marsh surrounding the Site. See topographic map above as well as Figure 1 of the EE/CA report.

10. What type of facility is located at the site?

0 Chemical 0 Manufacturing 0 Mixing 0 Waste disposal

X Other (specify) Visitor’s Center

OU 2 001964


Page 3

11. What are the suspected contaminants of concern at the site? If known, what are the maximum concentration levels? Contaminants of Concern at the Site are arsenic, other metals, and dioxin and furan congeners. See Table SRE-1 for the maximum observed soil concentrations.

12. Check any potential routes of off-site migration of contaminants observed at the site:

0 Swales X Depressions 0 Drainage ditches

X Runoff X Windblown particulates 0 Vehicular traffic

0 Other (specify)

13. If known, what is the approximate depth to the water table? 8 to 12 feet bgs

14. Is the direction of surface runoff apparent from site observations? X yes 0 no If yes, to which of the following does the surface runoff discharge? Indicate all that apply.

X Surface water 0 Groundwater 0 Sewer 0 Collection impoundment

15. Is there a navigable waterbody or tributary to a navigable waterbody? 0 yes X no There are no water bodies on Site. However, San Diego Bay to the west is navigable. 16. Is there a waterbody anywhere on or in the vicinity of the site? If yes, also complete Section III: Aquatic Habitat

Checklist -- Non-Flowing Systems and/or Section IV: Aquatic Habitat Checklist -- Flowing Systems.

0 yes (approx. distance ) X no

17. Is there evidence of flooding? 0 yes Xno Wetlands and flood plains are not always obvious; do not answer "no" without confirming information. If yes, complete Section V: Wetland Habitat Checklist.

The Site is adjacent to San Diego Bay so is subject to marginal tidal fluctuations but not flooding.

18. If a field guide was used to aid any of the identifications, please provide a reference. Also, estimate the time spent identifying fauna. [Use a blank sheet if additional space is needed for text.]

Habitat information was obtained from the FWS. See FWS, 2006.

19. Are any threatened and/or endangered species (plant or animal) known to inhabit the area of the site? X yes 0 no

If yes, you are required to verify this information with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If species' identities are known, please list them next.

According to FWS (2006), two remnant stands of yerba reuma (Frankenia palmeri) occur on Site, representing the only location for yerba in the United States. The larger Sweetwater Marsh area provides habitat for two federally endangered bird species, the California least tern and light-footed clapper rail, one threatened species of bird, the Western snowy plover, and one endangered plant species, the salt marsh “bird’s beak” (FWS, 2006). In addition, Belding’s savannah sparrow is listed by the State of California as endangered.

OU 2 001965


Page 4

20. Record weather conditions at the time this checklist was prepared: N/A

IA. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND SITE SETTING

II. TERRESTRIAL HABITAT

CHECKLIST IIA. WOODED

1. Are there any wooded areas at the site? 0 yes X no If no, go to Section IIB: Shrub/Scrub.

2. What percentage or area of the site is wooded? ( % acres). Indicate the wooded area on the site map which is attached to a copy of this checklist. Please identify what information was used to determine the wooded area of the site.

3. What is the dominant type of vegetation in the wooded area? (Circle one: Evergreen/Deciduous/ Mixed) Provide a photograph, if available.

Dominant plant, if known:

4. What is the predominant size of the trees at the site? Use diameter at breast height.

0 0-6 in. 0 6-12 in. 0 > 12 in.

5. Specify type of understory present, if known. Provide a photograph, if available.

N/A IIB. SHRUB/SCRUB

1. Is shrub/scrub vegetation present at the site? X yes 0 no If no, go to Section IIC: Open Field.

2. What percentage of the site is covered by scrub/shrub vegetation? (80%. Indicate the areas of shrub/scrub on the site map. Please identify what information was used to determine this area.

See Figure 1 of EE/CA. Site is entirely shrub except for the pavement, Nature Center buildings, walking paths, and some unvegetated spots within the scrub.

3. What is the dominant type of scrub/shrub vegetation, if known? Provide a photograph, if available. The native vegetation on Gunpowder Point, has undergone disruption since the early 1900s due to agricultural and industrial uses, and the majority of the area is populated by non-native plant species. Nonnative grasses and weedy annuals. Remaining original native upland vegetation exist on site. Most of the Site is covered with disturbed coastal sage scrub, primarily of broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) and California sagebrush. The most common species include Australian saltbrush (Atriplex semibaccata), hottentot fig, spiny sowthistle (Sonchus asper), sand-spurreys (Spergularia spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus mollis), red brome (Bromus rubens), chrysanthemum, and wild radish (Raphanus sativus). Two remnant patches of maritime succulent scrub have been noted, along the northeastern bluff and the southeastern tip of the Site.

4. What is the approximate average height of the scrub/shrub vegetation?

X 0-2 ft. 0 2-5 ft. 0 > 5 ft. 5. Based on site observations, how dense is the scrub/shrub vegetation?

0 Dense X Patchy 0 Sparse

OU 2 001966


Page 5

IIC. OPEN FIELD

1. Are there open (bare, barren) field areas present at the site? 0 yes X no If yes, please indicate the type below:

0 Prairie/plains 0 Savannah 0 Old field 0 Other (specify)

2. What percentage of the site is open field? ( % acres). Indicate the open fields on the site map.

3. What is/are the dominant plant(s)? Provide a photograph, if available.

4. What is the approximate average height of the dominant plant?

5. Describe the vegetation cover: 0 Dense 0 Sparse 0 Patchy

IID. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Are other types of terrestrial habitats present at the site, other than woods, scrub/shrub, and open field? 0 yes X no

If yes, identify and describe them below.

2. Describe the terrestrial miscellaneous habitat(s) and identify these area(s) on the site map. 3. What observations, if any, were made at the site regarding the presence and/or absence of insects, fish, birds, mammals, etc.?

The attached tables 3-15 and 3-17 from FWS (2006) indicate species that have been observed at the Site and/or are of ecological significance. Upland species observed in other area of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge would be expected on the Gunpowder Site.

4. Review the questions in Section I to determine if any additional habitat checklists should be completed for this site.

OU 2 001967


Page 6

OU 2 001968


Page 7

OU 2 001969


ATTACHMENT 6

COMPARISON OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO PLANT AND

INVERTEBRATE SCREENING LEVELS

OU 2 001970

1 of 2



COMPARISON OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO PLANT SCREENING LEVEL VALUES

SLV-plant -- 5.0 (b) 18 (a) 500 (b) 0.50 (b) 32 (a) 1 (b) 13 (a) 70 (a) -- 120 (a) 220 (a) 0.30 (b) 2.0 (b) 38.0 (a) 0.52 (a) 560 (a) -- 2.0 (b) 160 (a)background -- 1.49 (c) 8.3 (c) 738 (c) 62 (c) 1.1 (c) 95.9 (c) -- 33.3 (c) -- 49 (c) -- 0.90 (c) -- 39.7 (c) 0.43 (c) -- -- 231 (c) 180 (c)

GPP-01 (0-48) 0.001 U -- 2.6 U 45 5.2 U 2.6 U 12 -- 9.7 12000 5.6 360 0.012 -- 5.4 5.2 U -- 11 36 49GPP-03 (0-48) 0.006 -- 4.3 110 9.1 2.7 U 24 -- 20 22000 16 610 0.014 -- 12 0.83 -- 19 71 59GPP-04 (0-24) 0.0011 U -- 2.5 73 5.3 U 2.7 U 20 -- 19 19000 20 410 0.04 -- 13 5.3 U -- 16 56 42GPP-07 (0-24) 0.0021 U -- 4.7 70 5.2 U 2.6 U 13 -- 81 14000 60 280 0.16 -- 10 5.2 U -- 19 39 62GPP-08 (0-24) 0.0012 U -- 4.5 97 7.8 0.56 22 -- 34 21000 17 400 0.043 -- 15 6 U -- 120 56 61GPP-09 (0-48) 0.0012 U -- 6.1 170 15 1 19 -- 56 16000 74 270 0.065 -- 26 5.9 U -- 140 62 150GPP-10 (0-24) 4.7 -- 3.5 100 5.5 U 2.8 U 23 -- 15 21000 2.8 U 360 0.022 U -- 10 5.5 U -- 16 68 39GPP-10A (0-24) 7.7 -- 14 100 120 0.081 24 -- 16 20000 3.8 550 0.022 U -- 9.5 0.8 -- 11 64 38GPP-11 (0-48) 0.003 -- 2.7 89 5.4 U 2.7 U 23 -- 18 22000 6 830 0.015 -- 12 5.4 U -- 19 69 43GPP-12A (0-48) 0.002 -- 7.1 240 8.3 0.11 12 -- 17 13000 12 720 0.013 -- 6.2 0.31 -- 25 36 40GPP-13 (0-24) 0.092 -- 4 58 34 2.7 U 17 -- 10 16000 3.3 530 0.021 U -- 10 5.3 U -- 18 51 28GPP-13A (0-24) 0.0037 -- 1.3 69 34 0.14 21 -- 13 18000 4 610 0.021 U -- 9 0.37 -- 18 60 32GPP-14 (0-24) 0.0025 -- 3.2 140 5.4 U 2.7 U 19 -- 15 21000 26 380 0.022 U -- 13 5.4 U -- 17 68 58GPP-18 (0-24) 1.2 -- 25 140 12 2.9 U 5.2 -- 12 14000 20 36 0.023 U -- 5.8 U 1.1 -- 28 13 7.7GPP-18A (0-24) 6.5 -- 21 75 17 0.56 U 4.6 -- 7.3 14000 12 38 0.023 U -- 1.2 0.99 -- 26 8.2 6GPP-21 (0-24) 0.011 -- 11 74 11 2.6 U 19 -- 170 16000 23 500 1.4 -- 9.4 5.2 U -- 30 53 48GPP-22 (0-48) 0.0052 -- 15 810 52 1.6 22 -- 26 19000 52 510 0.022 U -- 12 0.92 -- 170 64 48GPP-22A (0-48) 0.015 -- 7 540 60 0.76 24 -- 19 19000 25 600 0.022 U -- 11 0.62 -- 97 64 39GPP-23 (0-6) 0.0018 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-24 (0-6) 0.0015 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-25 (0-24) 0.0022 U -- 2.9 57 16 2.7 U 21 -- 15 20000 11 320 0.021 U -- 8.7 5.4 U -- 7.7 64 36GPP-28 (0-24) 0.008 -- 2.6 85 16 0.13 21 -- 15 18000 8.8 640 0.022 U -- 8.3 0.27 -- 28 62 43GPP-29 (0-24) 0.0026 -- 2.2 77 14 0.25 22 -- 36 25000 51 720 0.039 -- 10 0.24 -- 21 72 72GPP-38 (0-48) 0.0011 -- 1.9 91 14 0.37 24 -- 18 21000 5.2 220 0.019 -- 8.1 0.26 -- 24 67 41GPP-39 (0-48) 0.0018 -- 1.7 120 21 0.5 35 -- 25 33000 8.1 580 0.022 U -- 14 0.57 -- 32 87 56GPP-40 (0-48) 0.002 -- 1.9 90 21 0.79 36 -- 28 24000 8.8 610 0.057 -- 13 0.71 -- 29 79 60GPP-41 (0-24) 0.0038 -- 2.2 92 17 0.073 21 -- 13 19000 6.9 430 0.021 U -- 8.1 0.38 -- 18 65 34GPP-42 (0-24) 0.0033 -- 1.8 72 17 0.54 U 24 -- 13 22000 3.9 280 0.022 U -- 8.7 0.36 -- 17 70 36GPP-43 (0-24) 0.0035 -- 2 70 28 0.57 U 27 -- 13 25000 4.9 330 0.023 U -- 9.2 0.37 -- 18 81 40GPP-44 (0-48) 0.018 -- 2.6 94 35 0.071 31 -- 19 26000 5.7 550 0.023 U -- 13 0.46 -- 23 78 48GPP-45 (0-48) 0.003 -- 2.4 100 33 0.07 27 -- 16 24000 6.4 450 0.022 U -- 13 0.55 -- 20 79 47GPP-46 (0-24) 0.011 U -- 1.4 190 40 0.14 34 -- 21 26000 6.4 740 0.021 U -- 14 0.53 -- 25 83 48GPP-47 (0-48) 0.0022 -- 9 1300 28 2.6 17 -- 91 15000 64 180 0.044 -- 18 1.1 -- 160 40 110GPP-48 (0-24) 0.0054 -- 0.91 78 17 0.54 U 23 -- 53 20000 7.1 410 0.021 U -- 8.5 0.45 -- 16 68 34GPP-49 (0-24) 0.0072 -- 6.3 110 18 0.13 27 -- 18 24000 6.7 840 0.022 U -- 11 0.39 -- 15 78 47GPP-50 (0-48) 1.8 -- 32 94 36 0.58 U 14 -- 25 16000 48 79 0.052 -- 220 2.0 -- 44 310 15GPP-51 (0-24) 0.021 -- 16 77 300 1.3 13 -- 25 12000 27 260 0.023 U -- 13 0.78 -- 500 38 81GPP-B101 (12-12) 0.0026 0.75 U 4.18 105 -- 0.707 26.6 13.4 13.1 -- 7.57 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 10.4 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 81.5 49.4GPP-B102 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 2.1 65.2 -- 0.592 16.8 6.5 20.6 -- 8.35 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 5.15 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 29.7 41.5GPP-B103 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 1.21 51.2 -- 0.5 U 7.52 4.57 5.52 -- 2.14 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.04 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 20.8 14.5GPP-B104 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 1.37 56.4 -- 0.5 U 9.8 7.07 6.08 -- 2.87 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.25 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 31.1 19.9GPP-B105 (24-24) 0.002 U 0.75 U 3.27 116 -- 1.32 25 11.4 22.9 -- 7.58 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 9.32 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 62.6 50.7GPP-B106 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 3.48 92.5 -- 1.67 26.1 10.6 33 -- 11.3 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 8.8 0.75 U 0.575 -- 53 64.3GPP-B107 (24-24) 0.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B109 (24-24) 0.002 U 0.75 U 1.66 52.3 -- 0.5 U 9.15 7.26 8.01 -- 5 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.76 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 31.9 18.6GPP-B110 (18-18) 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B111 (24-24) 0.0034 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B112 (24-24) 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B113 (24-24) 0.0046 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B114 (18-18) 0.0051 0.75 U 2.67 48.1 -- 0.5 U 15.7 12.5 10.4 -- 4.46 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.77 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 56.1 27.8GPP-B115 (18-18) 0.0023 0.75 U 2.21 65.9 -- 0.5 U 11.2 7.53 8.42 -- 3.51 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.24 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 37.6 18.3GPP-B116 (18-18) 0.0029 0.75 U 11.6 100 -- 1.93 11.8 9.28 20.4 -- 27.4 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.88 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 33.1 433GPP-B117 (24-24) 0.0083 0.75 U 6.87 412 -- 1.05 12.2 7.83 13.6 -- 15.6 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 6.96 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 36.3 35.9GPP-B118 (24-24) 0.0032 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24% -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B119 (12-12) 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B121 (6-6) 0.043 0.963 76.7 114 -- 1.36 2.88 2.21 113 -- 56.8 -- 0.0835 U 1.34 14.6 0.75 U 0.764 -- 12.5 245E1 (0-12) 0.00301 -- 7 109 28.5 0.315 14 -- 12.5 14800 17.7 442 0.018 0.226 6.36 0.166 -- 56.1 40.3 52.6E2 (0-12) 0.00303 -- 3.53 109 19.6 0.315 16.1 -- 17.1 17700 19 469 0.0132 0.238 8.23 0.163 -- 57.5 42.2 63.6E3 (0-12) 0.000719 -- 4.1 162 13.6 0.364 16.5 -- 18.3 19000 17.4 490 0.0163 0.079 8.3 0.368 -- 51.1 48 71E4 (0-12) 0.00174 -- 6.7 233 23 0.967 17.4 -- 32.7 21000 44.6 600 0.0246 0.361 10.6 0.546 -- 146 47.9 142E5 (0-48) 0.00085 -- 2.9 109 31.7 0.189 17.4 -- 16.2 18200 9.16 628 0.0142 0.0875 U 8.18 0.176 U -- 37.2 50.9 49.2E5 (0-12) 0.00185 -- 8.47 156 34.8 0.847 13.6 -- 22.7 20800 65.4 453 0.123 0.211 8.06 0.346 -- 165 35.6 116E6 (0-48) 0.00266 -- 2.42 132 20.7 0.0363 U 21.8 -- 14.2 22600 4.51 546 0.0065 U 0.091 U 8.24 0.182 U -- 18.7 64.9 39.8E6 (0-12) 0.00143 -- 2.77 98.6 18 0.119 12.2 -- 11.1 13300 8.93 342 0.00625 0.287 5.67 0.157 -- 24.6 35.3 35.3

Lead Strontium Vanadium ZincSelenium SilverSample ID

Manganese Mercury Molybdenum NickelBoronDepth

(in. bgs) Perchlorate Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper IronBarium

OU 2 001971

2 of 2



COMPARISON OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO PLANT SCREENING LEVEL VALUES

SLV-plant -- 5.0 (b) 18 (a) 500 (b) 0.50 (b) 32 (a) 1 (b) 13 (a) 70 (a) -- 120 (a) 220 (a) 0.30 (b) 2.0 (b) 38.0 (a) 0.52 (a) 560 (a) -- 2.0 (b) 160 (a)background -- 1.49 (c) 8.3 (c) 738 (c) 62 (c) 1.1 (c) 95.9 (c) -- 33.3 (c) -- 49 (c) -- 0.90 (c) -- 39.7 (c) 0.43 (c) -- -- 231 (c) 180 (c)

Lead Strontium Vanadium ZincSelenium SilverSample ID

Manganese Mercury Molybdenum NickelBoronDepth

(in. bgs) Perchlorate Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper IronBarium

N1 (0-48) 0.00105 -- 3.68 99.6 27.9 0.364 17.1 -- 18 18400 15.7 504 0.0335 0.087 U 8.33 0.174 U -- 84.6 44.7 58.3N1 (0-12) 0.000794 -- 9.5 671 25.9 0.876 15 -- 33.6 18200 317 385 0.199 0.29 9.52 0.398 -- 225 43.5 104N2 (0-48) 0.000637 -- 3.1 95.2 28.7 0.21 22.9 -- 17.5 23200 8.12 498 0.00675 U 0.0915 U 10.1 0.183 U -- 50 59 52.1N2 (0-12) 0.000524 -- 6.57 123 21.5 0.49 15 -- 22.1 19000 30 423 0.0551 0.225 9 0.348 -- 117 45.2 75.3N3 (0-48) 0.000567 -- 2.11 95.8 29.2 0.111 18.9 -- 14.7 20000 17.1 585 0.0156 0.222 8.48 0.168 U -- 24.2 55.4 45.7N3 (0-12) 0.00505 -- 2.58 106 18.7 0.275 17.5 -- 21.1 21200 32.6 554 0.0227 0.191 10 0.168 -- 39.9 50 86.7N4 (0-12) 0.00132 -- 6.8 361 32 0.956 12.8 -- 36.4 12900 52.2 336 0.034 0.211 7.77 0.352 -- 167 32.6 147N5 (0-12) 0.0059 -- 3.75 126 20.6 0.371 15.9 -- 16.9 15700 20.7 524 0.00635 U 0.2 8.32 0.172 U -- 85.7 45.3 51.4S1 (0-48) 0.0131 -- 4.1 246 31.6 0.123 21.9 -- 15.1 26000 8.07 573 0.119 0.0905 U 25.7 0.18 U -- 29 67.9 55S1 (0-12) 0.00943 -- 15.5 162 40.6 3.11 17.2 -- 50.2 41800 174 477 3.6 0.632 13.1 0.646 -- 264 43.4 532S2 (0-12) 0.271 -- 9.84 62.3 12.5 0.106 3.56 -- 8.45 9340 26.5 75 0.00615 U 0.175 1.92 0.49 -- 22.8 6.15 12.5S3 (0-12) 0.0954 -- 9.56 76.4 18.7 0.4 13.2 -- 21.6 14800 32.3 382 0.0471 0.253 7.27 0.522 -- 127 32.7 65.5S4 (0-12) 0.00724 -- 6.6 128 23.3 0.559 15.3 -- 30.6 19400 54 393 0.0551 0.171 9.43 0.411 -- 117 39.1 97.2S5 (0-12) 0.0599 -- 13.4 236 25.3 2.87 15.2 -- 43.4 28500 93.7 392 0.534 0.569 12.2 0.788 -- 184 35.9 401W1 (0-12) 0.0112 -- 3.98 252 16.1 0.785 17 -- 20.2 21700 27.2 496 0.0329 0.312 11.7 0.455 -- 83.8 47.8 64.4W2 (0-12) 0.0187 -- 3.01 103 26.8 0.0777 24.2 -- 14.8 27500 8.31 542 0.0063 U 0.087 U 9.93 0.174 U -- 15.5 71.5 41.8W3 (0-12) 0.0242 -- 5.4 321 21.2 1.98 20.6 -- 23.7 25000 30.6 483 0.211 0.511 16.9 1.57 -- 88.2 59.3 92.2W4 (0-12) 0.007 -- 8.9 132 43.2 0.973 14.9 -- 25.9 29400 44.1 486 0.143 0.489 11.8 0.477 -- 209 37.3 70.3W5 (0-12) 0.0202 -- 7.19 220 21.7 0.586 12.4 -- 23 16100 47.8 398 0.106 0.346 9.55 0.63 -- 88.8 36.3 83.1W6 (0-12) 0.0228 -- 6.13 376 19.9 1.3 17.4 -- 26.5 22200 59.9 482 0.884 0.342 12.5 0.732 -- 129 42.8 118W7 (0-48) 0.00712 -- 3.56 159 30 1.18 17.8 -- 14.2 17800 15.8 473 0.0365 0.337 12.1 0.899 -- 54.8 53 58.5

Notes:(1) Plant-specific screening level value (SLV-invert) were obtained from the following sources in the order of preference in which they are listed:

(a) EPA. 2005 et seq .. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Documents. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Released 2005 through 2009.(b) Efroymson, RA, ME Will, GW Suter II, and AC Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. November. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.

(2) Site-specific background (see Appendix H of the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis).

Definitions:"--" = constituent not analyzed for/no value availablehighlighting = concentration exceeds the higher of the plant-specific SLV or site-specific backgroundUnderline/Italic = one-half the reporting limit (RL) > SLV"U" = non-detect result; the detection limit is presentedbgs = below ground surface

OU 2 001972

1 of 2



COMPARISON OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO INVERTEBRATE SCREENING LEVEL VALUES

SLV-invert (1) -- 78 (a) 60 (b) 330 (a) -- 140 (a) 0.4 (b) -- 80 (a) -- 1700 (a) 450 (a) 0.10 (b) -- 280 (a) 4.1 (a) -- -- -- 120 (a)background (2) -- 1.49 8.3 738 62 1.1 95.9 -- 33.3 -- 49 -- 0.90 -- 39.7 0.43 -- -- 231 180

GPP-01 (0-48) 0.001 U -- 2.6 U 45 5.2 U 2.6 U 12 -- 9.7 12000 5.6 360 0.012 -- 5.4 5.2 U -- 11 36 49GPP-03 (0-48) 0.006 -- 4.3 110 9.1 2.7 U 24 -- 20 22000 16 610 0.014 -- 12 0.83 -- 19 71 59GPP-04 (0-24) 0.0011 U -- 2.5 73 5.3 U 2.7 U 20 -- 19 19000 20 410 0.04 -- 13 5.3 U -- 16 56 42GPP-07 (0-24) 0.0021 U -- 4.7 70 5.2 U 2.6 U 13 -- 81 14000 60 280 0.16 -- 10 5.2 U -- 19 39 62GPP-08 (0-24) 0.0012 U -- 4.5 97 7.8 0.56 22 -- 34 21000 17 400 0.043 -- 15 6 U -- 120 56 61GPP-09 (0-48) 0.0012 U -- 6.1 170 15 1 19 -- 56 16000 74 270 0.065 -- 26 5.9 U -- 140 62 150GPP-10 (0-24) 4.7 -- 3.5 100 5.5 U 2.8 U 23 -- 15 21000 2.8 U 360 0.022 U -- 10 5.5 U -- 16 68 39GPP-10A (0-24) 7.7 -- 14 100 120 0.081 24 -- 16 20000 3.8 550 0.022 U -- 9.5 0.8 -- 11 64 38GPP-11 (0-48) 0.003 -- 2.7 89 5.4 U 2.7 U 23 -- 18 22000 6 830 0.015 -- 12 5.4 U -- 19 69 43GPP-12A (0-48) 0.002 -- 7.1 240 8.3 0.11 12 -- 17 13000 12 720 0.013 -- 6.2 0.31 -- 25 36 40GPP-13 (0-24) 0.092 -- 4 58 34 2.7 U 17 -- 10 16000 3.3 530 0.021 U -- 10 5.3 U -- 18 51 28GPP-13A (0-24) 0.0037 -- 1.3 69 34 0.14 21 -- 13 18000 4 610 0.021 U -- 9 0.37 -- 18 60 32GPP-14 (0-24) 0.0025 -- 3.2 140 5.4 U 2.7 U 19 -- 15 21000 26 380 0.022 U -- 13 5.4 U -- 17 68 58GPP-18 (0-24) 1.2 -- 25 140 12 2.9 U 5.2 -- 12 14000 20 36 0.023 U -- 5.8 U 1.1 -- 28 13 7.7GPP-18A (0-24) 6.5 -- 21 75 17 0.56 U 4.6 -- 7.3 14000 12 38 0.023 U -- 1.2 0.99 -- 26 8.2 6GPP-21 (0-24) 0.011 -- 11 74 11 2.6 U 19 -- 170 16000 23 500 1.4 -- 9.4 m 5.2 U -- 30 53 48GPP-22 (0-48) 0.0052 -- 15 810 52 1.6 22 -- 26 19000 52 510 0.022 U -- 12 0.92 -- 170 64 48GPP-22A (0-48) 0.015 -- 7 540 60 0.76 24 -- 19 19000 25 600 0.022 U -- 11 0.62 -- 97 64 39GPP-23 (0-6) 0.0018 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-24 (0-6) 0.0015 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-25 (0-24) 0.0022 U -- 2.9 57 16 2.7 U 21 -- 15 20000 11 320 0.021 U -- 8.7 5.4 U -- 7.7 64 36GPP-28 (0-24) 0.008 -- 2.6 85 16 0.13 21 -- 15 18000 8.8 640 0.022 U -- 8.3 0.27 -- 28 62 43GPP-29 (0-24) 0.0026 -- 2.2 77 14 0.25 22 -- 36 25000 51 720 0.039 -- 10 0.24 -- 21 72 72GPP-38 (0-48) 0.0011 -- 1.9 91 14 0.37 24 -- 18 21000 5.2 220 0.019 -- 8.1 0.26 -- 24 67 41GPP-39 (0-48) 0.0018 -- 1.7 120 21 0.5 35 -- 25 33000 8.1 580 0.022 U -- 14 0.57 -- 32 87 56GPP-40 (0-48) 0.002 -- 1.9 90 21 0.79 36 -- 28 24000 8.8 610 0.057 -- 13 0.71 -- 29 79 60GPP-41 (0-24) 0.0038 -- 2.2 92 17 0.073 21 -- 13 19000 6.9 430 0.021 U -- 8.1 0.38 -- 18 65 34GPP-42 (0-24) 0.0033 -- 1.8 72 17 0.54 U 24 -- 13 22000 3.9 280 0.022 U -- 8.7 0.36 -- 17 70 36GPP-43 (0-24) 0.0035 -- 2 70 28 0.57 U 27 -- 13 25000 4.9 330 0.023 U -- 9.2 0.37 -- 18 81 40GPP-44 (0-48) 0.018 -- 2.6 94 35 0.071 31 -- 19 26000 5.7 550 0.023 U -- 13 0.46 -- 23 78 48GPP-45 (0-48) 0.003 -- 2.4 100 33 0.07 27 -- 16 24000 6.4 450 0.022 U -- 13 0.55 -- 20 79 47GPP-46 (0-24) 0.011 U -- 1.4 190 40 0.14 34 -- 21 26000 6.4 740 0.021 U -- 14 0.53 -- 25 83 48GPP-47 (0-48) 0.0022 -- 9 1300 28 2.6 17 -- 91 15000 64 180 0.044 -- 18 1.1 -- 160 40 110GPP-48 (0-24) 0.0054 -- 0.91 78 17 0.54 U 23 -- 53 20000 7.1 410 0.021 U -- 8.5 0.45 -- 16 68 34GPP-49 (0-24) 0.0072 -- 6.3 110 18 0.13 27 -- 18 24000 6.7 840 0.022 U -- 11 0.39 -- 15 78 47GPP-50 (0-48) 1.8 -- 32 94 36 0.58 U 14 -- 25 16000 48 79 0.052 -- 220 2 -- 44 310 15GPP-51 (0-24) 0.021 -- 16 77 300 1.3 13 -- 25 12000 27 260 0.023 U -- 13 0.78 -- 500 38 81GPP-B101 (12-12) 0.0026 0.75 U 4.18 105 -- 0.707 26.6 13.4 13.1 -- 7.57 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 10.4 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 81.5 49.4GPP-B102 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 2.1 65.2 -- 0.592 16.8 6.5 20.6 -- 8.35 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 5.15 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 29.7 41.5GPP-B103 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 1.21 51.2 -- 0.5 U 7.52 4.57 5.52 -- 2.14 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.04 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 20.8 14.5GPP-B104 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 1.37 56.4 -- 0.5 U 9.8 7.07 6.08 -- 2.87 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.25 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 31.1 19.9GPP-B105 (24-24) 0.002 U 0.75 U 3.27 116 -- 1.32 25 11.4 22.9 -- 7.58 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 9.32 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 62.6 50.7GPP-B106 (12-12) 0.002 U 0.75 U 3.48 92.5 -- 1.67 26.1 10.6 33 -- 11.3 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 8.8 0.75 U 0.575 -- 53 64.3GPP-B107 (24-24) 0.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B109 (24-24) 0.002 U 0.75 U 1.66 52.3 -- 0.5 U 9.15 7.26 8.01 -- 5 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 3.76 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 31.9 18.6GPP-B110 (18-18) 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B111 (24-24) 0.0034 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B112 (24-24) 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B113 (24-24) 0.0046 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B114 (18-18) 0.0051 0.75 U 2.67 48.1 -- 0.5 U 15.7 12.5 10.4 -- 4.46 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.77 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 56.1 27.8GPP-B115 (18-18) 0.0023 0.75 U 2.21 65.9 -- 0.5 U 11.2 7.53 8.42 -- 3.51 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 4.24 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 37.6 18.3GPP-B116 (18-18) 0.0029 0.75 U 11.6 100 -- 1.93 11.8 9.28 20.4 -- 27.4 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 7.88 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 33.1 433GPP-B117 (24-24) 0.0083 0.75 U 6.87 412 -- 1.05 12.2 7.83 13.6 -- 15.6 -- 0.0835 U 0.25 U 6.96 0.75 U 0.25 U -- 36.3 35.9GPP-B118 (24-24) 0.0032 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B119 (12-12) 0.002 U -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --GPP-B121 (6-6) 0.043 0.963 76.7 114 -- 1.36 2.88 2.21 113 -- 56.8 -- 0.0835 U 1.34 14.6 0.75 U 0.764 -- 12.5 245E1 (0-12) 0.00301 -- 7 109 28.5 0.315 14 -- 12.5 14800 17.7 442 0.018 0.226 6.36 0.166 -- 56.1 40.3 52.6E2 (0-12) 0.00303 -- 3.53 109 19.6 0.315 16.1 -- 17.1 17700 19 469 0.0132 0.238 8.23 0.163 -- 57.5 42.2 63.6E3 (0-12) 0.000719 -- 4.1 162 13.6 0.364 16.5 -- 18.3 19000 17.4 490 0.0163 0.079 8.3 0.368 -- 51.1 48 71E4 (0-12) 0.00174 -- 6.7 233 23 0.967 17.4 -- 32.7 21000 44.6 600 0.0246 0.361 10.6 0.546 -- 146 47.9 142E5 (0-12) 0.00185 -- 8.47 156 34.8 0.847 13.6 -- 22.7 20800 65.4 453 0.123 0.211 8.06 0.346 -- 165 35.6 116E5 (0-48) 0.00085 -- 2.9 109 31.7 0.189 17.4 -- 16.2 18200 9.16 628 0.0142 0.0875 U 8.18 0.176 U -- 37.2 50.9 49.2E6 (0-48) 0.00266 -- 2.42 132 20.7 0.0363 U 21.8 -- 14.2 22600 4.51 546 0.0065 U 0.091 U 8.24 0.182 U -- 18.7 64.9 39.8E6 (0-12) 0.00143 -- 2.77 98.6 18 0.119 12.2 -- 11.1 13300 8.93 342 0.00625 0.287 5.67 0.157 -- 24.6 35.3 35.3

Vanadium ZincPerchlorate Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium CobaltSample ID

Depth(inches bgs) Selenium Silver StrontiumNickelCopper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum

OU 2 001973

2 of 2



COMPARISON OF SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO INVERTEBRATE SCREENING LEVEL VALUES

SLV-invert (1) -- 78 (a) 60 (b) 330 (a) -- 140 (a) 0.4 (b) -- 80 (a) -- 1700 (a) 450 (a) 0.10 (b) -- 280 (a) 4.1 (a) -- -- -- 120 (a)background (2) -- 1.49 8.3 738 62 1.1 95.9 -- 33.3 -- 49 -- 0.90 -- 39.7 0.43 -- -- 231 180

Vanadium ZincPerchlorate Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium CobaltSample ID

Depth(inches bgs) Selenium Silver StrontiumNickelCopper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum

N1 (0-12) 0.000794 -- 9.5 671 25.9 0.876 15 -- 33.6 18200 317 385 0.199 0.29 9.52 0.398 -- 225 43.5 104N1 (0-48) 0.00105 -- 3.68 99.6 27.9 0.364 17.1 -- 18 18400 15.7 504 0.0335 0.087 U 8.33 0.174 U -- 84.6 44.7 58.3N2 (0-12) 0.000524 -- 6.57 123 21.5 0.49 15 -- 22.1 19000 30 423 0.0551 0.225 9 0.348 -- 117 45.2 75.3N2 (0-48) 0.000637 -- 3.1 95.2 28.7 0.21 22.9 -- 17.5 23200 8.12 498 0.00675 U 0.0915 U 10.1 0.183 U -- 50 59 52.1N3 (0-12) 0.00505 -- 2.58 106 18.7 0.275 17.5 -- 21.1 21200 32.6 554 0.0227 0.191 10 0.168 -- 39.9 50 86.7N3 (0-48) 0.000567 -- 2.11 95.8 29.2 0.111 18.9 -- 14.7 20000 17.1 585 0.0156 0.222 8.48 0.168 U -- 24.2 55.4 45.7N4 (0-12) 0.00132 -- 6.8 361 32 0.956 12.8 -- 36.4 12900 52.2 336 0.034 0.211 7.77 0.352 -- 167 32.6 147N5 (0-12) 0.0059 -- 3.75 126 20.6 0.371 15.9 -- 16.9 15700 20.7 524 0.00635 U 0.2 8.32 0.172 U -- 85.7 45.3 51.4S1 (0-12) 0.00943 -- 15.5 162 40.6 3.11 17.2 -- 50.2 41800 174 477 3.6 0.632 13.1 0.646 -- 264 43.4 532S1 (0-48) 0.0131 -- 4.1 246 31.6 0.123 21.9 -- 15.1 26000 8.07 573 0.119 0.0905 U 25.7 0.18 U -- 29 67.9 55S2 (0-12) 0.271 -- 9.84 62.3 12.5 0.106 3.56 -- 8.45 9340 26.5 75 0.00615 U 0.175 1.92 0.49 -- 22.8 6.15 12.5S3 (0-12) 0.0954 -- 9.56 76.4 18.7 0.4 13.2 -- 21.6 14800 32.3 382 0.0471 0.253 7.27 0.522 -- 127 32.7 65.5S4 (0-12) 0.00724 -- 6.6 128 23.3 0.559 15.3 -- 30.6 19400 54 393 0.0551 0.171 9.43 0.411 -- 117 39.1 97.2S5 (0-12) 0.0599 -- 13.4 236 25.3 2.87 15.2 -- 43.4 28500 93.7 392 0.534 0.569 12.2 0.788 -- 184 35.9 401W1 (0-12) 0.0112 -- 3.98 252 16.1 0.785 17 -- 20.2 21700 27.2 496 0.0329 0.312 11.7 0.455 -- 83.8 47.8 64.4W2 (0-12) 0.0187 -- 3.01 103 26.8 0.0777 24.2 -- 14.8 27500 8.31 542 0.0063 U 0.087 U 9.93 0.174 U -- 15.5 71.5 41.8W3 (0-12) 0.0242 -- 5.4 321 21.2 1.98 20.6 -- 23.7 25000 30.6 483 0.211 0.511 16.9 1.57 -- 88.2 59.3 92.2W4 (0-12) 0.007 -- 8.9 132 43.2 0.973 14.9 -- 25.9 29400 44.1 486 0.143 0.489 11.8 0.477 -- 209 37.3 70.3W5 (0-12) 0.0202 -- 7.19 220 21.7 0.586 12.4 -- 23 16100 47.8 398 0.106 0.346 9.55 0.63 -- 88.8 36.3 83.1W6 (0-12) 0.0228 -- 6.13 376 19.9 1.3 17.4 -- 26.5 22200 59.9 482 0.884 0.342 12.5 0.732 -- 129 42.8 118W7 (0-48) 0.00712 -- 3.56 159 30 1.18 17.8 -- 14.2 17800 15.8 473 0.0365 0.337 12.1 0.899 -- 54.8 53 58.5

Notes:(1) Invertebrate-specific screening level value (SLV-invert) were obtained from the following sources in the order of preference in which they are listed:

(a) EPA. 2005 et seq .. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Documents. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Released 2005 through 2009.(b) Efroymson, RA, ME Will, and GW Suter II. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. November. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.

(2) Site-specific background (see Appendix H of the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis).

Definitions:"--" = constituent not analyzed for/no value availablehighlighting = concentration exceeds the higher of the invertebrate-specific SLV or site-specific background"U" = non-detect result; the detection limit is presentedbgs = below ground surface

OU 2 001974