SDMS DOCID# 1132027

Record of Decision Ford Island Landfill JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, FORD ISLAND, OAHU, HAWAII

PHNC National Priorities List Site

September 2011

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii 400 Marshall Road JBPHH HI 96860-3139

Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy Contract Number N62742-03-D-1837, CTO HC04

CONTENTS

Acronyms and Abbreviations iii 1. Declaration 1-1 1.1 Site Name and Location 1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose 1-1 1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy 1-2 1.4 Statutory Determinations 1-3 1.5 Data Certification Checklist 1-4 1.6 Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of Final Remedy 1-9 2. Decision Summary 2-1 2.1 Site Location and Description 2-1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities 2-1 2.2.1 Ford Island History 2-1 2.2.2 Ford Island Landfill History and Enforcement Activities 2-2 2.3 Community Participation 2-10 2.4 Scope and Role of Response Action 2-11 2.4.1 Past Response Action at the Ford Island Landfill 2-12 2.4.2 Selected Response Action for the Ford Island Landfill 2-12 2.5 Site Characteristics 2-13 2.5.1 Physical Setting and Site Features 2-13 2.5.2 Wildlife and Sensitive Ecosystems 2-13 2.5.3 Cultural Resources 2-13 2.5.4 Geology 2-14 2.5.5 Hydrogeology 2-15 2.6 Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses 2-16 2.7 Summary of Site Risks 2-17 2.7.1 Conceptual Site Model 2-17 2.8 Remedial Action Objectives 2-30 2.9 Description and Comparative Analysis of Response Action Alternatives 2-31 2.9.1 Description of Response Action Alternatives 2-31 2.9.2 Comparative Analysis of Response Action Alternatives 2-35 2.10 Principal Threat Waste 2-36 2.11 Selected Final Remedy 2-37 2.11.1 Rationale for Selected Remedy 2-41 2.11.2 Description of Selected Remedy 2-41 2.11.3 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Final Remedy 2-43 2.11.4 Statutory Determinations 2-43 2.11.5 Documentation of Significant Changes 2-47 3. Responsiveness Summary 3-1 3.1 Stakeholder and Lead Agency Responses 3-1 3.2 Technical and Legal Issues 3-1 4. References 4-1

i ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Contents

ATTACHMENTS A Detailed Reference Table B Historical Analytical Data (on CD-ROM) C Human Health Risk Assessment Tables D Selected Remedy Cost Estimate E Responsiveness Summary F Federal Facility Land Use Control ROD Checklist

FIGURES 1 Ford Island Location Map 1-5 2 Site Location Map 1-7 3 Ford Island Landfill Site Map 2-7 4 Conceptual Site Model 2-19

TABLES 1 Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Data, Ford Island Landfill Site 2-3 2 Current and Future Land Use Scenario – Cumulative/Actual/Potential Health Risks 2-24 3 Dissolved COC Concentration Summary: May 2008 to April 2011 2-26 4 Identification of Action Alternatives 2-32 5 NCP Criteria for Analysis of Response Action Alternatives 2-35 6 Evaluation of Response Action Alternatives 2-38 7 Response Action Alternative Ratings 2-40 8 ARARs and TBC Criteria for the Selected Final Remedy 2-45 9 Ford Island Landfill Response Action Alternative Cost Effectiveness Summary 2-47

ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS µg/L microgram per liter AAS Army Air Station AR Administrative Record ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement bgs below ground surface C&D construction and demolition CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm/sec centimeters per second COC chemical of concern CSM conceptual site model CZM Coastal Zone Management DoD Department of Defense, United States DOH Department of Health, State of Hawaii DRO diesel range organics EE/CA engineering evaluation/cost estimate EPA Environmental Protection Agency, United States FFA Federal Facilities Agreement FFS focused feasibility study HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules HI hazard index JBPHH, Ford Island Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Ford Island LTM long-term monitoring LTMM long-term monitoring and maintenance LUC land use control mg/kg milligram per kilogram Naval Air Station Naval Air Station NAVFAC Hawaii Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan no. number NPL National Priorities List PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PHNC Pearl Harbor Naval Complex PHNHL Pearl Harbor National Historic Landmark PP proposed plan PRG preliminary remediation goal RAB Restoration Advisory Board RACER Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements RAWP remedial action work plan RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI remedial investigation RME reasonable maximum exposure ROD record of decision RSE removal site evaluation RSL regional screening level SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SI site inspection

iii ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Acronyms & Abbrev.

SVOC semivolatile organic compound TBC to-be-considered criteria TDS total dissolved solids TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code UCL upper confidence limit UIC underground injection control USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC volatile organic compound yd3 cubic yards

iv ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Declaration

1. Declaration 1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION This record of decision (ROD) has been prepared by the United States (U.S.) Navy (Navy) for the Ford Island Landfill Site located at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Ford Island (JBPHH, Ford Island), Oahu, Hawaii (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Ford Island Landfill site is part of the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex (PHNC) National Priorities List (NPL) site. The NPL identifies priorities among known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. PHNC is identified on the NPL as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Number (no.) HI4170090076.

1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE This ROD documents for the Administrative Record the selected final remedy. Information supporting the decisions leading to the selected remedy is contained in the Administrative Record (AR) file for the site. The decision to implement the final remedy identified in this ROD is based on the entire AR for the Ford Island Landfill Site. Thus, information not specifically summarized in this ROD or its references but contained in the AR has been considered and is relevant to selection of the remedy. This ROD is for the Ford Island Landfill Site only and does not include or affect any other sites.

The final remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (EPA 1986) and to the extent practicable the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Office of the President of the United States Executive Order 12580 (EO 1987).

The Navy is the lead agency for the Ford Island Landfill Site. The supporting agencies are the EPA and the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). The Navy and EPA, with concurrence from the DOH, have jointly selected the final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill Site.

The selected final remedy for this ROD is necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment from potential, actual, or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment from the Ford Island Landfill Site. Potential exposure of terrestrial ecological receptors could occur if contaminated soil underlying the permeable and vegetative soil cap were exposed. In addition, ecological receptors in Pearl Harbor could be exposed if contaminated soil were transported to Pearl Harbor. Although the underlying shallow aquifer is not a drinking water source, it has been designated as “ecologically important” due to the proximity to Pearl Harbor and the potential for contamination to migrate within the shallow aquifer and discharge to Pearl Harbor. Current ecological receptors are protected from direct exposure to contaminated soil by the landfill containment system and groundwater monitoring that ensures elevated levels of metals do not leach into the underlying shallow aquifer and discharge into, and adversely impact Pearl Harbor. To ensure the protection of future human and ecological receptors, a remedy is required that ensures the integrity of the landfill containment system is maintained or that potential exposure to underlying impacted media does not occur.

1-1 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Declaration

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY The Navy and EPA, with concurrence from DOH, have selected land use controls (LUCs), including maintenance of the landfill containment system and long-term monitoring, as the final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill. This decision is based on the following:

 Results from previous investigations (Section 2.2.2.1)  Results from the 1996 – 1997 removal action, during which the landfill containment system was built  Installation of additional monitoring wells in 1997  Results of the first five-year groundwater monitoring program and ongoing long-term groundwater monitoring program that have been conducted since 1997 to ensure that elevated levels of metals do not adversely impact Pearl Harbor  Adoption of the containment approach presented in the EPA guidance: Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA 1993) and Application of the CERCLA Municipal Landfill Presumptive Remedy to Military Landfills (EPA 1996)  Results of a focused feasibility study (FFS) (AECOM 2010) that included an evaluation process and considered alternatives, including no action, land use controls with long-term monitoring and maintenance, and removal of remaining contaminated media

During previous investigations, subsurface conditions (i.e., the extent of debris and soil contamination) were characterized, and the data collected indicated that the underlying groundwater had been impacted by chemicals of concern (COCs). During the removal action conducted in 1996−1997, the landfill containment system consisting of a permeable vegetated soil cap, drainage trench and shoreline protection was constructed, and a monitoring well network was completed. A 5-year groundwater and surface water monitoring program was then conducted and results of the monitoring indicated that the underlying groundwater contained concentrations of dissolved metals above DOH surface water screening criteria. The groundwater and surface water monitoring program was continued after the initial 5-year period and revised to include additional background monitoring well and surface water sampling locations, analysis for COCs that only included dissolved metals, and establishment of background/upgradient concentrations. During the FFS, existing site risks and features were evaluated and incorporated in the final remedy selected for the site as documented in this ROD. The remedy selected during the FFS includes land use controls and long-term maintenance and monitoring. The 30th groundwater and surface water monitoring event was completed in April 2011 and sampling results indicate that dissolved metals concentrations have decreased to levels that are slightly above DOH surface water standards and no increasing trends in dissolved metals concentrations have been observed. Groundwater and surface water monitoring will continue at the site.

Performance objectives for the LUCs include the following:

 Minimize or eliminate direct human contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil.  Provide adequate notice of the presence of contaminated soil to users, workers, and any potential landowners.  Prevent unauthorized excavation, uncontrolled soil removal without proper handling and disposal, and construction and prevent migration or relocation of contaminated soil to areas where human or ecological exposure could occur.

1-2 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Declaration

 Ensure the landfill containment system is maintained.  Ensure metals have not impacted the underlying shallow groundwater at concentrations that could adversely impact adjacent Pearl Harbor.

The Navy will submit to EPA and DOH for approval a remedial action work plan (RAWP), which will include details on the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement actions associated with the LUCs, including periodic site inspections. The Department of the Navy is responsible for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing LUCs at the Ford Island Landfill Site. Long-term monitoring and maintenance of the landfill containment system (i.e., permeable and vegetative soil cap; a drainage trench; a groundwater monitoring network; and a shoreline protection) will ensure their structural integrity and continued effectiveness. Routine inspections of the landfill containment system will be conducted to ensure that the topsoil and vegetative cover are not affected by disease or pest infestation (plant or animals) resulting in damage (i.e., dying grass, root damage, animal burrows, erosion, stormwater ponding, settlement, rifts, cracks, or man-inflicted damage). Since the permeable and vegetative soil cap prevents direct exposure to underlying contaminated media, site access restrictions (i.e., fencing) are not required as long as the structural integrity of the landfill containment system is maintained.

Groundwater and surface water monitoring will be conducted to ensure that contaminants do not leach from the landfill debris and impact the underlying groundwater at concentrations that could adversely affect ecological receptors in Pearl Harbor. Soil gas sampling will be conducted to ensure that vapor emissions do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

The Navy will retain ownership of the site for the foreseeable future. Restrictions for the site will remain in effect in perpetuity. If land ownership changes in the future, language will be included in the deed to place restrictions and conditions on the use of the site. Notification and restrictions for the site will remain in effect after any future land ownership transfer. The specific LUCs for the site are discussed in Section 2.11.

The deed or other instrument for any ownership transfer of the property shall also require the transferee/subsequent landowner to perform annual reviews to ensure compliance with the LUCs that are in place.

1.4 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS The final selected remedy for the Ford Island Landfill Site is protective of human health and the environment, complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), is cost-effective, and uses permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the extent practicable.

The final remedy of contaminated media does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the final remedy since the remedy includes leaving contaminants in place without undergoing any treatment. However, maintenance of the landfill containment system prevents direct contact of the underlying contaminated soil and debris and the migration or relocation of contaminated soil to areas where human or ecological exposure could occur. The landfill containment system prevents direct contact with contaminated soil and reduces the mobility of pollutants and likelihood they will further impact the environment. Groundwater monitoring ensures that COCs do not migrate to groundwater at elevated concentrations that will adversely affect Pearl Harbor.

1-3 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Declaration

Because this remedy results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or COCs remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, statutory reviews will be conducted every 5 years after initiation of the selected final remedy until the site is suitable for unrestricted use, as required under CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 9621(c), and NCP (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)). The five-year reviews will be performed to ensure that the LUCs remain protective of human health and the environment over time.

1.5 DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST The following information is included in the Decision Summary section of this ROD (Section 2); additional information can be found in the AR file for this site:

 A list of COCs and their respective concentrations (Section 2.7)  A summary of ecological and human health risks (Section 2.7)  The principal threat wastes (Section 2.10)  The current and reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions (Section 2.6)  The potential land/groundwater uses that will be available because of the selected remedy (Section 2.6)  The estimated capital costs; annual operation and maintenance costs; and total present-worth costs, discount rate, and the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected (Table 4)  The key factors that led to selecting the remedy (Section 2.11.1)

If contamination posing unacceptable risks to human health or the environment is discovered after execution of this ROD, the Navy will undertake all necessary actions to correct the issue.

1-4 u—huku

€oint

u—huku

€2—2™2i2f2i2™2222y2™2e2—2n

‡—ime—

v—ie

€un—luu

r—leiw—

wokulei—

u—en—

€oint

u———w—

‡—i—hole

w—k—h—

u—neohe2f—y

wok—pu

w—ili

x—n—kuli

‡—im—n—lo

iw—

w—k—puu

ronolulu

fe—™h

sntern—tion—l €oint

f—r˜ers eirport

€oint

r—w—ii

‡—ikiki

u—i

u—h—l—

hi—mond

re—d

pord2ssl—nd

€2—2™2i2f2i2™2222y2™2e2—2n

x

U H U wiles ƒour™eX

FƒF2qeologi™—l2ƒurvey2@ ƒqƒAF psvi2‚ipi‚ixgiX22qX’gis’fordisl—nd•l—ndfill’—v•proje™t’fiEl—ndfillF—pr ve‰y „X22psq ‚i2IEI•ps•v—ndfill he„iX22xov2PD2PHHR2IHXIP2ew

Figure 1 pigure2I Ford Island Location Map pord2ssl—nd2vo™—tion2w—p Record of Decision ‚e™ord2of2he™ision Ford Island Landfill pord2ssl—nd2v—ndfill JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, Hawaii pord2ssl—ndD2€e—rl2r—r˜orD2r—w—ii Feet 650 0 ¯ Figure 2 SOURCES Site Location Map 325 Record of Decision Ford Island Landfill Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Ford Island, Harbor, Pearl 650

Earth Tech, Inc. 2003. Tech, Earth Ford Island Remedial Investigation. February.

e

g

d

i

r

B

y

e

r

a

l

C

l

a

r

i

m

d A Arizona

Memorial

3

1

-

F

R

E

I

P

2

1

-

F

R

E

I

P

0

1

-

F

R

E

I

P

9

-

F

R

E

I P Building 284 Site Landfill Ford Island Ford Area Camel Former

Refurbishing

ng-HSP\mxd\Fig2_SiteLocMap_12Jul11.mxd III\GIS\HC04\Long_Term_Monitori Q:\CLEAN

ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2. Decision Summary This section summarizes the site description, site history, previous investigations, response actions, current site characteristics, land and resource uses, and current site risks. In addition, this section provides the response action objectives, a comparative analysis of alternatives, and the rationale for selecting the final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill Site.

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Ford Island encompasses approximately 450 acres, located in the PHNC at JBPHH, Ford Island on the southern coast of Oahu, Hawaii (Figure 1). As described in Section 1.1, PHNC is identified on the NPL as EPA CERCLA Information System No. HI4170090076. Executive Order 12580 (EO 1987) authorizes the Navy, as the lead agency, to conduct environmental response actions at Navy sites such as the Ford Island Landfill. EPA and DOH have provided oversight during environmental investigations and remediation activities.

Ford Island is approximately 1.25 miles long and 0.62 miles wide. Access to the island is provided by the Admiral Bernard Clarey (Ford Island) Bridge, which spans the channel between the island and the eastern shore of Pearl Harbor (Figure 2).

Ford Island was previously used as a military air station and provided moorage and supported most of the Pacific Fleet. Ford Island is presently used for administration, storage, operational, training, and maintenance activities for various military tenants. The island also provides housing and recreational facilities for Navy personnel. The island is undergoing redevelopment for base housing, recreational sites, and other commercial and industrial facilities. The Ford Island Landfill Site is a vegetated, undeveloped parcel located along the western edge of Ford Island, along the Pearl Harbor shoreline. It is bordered to the north by the former Camel Refurbishing Area, which has been redeveloped into residential housing and a community recreation area, and the Building 284 Site located to the southeast on the other side of a seaplane ramp (Figure 2). The Camel Refurbishing Area and the Building 284 Site are two Installation Restoration Program sites previously investigated during Ford Island Remedial Investigation and where removal actions were conducted to address soil contamination.

2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2.2.1 Ford Island History Military development around Pearl Harbor and Ford Island began around 1912, and the Naval Air Station (NAS) Ford Island and Army Air Station (AAS) Luke Field were established on the island by 1917. Hangar and support facilities on the southwest side of the island were developed for the AAS, while similar structures on the southeast side of the island were constructed for the NAS. In addition, a row of 22 housing structures, located along the northwest shore of the island, as well as several housing structures and a bachelor’s quarters on the northeast tip of the island, were constructed to accommodate the expanding number of naval personnel on-island. An unpaved runway was also constructed for the Army and Navy shared use. Nine 225,000-gallon aboveground storage tanks, with secondary containment, were located in the east-central portion of the island from 1924 to 1954.

Ford Island underwent further development and expansion in the 1930s and 1940s. Efforts to expand the island by filling shallow zones along the east and north shores with dredged material from the harbor channel, increased the size of Ford Island by nearly 20 percent. The central portion of the island was cleared and paved for installation of a 4,000-foot runway, and all but two of the original AAS hangars were demolished in favor of open aircraft parking areas, maintenance facilities, and

2-1 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

larger hangars. An area near the western shoreline, which later developed into the Ford Island Landfill, was used as a disposal and burn area. During this time, an underground storage tank farm was installed in the east-central portion of the island with an extensive underground aviation gasoline pipeline system to distribute fuel. Bunkers for ordnance storage were built on the north and east sides of the island, the fill area near the north shore, the northeast shore, and the east end of the runway.

Following World War II, the use of Ford Island as a military air station ceased with the advent of jet aircraft. Naval Station assumed ownership of the island when the NAS was deactivated in 1962, and the island was given status as a National Historic Landmark in 1964. The airfield was leased to the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation for limited use by civilian aircraft; however, since the state opened Kalaeloa Airport (formerly NAS Barbers Point) in mid-1999, the airfield has remained inactive. Access to the island was improved by construction of the Admiral Bernard Clarey (Ford Island) Bridge in 1998. Ford Island currently hosts several major tenants or commands and provides housing and recreational facilities for Navy personnel. JBPHH controls the waters of Pearl Harbor and the adjacent land areas, including Ford Island.

2.2.2 Ford Island Landfill History and Enforcement Activities The Ford Island Landfill was used from the mid-1930s until the late 1960s for disposal activities that involved dumping and burning wastes generated by maintenance activities performed on Ford Island. After the aforementioned disposal activities were discontinued, bulk debris was disposed of and covered with soil until these activities were also discontinued in 1982. When the Navy discontinued landfill dumping, they covered approximately 80 percent of the landfill with a final layer of soil. No records of disposal practices or waste quantities are available for any of the periods of waste disposal activity. Historical evidence indicates that the landfill area extends into Pearl Harbor.

2.2.2.1 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Several investigations of the Ford Island Landfill have been conducted since the 1990s.

Site Inspection. The Navy conducted a site inspection (SI) in late 1991 and early 1992 as an initial assessment of environmental conditions at the landfill, which included installing four monitoring wells and collecting soil, groundwater, marine sediment, and soil gas samples. The SI identified nine metals, two semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and a single form of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) (Aroclor-1260) as COCs in the soil, groundwater, and marine sediment (Ogden 1995). The SI recommended containment1 of landfill wastes (i.e., capping) (Ogden 1993).

Table 1 summarizes the maximum detected concentrations for site-related COCs in soil during the SI and a follow-on removal site evaluation (RSE) conducted in 2004, and presents associated Oahu caprock soil background levels, and 2011 EPA regional screening levels (RSLs) (EPA 2011). The screening criteria selected for the site include the 95th percentile of the Oahu caprock soil background concentration range (Earth Tech 2006), which were agreed upon by EPA Region 9 and DOH and finalized in 2006. The Oahu caprock soil background concentrations are considered protective of both human and terrestrial ecological receptors on Ford Island.

1 Text in blue font identifies where detailed cross-reference site information is available (Attachment A). In the event of any inconsistency between the text in this ROD and the text in any of the cross-reference documents, the text in this ROD will take precedence.

2-2 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 1: Summary of Soil Sample Analytical Data, Ford Island Landfill Site

Oahu Caprock Soil Background Maximum Detected Concentrations (Earth Tech 2006) June 2011 EPA RSLs Concentration at (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Site (Ogden 1993, 1995) Estimated Analyte (mg/kg) Background Range 95th Percentile Residential Industrial Metals Antimony 466 0.12–8.4 7.3 31 410 Arsenic 241 0.21–29 16 0.39 1.6 Beryllium 3.4 0.01–3.3 2.5 160 2,000 Cadmium 78.6 0.04–3.0 2.3 70 800 Chromium 283J 2.67-321 250 120,000 1,500,000 Copper 22,800 1.8–230 110 3,100 41,000 Lead 4,400 0.19–40 a 29 a 400 800 0.19–203 b 96 b Mercury 3.3 0.0035–0.35 0.29 10 43 Nickel 507 1.64–353 205 1,500 20,000 Selenium 3.1 0.31–11 9.0 390 5,100 Silver 55.2 0.03-1.0 0.86 390 5,100 Thallium 1.2 0.03-3.0 2.7 0.78 10 Zinc 40,600 1.6–193 c 166 c 23,000 310,000 Pesticides, Herbicides and PCBs α-chlordane 0.025J N/A N/A 1.6 6.5 Γ-chlordane 0.021J N/A N/A 1.6 6.5 4-4’-DDD 0.76 N/A N/A 2 7.2 4-4’-DDE 1.1 N/A N/A 1.4 5.1 4-4’-DDT 0.43 N/A N/A 1.7 7 Aroclor 1260 16 N/A N/A 0.22 0.74 Coumaphos 0.310J N/A N/A n/a n/a Fensulfothion 0.13J N/A N/A n/a n/a monocrototophos 0.57J N/A N/A n/a n/a 2,4-D 0.032J N/A N/A 690 7,700 dalapon 0.63J N/A N/A 1,800 18,000 dicamba 0.0051J N/A N/A 1,800 18,000 dichloroprop 0.015J N/A N/A n/a n/a VOCs Acetone 0.87J N/A N/A 61,000 630,000 Toluene 0.0750J N/A N/A 5,000 45,000 2-butanone 0.043J N/A N/A 28,000 200,000 Trichloroethene 0.052J N/A N/A 2.8 14 Tetrachloroethene 0.006J N/A N/A 0.55 2.6 Carbon disulfide 0.002J N/A N/A 820 3,700 4-methyl -2-pentanone 0.003J N/A N/A 5,300 53,000 SVOCs Pyrene 1.1 N/A N/A 1,700 17,000 Chrysene 0.57J N/A N/A 15 210 Bis(2- 0.65J N/A N/A 35 120 ethylhexyl)phthalate

2-3 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Oahu Caprock Soil Background Maximum Detected Concentrations (Earth Tech 2006) June 2011 EPA RSLs Concentration at (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Site (Ogden 1993, 1995) Estimated Analyte (mg/kg) Background Range 95th Percentile Residential Industrial Di-n-buytlphthalate 0.32J N/A N/A 6,100 62,000 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.56J N/A N/A 0.15 2.1 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.56J N/A N/A 0.15 2.1 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.32J N/A N/A 0.015 0.21 Fluoranthene 0.76J N/A N/A 2,300 22,000 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.21J N/A N/A 0.015 0.21 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 0.49J N/A N/A 260 910 Phenanthrene 1.6 N/A N/A n/a n/a 2-methylnapthalene 0.2J N/A N/A 310 4,100 Dibenzofuran 0.38J N/A N/A 78 1,000 Naphthalene 0.61 N/A N/A 3.6 18 Fluorene 0.17J N/A N/A 2,300 22,000 Notes: Site screening criteria include background concentrations for Oahu caprock soil. Concentrations in italics exceed the 95th percentile of the estimated background range for Oahu caprock soil. Concentrations in bold exceed residential RSL. DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (rhothane) DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane J estimated concentration mg/kg milligram per kilogram N/A not applicable VOC volatile organic compound a Lead from natural background sources only. b Lead from combined natural/anthropogenic background sources. The anthropogenic lead background concentration ranges are not intended for direct comparison to site data because anthropogenic lead background conditions are not controlled by soil type. The Koolau and caprock soil data evaluated for the Environmental Background Analysis represent sites located in developed, populated, and congested areas of Oahu. The distribution of anthropogenic lead is typically controlled by proximity to anthropogenic sources such as urban development, population, and traffic conditions, not the natural characteristics of the parent rocks. Therefore, these estimated ranges should be used with caution. c Zinc background concentrations may be higher, particularly in urban settings, where anthropogenic zinc background sources (primarily automotive-related) are common (De Carlo et al. 2004; 2005).

Removal Site Evaluation. In 1994, a second investigation, a RSE, was conducted to obtain additional information on the conditions at the landfill. As part of this investigation, six additional monitoring wells were installed; exploratory trenches were excavated to observe the locations of different types of landfill wastes; groundwater samples were collected to establish a water quality baseline; and a tidal study was conducted. The RSE identified low concentrations of three metals (copper, lead, and zinc) and a single SVOC (phenanthrene) as potential COCs in groundwater samples, and found that groundwater beneath the landfill is influenced by tidal variations in Pearl Harbor. Geophysical and trenching activities indicated that the landfill contains metal fragments, concrete rubble, and miscellaneous debris. Ash, discovered below the water table near the current landfill shoreline, suggests that incinerated wastes were dumped into Pearl Harbor (Ogden 1997).

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis. In 1995, an engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) was conducted that utilized the EPA presumptive remedy approach (EPA 1996) to identify and select a landfill containment system. The EE/CA provided a comparative analysis of five different landfill containment system alternatives (Permeable/Vegetative Cap, RCRA Subtitle D, Modified RCRA Subtitle D, RCRA Subtitle C, and Modified RCRA Subtitle C), and identified the landfill containment system that includes a permeable and vegetative soil cap alternative as the most cost-

2-4 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

effective containment method that would attain long-term reduction of the risks posed by the landfill (Ogden 1995). The five alternatives were evaluated against the nine EPA criteria required by 40 CFR Part 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP. The permeable and vegetative cap was the selected removal action alternative as a result of the alternatives analysis (Ogden 1995).

Non-Time-Critical Removal Action. In December 1996, construction of the landfill containment system was completed as part of a non-time-critical removal action. The permeable and vegetative cap over the landfill was completed to prevent contaminated surface soils from eroding and entering Pearl Harbor, and to minimize infiltration of precipitation into the landfill, reducing the possibility for contaminants to leach to groundwater and enter Pearl Harbor. The landfill cap consisted of three layers (from bottom to top): an engineered fill layer, a vegetation/erosion layer, and a topsoil layer.

The engineered fill layer has a varying thickness and comprises construction-grade earthen fill. The principal function of this layer is to cover exposed waste and fill low-lying areas of the landfill, and to provide a smooth transition between uncontained landfill wastes and the cap. It represents the foundation layer for the cap. The vegetation/erosion layer comprises earthen fill with a minimum thickness of 12 inches. The principal function of this layer is to serve as the primary barrier to direct contact with landfill wastes. It holds surface water infiltration to allow for increased evapotranspiration and provides secondary support of vegetative growth. Another principal function of this layer is to act as a buffer layer that can exhibit erosion problem areas needing repair without exposing the waste. The fill soil was compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent. The topsoil layer is a minimum of 6 to 12 inches thick and was designed to support vegetation. The topsoil was placed on the fill and not compacted. Surface vegetation, consisting of common Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), is intended to stabilize the cap surface and prevent erosion (Ogden 1998).

The cap surface is vegetated with common Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) that is intended to stabilize the cap surface and prevent erosion (Ogden 1998). Rip-rap was installed along the shoreline to prevent erosion. An irrigation system was installed to maintain the integrity of the cap, and a concrete drainage trench was constructed to direct surface runoff away from the landfill. Monitoring well MW-07 was abandoned in place and replaced with well MW-07A to allow for the construction of the concrete drainage trench. After construction of the landfill containment system along the shoreline of the landfill, three additional monitoring wells were installed in April 1997. The groundwater monitoring well network at the landfill consisted of 13 monitoring wells distributed across the site (Figure 3).

Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring. In April 1997, a five-year long-term monitoring (LTM) program was initiated. The objective of the monitoring program was to monitor conditions at the landfill to ensure the landfill containment system continues to function as designed, and to evaluate whether potentially harmful levels of metals from the Ford Island Landfill are leaching into the groundwater and surface water of Pearl Harbor. The initial LTM design utilized an intrawell approach, and included 10 landfill monitoring wells (MW-02, MW-03, MW-04, MW-05, MW-06, MW-07A, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, and MW-13) and one surface water sampling location (SW-01). Aqueous samples were analyzed for two volatile organic compounds (acetone, 1,2-dichloroethane); 10 SVOCs (acenaphthene, benzo(a)pyrene, carbazole, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, dibenzofuran, dimethylphthalate, fluorene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and 2-methylnapthalene); total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); the metals antimony, arsenic, beryllium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc; PCBs; dioxins/furans; and general chemistry parameters. Following the six baseline monitoring events, four semiannual monitoring events, and two annual monitoring events were performed at the landfill. The scope of the original groundwater monitoring plan was completed after

2-5 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

5 years and with the 12th monitoring event in April 2002 (Ogden 2002). No analytes exceeded the DOH Tier 1 action levels. Discontinuing the groundwater monitoring program was recommended.

Because of regulatory concerns about metals and potential impacts to Pearl Harbor, a draft long-term monitoring plan was prepared in August 2003 (Dawson 2003) that proposed continuing the groundwater monitoring program in detection monitoring for another 5 years. In September 2003, the 13th monitoring event was performed. It included the same locations sampled during the original groundwater monitoring program. Analytical results indicated that elevated metals concentrations are present in groundwater at the landfill (particularly at monitoring wells MW-11, MW-12, and MW-13). Dissolved copper was detected at concentrations ranging from 4.6 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 42 µg/L in all groundwater and surface water samples, which exceeded the State of Hawaii Surface Water Standard (DOH 2004) of 2.9 µg/L. Dissolved mercury was detected at concentrations up to 0.21 µg/L in two wells (MW-06 and MW-13) and at 0.065 µg/L in surface water, exceeding the surface water standard of 0.025 µg/L. Dissolved nickel was detected in three wells (MW-02, MW-12, and MW-13) at concentrations above its surface water standard of 8.3 µg/L and ranging from 8.8 µg/L to 21 µg/L. Dissolved zinc was detected at concentrations of 130 µg/L and 120 µg/L at MW-12 and MW-13 (respectively), which exceeded the surface water standard of 86 µg/L.

The groundwater monitoring plan and program were revised prior to the 14th monitoring event, conducted in April 2005, to include an interwell data comparison approach. The number of wells sampled was reduced to include eight landfill wells (MW-02 through MW-06 and MW-11 through MW-13) and two background wells (AG-MW16 and AG-MW18). One additional surface water sampling point (SW-02), located approximately 50 feet offshore from SW-01, was also added. The list of COCs was reduced to include only metals including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, copper, lead mercury, nickel, and zinc. The State of Hawaii Surface Water Standards (DOH 2004) were established as conservative screening criteria for groundwater to assess potential impacts to Pearl Harbor. Dissolved copper was detected above its screening criterion at concentrations up to 106 µg/L in groundwater and at concentrations of 100 µg/L and 91.2 µg/L at SW-01 and SW-02, respectively. Dissolved mercury was not detected in any samples, but the detection limits ranged from 0.03 µg/L to 0.11 µg/L, which exceeded the screening criterion. Dissolved nickel was detected in one well (MW-02) at a concentration of 8.7 µg/L, which exceeded its screening criterion.

Seven additional surface water sampling locations (SW-03 through SW-09) were added for the 15th monitoring event. Groundwater and surface water samples were collected from the eight landfill wells, two background wells, and nine surface water sampling locations. These changes to the long- term monitoring program were documented in the Draft Revised Long-Term Monitoring Plan (Earth Tech 2007), and represent the current configuration of the monitoring program.

Analytical results from the 15th monitoring event indicated that concentrations of dissolved metals were significantly lower than the concentrations detected in the 14th monitoring event. Dissolved copper was only detected slightly above the screening criterion in two wells (MW-04 and MW-13) at concentrations up to 5.5 µg/L, and dissolved zinc was detected above the screening criterion in one well MW-13 at a concentration of 102 µg/L. No other metals were detected in groundwater or surface water at concentrations that exceeded their screening criterion.

2-6 LEGEND

 Groundwater Monitoring Well MW-1 Location and Designation SW-06    Surface Water Sampling Location SW-05 SW-01 and Designation MW-04  Surface Water Sampling Transect

MW-07A Land Use Control Boundary MW-03   MW-05  MW-11 MW-10  MW-08 SW-03    SOURCES  MW-12 MW-01 SW-04 Dawson Group, Inc. 2003.   Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the MW-13 MW-09 Ford Island Landfill. August.   MW-02 SW-01   MW-06   SW-02

 SW-09 Bldg. 255

SW-07 SW-08 

MW-14 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF  MAIN CHANNEL

  Ford Island  Landfill   

      

     

Monitoring-HSP\mxd\Fig3_GWMW_Surface water.mxd) Monitoring-HSP\mxd\Fig3_GWMW_Surface 

  

340 170 0 340 Feet

Bldg. 284 FigureFigure 3 3 FordFord Island Island Landfill Landfill Site Site Map Map RecordRecord of of Decision Decision FordFord Island Island Landfill Landfill FordJBPHH, Island, Ford Pearl Island, Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii Hawaii Map Document: (Q:\CLEAN III\GIS\HC04\Long_Term_ (Q:\CLEAN Document: Map AM -- 11:08 06/01/2009 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

As of April 2011, a total of 30 monitoring events have been conducted. Data from at least eight sampling events are necessary to establish baseline (background) concentrations for the interwell approach. The first sampling event that included all background sampling locations was the 15th event. Since wells AGMW-16 and AG-MW-18 had been abandoned or were no longer accessible for sampling after the 18th monitoring event and were replaced with newly installed background monitoring well MW-14, delays to the completion of baseline monitoring for groundwater were encountered. In addition, data obtained during the 19th and 20th monitoring events had elevated detection limits (up to 50 µg/L) for dissolved copper and could not be used to compare concentrations against the screening criterion of 2.9 µg/L, which resulted in additional delays to the baseline monitoring. Therefore, baseline monitoring for all current background locations was completed after the 28th monitoring event and background comparisons were made beginning with the 29th monitoring event.

Data obtained since the 16th monitoring event (August 2006) and previous data indicate that copper is the primary contaminant that exceeds its screening criterion. In addition, copper concentrations vary significantly between different monitoring events and wells. Since the 16th monitoring event, the maximum dissolved copper concentration detected in groundwater is 28.9 µg/L. The maximum detected dissolved copper concentration of 28.9 µg/L was detected in MW-13 in November 2006, and the maximum concentration detected in MW-13 during five subsequent sampling events was 4.9 µg/L. The maximum detected dissolved copper concentration in surface water during the 16th event was 95.3 µg/L detected in SW-04, which is one of the events that included sampling of background locations only and MW-13 was not sampled. The maximum detected dissolved copper concentration from SW-04 during 12 subsequent sampling events was 6.8 µg/L.

During the 25th monitoring event landfill inspection conducted in June 2009, it was noted that one monitoring well (MW-08) had been filled with cement and is no longer useable.

Performance of the 28th monitoring event in April 2010 represented the last of the baseline monitoring events which provided data to establish baseline (background) conditions for the interwell approach. Baseline monitoring was required for eight events before background conditions could be calculated. These eight quarterly baseline sampling events included sampling of only background monitoring well locations (AG-MW16 and AG-MW18, later replaced by MW-14) and background surface water sampling locations (SW-02, SW-04, SW-06, SW-08, and SW-09). In addition, every other sampling event included sampling of all eight landfill wells, nine surface water sampling locations, and background well locations included in the monitoring program.

The 29th monitoring event conducted in October 2010 represented the first semiannual assessment monitoring event following conclusion of the baseline monitoring period. Beginning with the 29th monitoring event, EPA Region 9 and DOH concurred with the removal of several metals and general water chemistry parameters from the analytical suite of samples collected as part of the monitoring program. The present monitoring program includes analysis for select dissolved metals (arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), and several general water chemistry parameters (chloride, total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, and specific conductance).

All historical groundwater and surface water monitoring data collected since 1997 are presented in Attachment B. Attachment B.1 includes all historical data for the first 5 years of monitoring (first 12 monitoring events). Attachment B.2 includes the 13th monitoring event, which included analyses for VOCs, TPH, SVOCs, PCBs, dioxins, furans, dissolved and total metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), and general water chemistry parameters. Attachment B.3 includes all metals and general water chemistry data from the 14th through 30th monitoring events. Since the list of COCs was reduced to just metals after the 14th monitoring event,

2-9 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Attachment B.3 also presents data from the first 13 monitoring events for metals and general water chemistry parameters.

Tidal Study. In February 2008, a tidal study was conducted to explore the nature and extent of surface water to groundwater tidal interaction at the Ford Island Landfill, and evaluate the tidal effects on copper concentrations in both groundwater and surface water. The study concluded that tidal oscillations have little to no effect on varying copper concentrations (Earth Tech 2008).

FFS. A FFS was conducted in 2010 for the Ford Island Landfill Site (AECOM 2010). The FFS was conducted to evaluate three potential response action alternatives for the site: (1) no action; (2) LUCs that consist of engineering and institutional (legal) controls to include groundwater monitoring; and (3) cleanup of site contamination to allow for unrestricted land use. The FFS was intended to be a streamlined and focused effort to evaluate these three response action alternatives and recommend an appropriate response action for the site. The FFS recommended LUCs and long-term monitoring and maintenance (LTMM) as the final remedy.

Proposed Plan. In 2010, a proposed plan (PP) was prepared for the Ford Island Landfill Site to present the recommended final site remedy and to facilitate public involvement in the remedy selection process. The PP (DON 2010) presented the various alternatives considered, identified LUCs and LTMM as the recommended alternative, explained the rationale for selecting the alternative, and requested public comment.

2.2.2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES There have been no CERCLA enforcement activities at the Ford Island Landfill Site.

2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Public participation in the decision process for environmental activities at the Ford Island Landfill has continually been encouraged throughout the environmental restoration and site closure processes. In an effort to involve the public in the decision-making process, a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was established. The RAB is composed of DOH, Navy, and community representatives. The Navy has held RAB meetings (typically on a semiannual basis) and other public meetings, as well as issued fact sheets that summarize the site investigation and cleanup activities. Additionally, the Navy also established a point-of-contact for the public in NAVFAC Hawaii.

A PP was prepared and a public meeting held to formally present the selected remedy to the public and to solicit public comment. The notice of availability for the PP was published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on 22 August 2010. Responses to verbal comments received during the public meeting are presented as a responsiveness summary in Attachment E within this ROD. No written comments were received during the public comment period. The complete transcript of the public meeting is available in the AR file.

The transcript, PP, and other project documents, including work plans, technical reports, and other materials relating to the Ford Island Landfill, can be found in the information repository at the following addresses:

Aiea Public Library 91-143 Moanalua Road Aiea, Hawaii 96701 (808) 483-7333

2-10 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Pearl City Library 1138 Waimano Home Road Pearl City, Hawaii 96782 (808) 453-6566

Hamilton Library at the University of Hawaii at Manoa Hawaiian and Pacific Collection 2550 McCarthy Mall Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (808) 956-8264

Additional project information is located in the AR file located at Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in JBPHH. The address for the AR file is provided below:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Attn: NAVFAC PAC EV3 JBPHH Hawaii 96860-3134

2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION The Ford Island Landfill Site is located at JBPHH, Ford Island, which is part of the PHNC NPL site. The PHNC is listed on the NPL, which identifies priorities among known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories.

The Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for PHNC (EPA, State of Hawaii, and DON 1994) documents how the Navy intends to meet and implement CERCLA in partnership with the EPA Region 9 and DOH. Through the FFA and with concurrence from the DOH, the Navy and the EPA have agreed to the following:

 Ensure that environmental impacts associated with past and present activities are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate remedial actions are taken, as necessary, to protect public health, welfare, and the environment.  Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate remedial actions in accordance with CERCLA, SARA, NCP, Superfund guidance and policy, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) guidance and policy, and applicable State of Hawaii law.  Facilitate cooperation, exchange of information, and participation between the Navy, EPA, and the DOH.  Ensure adequate assessment of potential injury to natural resources to ensure the implementation of remedial actions appropriate for achieving suitable cleanup levels.

The final remedy was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by the SARA, and to the extent practicable the NCP. Information supporting the decisions leading to the selected remedy is contained in the AR file for the site. Shoreline sediment adjacent to the Ford Island, including areas along the Ford Island Landfill shoreline, may also be contaminated. The sediments along the Ford Island shoreline area are being addressed as part of a larger, separate Pearl Harbor Sediment Study being conducted by the Navy under CERCLA authority.

2-11 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2.4.1 Past Response Action at the Ford Island Landfill The landfill was used from the mid-1930s until the late 1960s for disposal activities that included dumping and burning wastes generated by maintenance activities performed on Ford Island. After the aforementioned disposal activities were discontinued, bulk debris was disposed of and covered with soil until 1982. When the Navy discontinued dumping at the landfill, they covered approximately 80 percent of the landfill with a final layer of soil.

Two environmental investigations, a SI (Ogden 1993) and RSE, were conducted at the site since the 1990s. The investigations identified metals, SVOCs, and a single form of PCB (Aroclor-1260) as chemicals of concern in site soils, and metals in shallow groundwater and surface water. Results of the RSE were presented along with an EE/CA (Ogden 1995). The EE/CA recommended construction of a landfill containment system as the preferred remedy. An engineered landfill containment system was installed in December 1996. The containment system consisted of a permeable and vegetative soil cap; a drainage trench; a groundwater monitoring network; and a shoreline protection along Pearl Harbor (OHM 1997). A groundwater monitoring program that used an intrawell approach was implemented in 1997. The program included analyses of groundwater and surface water samples for VOCs) SVOCs, TPH, metals, PCBs, and general water quality parameters. After 13 monitoring events, the groundwater monitoring program was changed to an interwell approach that included upgradient wells and additional surface water sampling locations. The contaminants of concern for future monitoring events were reduced to dissolved metals only. The 30th monitoring event was completed in April 2011.

As described in Section 2.1, two IRP sites, the Camel Refurbishing Area and the Building 284 Site, investigated during the Ford Island Remedial Investigation are located north and southeast of the Ford Island Landfill. A soil removal action was completed at the Camel Refurbishing Area and No Further Action for the site is documented in the Record of Decision, Ford Island Hazardous Substance and 32 Transformer Sites, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii (DON 2009b). The Camel Refurbishing Area has been redeveloped into residential housing and a community recreation area. A soil removal action was also completed at the Building 284 Site and LUCs are documented as the final remedy for the site in the Record of Decision, Building 284 and Former Buildings 80 and 302, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii (DON 2009a).

2.4.2 Selected Response Action for the Ford Island Landfill A response action is necessary to protect human health and the environment from exposure to contaminants remaining in subsurface soil at the Ford Island Landfill. Due to the wide extent and large estimated volume of impacted soil at the sites, the objectives of the previous removal action were to eliminate pathways between contaminated media and potential human and ecological receptors without removing contaminated media from the sites. The response action, which prevents direct exposure to metals contaminated subsurface soil while leaving contamination in place, will effectively reduce risks to human health and the environment and continue to do so as long as the protective surface cover within LUC boundaries (i.e., vegetative soil caps, rip-rap revetment) are maintained. LUCs and LTMM will insure that human health and the environment are protected in perpetuity. In addition, long-term monitoring of groundwater will ensure that COCs are not transported to Pearl Harbor via groundwater. Soil gas sampling will be conducted to ensure that vapor emissions do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

2-12 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS This section describes site characteristics that could affect the nature, extent, fate, and transport of chemicals potentially released at the Ford Island Landfill.

2.5.1 Physical Setting and Site Features Ford Island represents part of the PHNC and consists of a mixture of residential, commercial, and military industrial land use. The Ford island Landfill encompasses approximately 4.4 acres on the southwest side of Ford Island along the Pearl Harbor shoreline. The landfill surface is covered with maintained grass that was planted to stabilize the cap surface and prevent erosion. The landfill surface across most of the site is relatively flat and slopes steeply toward Pearl Harbor along the shoreline. The land surface elevation across the site generally ranges between 5 and 15 feet mean lower low water.

As described in Section 2.2, the landfill containment system, which was installed in December 1996, consists of a permeable and vegetative soil cap, a drainage trench, a groundwater monitoring network that includes 12 monitoring wells (MW-01 through MW-07A and MW-09 through MW-13), and shoreline protection along Pearl Harbor. In addition, one background well (MW-14) completed within a flush-mount manhole cover is located approximately 1,100 feet upgradient from the site.

2.5.2 Wildlife and Sensitive Ecosystems Details regarding biological resources on Ford Island are discussed in the RI report (Earth Tech 2003). Buildings and vegetation on Ford Island may be used as refuge by common urban species, such as the house mouse, mongoose, Norway and black rats, house sparrow, Java sparrow, and common mynah. The paved and industrial areas of Ford Island have little habitat value.

The birds that frequent the nearby wildlife refuges are the most important form of wildlife at PHNC. Four federally listed endemic and endangered wading birds and waterfowl are associated with these refuges: the Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian gallinule, Hawaiian coot, and Hawaiian duck.

The endemic short-eared owl, state-listed as endangered on Oahu, has been observed hunting in the area. In addition, 28 other bird species, including indigenous, migratory, and exotics, are found on the Pearl Harbor refuges and surrounding areas.

Common fish at the refuges include the mullet (Mugil sp.) and the awa (Chanos chanos) (Nakai 1997). The quiet waters in the upper regions of all the Pearl Harbor lochs surrounding Ford Island provide excellent habitat for the Hawaiian anchovy (nehu) (Encrasicholina purpurea), a species used as a baitfish in the offshore tuna (aku) fishery. This species is the most important baitfish resource in Hawaii, and Pearl Harbor represents an important spawning ground (Smith 1993; Somerton 1989). The green sea turtle (honu) (Chelonia mydas) is a threatened indigenous reptile that is occasionally observed within Pearl Harbor.

2.5.3 Cultural Resources A summary of archaeological resources and historic buildings and structures on Ford Island is provided below.

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources. Very little information is available about how Ford Island was used in the pre-contact and early post-contact periods. Given the island’s lack of water, there may have been little pre-contact habitation, except short-term occupation for fishing,

2-13 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

collecting pili grass, and possibly seasonal cultivation of dryland crops such as gourd and sweet potato.

There are no known archaeological sites on Ford Island. A review of information regarding potential archaeological sites (Earth Tech 2003) suggests that sugarcane cultivation and military construction destroyed any sites that may have existed, except for what might be buried in limestone sinkholes or caves. Despite the extensive construction that has occurred on Ford Island, no human remains, or subsurface archaeological sites have been reported on the island.

Historic Buildings and Structures. Ford Island is located within the boundaries of the Pearl Harbor National Historic Landmark (PHNHL). The island currently has 154 historic buildings and structures that are deemed contributing properties to the PHNHL. Historic resources on Ford Island represent military development of the Navy and Army in Hawaii spanning two world wars. However, no buildings are located within the boundaries of the Ford Island Landfill Site.

2.5.4 Geology The geological materials that compose Ford Island include fill material, volcanic material, lagoonal deposits, and coralline debris. The fill material, consisting of mixtures of gravels, sands, silts, and clays, appears to be thickest where the shoreline has been reclaimed and thinnest where tuff deposits are near the surface (Munro 1981). The fill material consists primarily of on-island materials, and the nature of fill deposits varies according to its source, placement method, and its compaction. Surface sediments are generally classified as fill material based on composition, consistency, and placement. Changes in the composition, consistency, or placement of the fill material delineate the boundary between fill and in situ material.

The volcanic material includes tuff (cemented aeolian ash), weathered tuff, and basalt. Weathered tuff primarily includes decomposed tuffaceous rock consisting of stiff to very stiff, silt-sized particles, which were weathered in place or reworked, transported, and redeposited (Munro 1981). Additionally, the weathered tuff includes clay layers in unoxidized condition and of gray color that are thought to be, in part, submarine deposition (Wentworth 1951). The weathered tuff is sometimes mixed with coral sand. Basalt underlies the PHNC below mean sea level and beneath hundreds of feet of sediment, according to well records (Stearns and Vaksvik 1938).

The lagoonal deposits include consolidated and unconsolidated deposits of soft or loose silt to clay- sized particles that were formed in low energy environments including lagoons, swamps, estuaries, and drowned streams and channels. These deposits are often mixed with loose materials including sand and coral debris. Unconsolidated lagoonal deposits are highly compressible, having an average soil penetration of less than four blows per foot, whereas consolidated materials are slightly stiffer (Munro 1981).

Surface soil types on Ford Island are generally classified as silty sands or sandy silts with varying amounts of gravel, owing to the high degree of development and the associated usage of fill material throughout the island. Ford Island itself is classified as coral outcrop (USDA SCS 1972), which consists of coral or cemented calcareous sand. However, many of the characteristics of the surface soil indicate that silt, sand, and graded coral gravel make up much of the fill material. The surface and near surface soil are predominantly varying mixtures of inorganic low plasticity silt with varying amounts of sand and gravel-sized materials. The sand and gravel are poorly graded and sub-angular. A significant portion of Ford Island is covered by concrete and asphalt, which overlie the fill material.

2-14 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Site-specific geology at the Ford Island Landfill Site consists primarily of fill material overlying limestone, with fill thickness ranging from 1 to 15 feet (Ogden 1993). The contact between the fill and limestone is undulatory, and shows a gradual sloping toward the shoreline. Volcanic tuff was encountered at the base of MW-6 in the southeast corner of the site.

The fill material present in the landfill occurs in heterogeneous layers, and consists as loosely- consolidated material mixed with gravelly sand, sandy silt, and clayey sand beneath a thin surface veneer of moderately-dry sandy to clayey silt mixed with gravel.

The limestone encountered at the landfill is a moderately- to well-cemented coralline limestone with embedded bivalves.

2.5.5 Hydrogeology Ford Island is located in the Honolulu–Pearl Harbor basal groundwater aquifer area. The shallow groundwater in the surficial caprock aquifer beneath Ford Island is encountered at approximately sea level. Shallow groundwater on Ford Island is not used for potable purposes and is not hydraulically connected to the basal aquifer of Oahu, which is approximately 460 feet below ground surface (bgs). The source of shallow groundwater on Ford Island is believed to be the result of recharge on Ford Island itself, combined with intrusion of seawater. As a result, the shallow groundwater is generally brackish. Depth to groundwater at Ford Island ranges from approximately 3 feet bgs in wells located along the shoreline to 19 feet bgs in wells located inland. The surficial caprock aquifer occurs from the water table to the first underlying aquitard, and is approximately 16 feet thick (Ogden 1995). The aquifer is generally encountered within the weathered volcanic material, coralline debris, and lagoonal deposits.

The unconfined shallow groundwater is in hydrologic contact with Pearl Harbor surface water and is subject to tidal influence that causes the hydraulic gradient to slope toward the ocean during low and falling tide, and toward the center of the island during rising and high tide. Estimates for hydraulic conductivity in the landfill wells ranged from 3.0 × 10–3 centimeters per second (cm/sec) to a minimum of 2.2 × 10–5 cm/sec, reflecting the highly heterogeneous nature of the landfill waste material (Ogden 1995). During a tidal study in 2007–2008, groundwater was shown to flow inland from the Pearl Harbor shoreline during high tide. The hydraulic gradient reverses during low tide, and groundwater flows back toward Pearl Harbor. Groundwater flow patterns observed up to 2 hours after the occurrence of low tide in Pearl Harbor were similar to those observed at low tide (Earth Tech 2008).

Salinity and concentrations of seawater indicator parameters (calcium, magnesium, sodium, chlorine, and TDS) measured during the tidal study indicated similar water chemistry in Pearl Harbor and the wells located proximal to the harbor, with little variation throughout the tidal cycle (Earth Tech 2008). In contrast, concentrations of the same parameters in wells located more inland were approximately one-half of the values detected in shoreline-proximal wells, but did show greater magnitude of change between tidal stages. These data suggest that geochemically, the shallow groundwater in the shoreline-proximal wells MW-11, MW-12, and MW-13 is similar to seawater, while groundwater located further inland (and farther from the tidal influences) are more representative of fresh water.

In August 2005, data from groundwater samples collected at the site from the shallow aquifer indicated elevated concentrations (>18,000 milligrams per liter) for TDS. The DOH has adopted the regional aquifer classification by Mink and Lau (1990) to determine the permissible uses for groundwater in different areas of Hawaii. The shallow caprock groundwater at Ford Island is

2-15 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

classified as an unconfined basal aquifer contained in sediments. Groundwater contained within this aquifer is brackish and under the Mink and Lau system, it is “ecologically important but not suitable for drinking” (Mink and Lau 1990). The shallow aquifer at the landfill is considered ecologically important since it is irreplaceable, highly vulnerable to contamination, and located in proximity to Pearl Harbor.

2.6 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES The Ford Island Landfill is presently vegetated and undeveloped. The surface cover of the landfill consists of grass and shrubs. Surrounding land cover includes paved open spaces, which were formerly used as seaplane ramps, parking aprons, and a refurbishing area. The nearest human population consists of a community recreation area located adjacent to the northern boundary of the landfill, a nearby residential area located approximately 500 feet north and 200 feet northeast of the landfill (Figure 3), and pedestrians and vehicle passengers passing the landfill on Wasp Boulevard. The Building 284 Site, which also contains a permeable and vegetative cap that was constructed over metals contaminated soil and debris (DON 2009a), is located to the south. The Ford Island Landfill property itself; however, is slated to remain undeveloped as recreational open space.

Prior to the construction of the landfill containment system, vegetation at the Ford Island Landfill Site consisted of grass and low-lying ground cover. No federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered plant species have been identified at the site (Earth Tech 2003). Following its construction, the cap was vegetated with common Bermuda grass, which is periodically mowed and maintained.

The grass habitat at the site may be used as refuge by common urban species, such as the house mouse, mongoose, Norway and black rat, house sparrow, Java sparrow, and common mynah. No terrestrial mammal species that are federal- or state-listed as threatened or endangered have been identified at the site (Earth Tech 2003).

The western border of the Ford Island Landfill site lies along the quiet waters of Pearl Harbor. The harbor provides excellent habitat for the Hawaiian anchovy (nehu) (Encrasicholina purpurea), a species used as a baitfish in the offshore tuna (aku) fishery. The green sea turtle (honu) (Chelonia mydas) is a threatened indigenous reptile that is occasionally observed within Pearl Harbor waters (Earth Tech 2003).

Groundwater Classification and Use. The State of Hawaii does not currently have an EPA- approved comprehensive state groundwater protection plan in place. Therefore, federal and other state guidance as well as site-specific factors were considered to determine the status of groundwater at the Ford Island Landfill site. The groundwater at the Ford Island Landfill site was classified in accordance with the flowchart in the Groundwater Classification Joint Issue Paper and Site-Specific Determination for Groundwater Remediation Goals (NAVFAC Pacific and EPA 2001).

Groundwater at Ford Island (including the site) is not currently used for drinking water purposes nor is it considered a potential source of drinking water, as confirmed by Chester Lao, chief geologist for the City and County of Honolulu Board of Water Supply (CCH BWS 2000). The DOH has also delineated a boundary, termed the underground injection control (UIC) line (DOH 1992). Only areas inland (mauka) of the UIC line are considered potential drinking water sources. Ford Island is located 3,850 feet seaward of the UIC line in an area not regarded as a potential drinking water source under this classification (DOH 1999). Groundwater classification at Ford Island is discussed in detail in the Remedial Investigation, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii (Earth Tech 2003).

2-16 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS This section describes the conceptual site model (CSM) and presents a summary of site risks for the Ford Island Landfill Site.

2.7.1 Conceptual Site Model This section discusses the CSM for the Ford Island Landfill with all elements associated with different exposure pathways under both current and future land use conditions. The CSM for the landfill is presented as Figure 4.

Currently, the landfill is inactive and undeveloped. The surface cover of the landfill consists of a vegetated (maintained grass) cover encircled by concrete drainage ditches. Surrounding land cover includes paved open spaces, which were formerly used as seaplane ramps, parking aprons, roadways and a refurbishing area. Residential areas are located within 0.25 mile of the landfill. Presently, the landfill area has no access restrictions to nearby residents. However, in December 1996, the landfill containment system was constructed on the site (see Section 2.2), effectively eliminating exposure to impacted soils and waste within the landfill. Thus, the direct exposure pathway is considered incomplete. Similarly, the air pathway (exposure to fugitive dust) is also considered incomplete due to the presence of the containment system.

Direct exposure to underlying groundwater is not expected since shallow groundwater at Ford Island is brackish, and potable water is available on the island with sources from basal groundwater supplies in Waiawa and Red Hill (Ogden 1995).

The Navy recognizes that housing should not be constructed on the capped landfill. Thus, future potential receptors are limited to periodic visitors and recreational users (both adults and children). It is anticipated that the potential health risks of future receptors would be similar to those under the current land use scenario. As long as impacted media in the subsurface are not exposed, site access restrictions (i.e., fencing) are not required. Signs will be placed around the landfill indicating the site contains subsurface soil contamination.

Potential exposure of terrestrial ecological receptors to soil contamination could occur if contaminated soil underlying the existing permeable and vegetative soil cap were to become exposed. In addition, ecological receptors in Pearl Harbor could be exposed if contaminated soil were transported to Pearl Harbor. Although the underlying shallow aquifer is not a drinking water aquifer, it has been designated as “ecologically important” due to the proximity to Pearl Harbor and potential for contamination to migrate within the shallow aquifer and discharge to Pearl Harbor. Current ecological receptors are protected from direct exposure to contaminated soil by the landfill containment system, and groundwater monitoring is being conducted to ensure that elevated levels of metals do not leach to the underlying shallow aquifer and adversely impact Pearl Harbor.

To ensure the protection of future human and ecological receptors, a remedy is required that ensures the integrity of the landfill containment system is maintained or that potential exposure to underlying impacted media does not occur.

2.7.1.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK EVALUATION A human health risk evaluation was conducted and presented in the EE/CA (Ogden 1995). The risk evaluation was performed to evaluate actual and potential risks to human health based on data obtained prior to implementing any remedial actions and without considering institutional controls. The evaluation included the following:

2-17 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

 COC identification and evaluation (i.e., ensure site was adequately characterized, ensure data quality objectives were met, compare maximum detected concentrations with ARARs and to-be-considered criteria (TBCs), and screen maximum risk to identify risk drivers).  Chemical-specific exposure point concentrations were evaluated for three site-specific exposure scenarios (ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, and fish/shellfish ingestion), associated with recreational activities that were identified as potentially complete pathways.  A toxicity assessment was conducted to assess the potential for each COC to elicit adverse health effects.  A risk characterization that combined results from exposure and toxicity assessments to evaluate individual risks associated with the three potentially complete pathways.

The risk evaluation was conducted prior to the emplacement of the landfill containment system, which was installed in 1996. As a result, the actual health risks will be much lower than the potential health risks identified in the risk evaluation due to the presence of the containment system. Potentially exposed populations evaluated under the current land use conditions included adult and child onsite visitors and recreational fishermen. As the development plan for Ford Island has incorporated the landfill as a recreational area, exposed populations under the future land use is equivalent to that under current land use.

2-18 Receptors Current Land Use Future Land Use

Onsite Onsite Visitor or Onsite Onsite Visitor or Onsite Worker Offsite Resident Recreational Trespasser Ecological Onsite Worker Recreational Trespasser Contributing Sources Transport Mechanisms Exposure Route (Adult/Child) (Adult/Child) Fisherman (Adult/Child) Receptors (Adult/Child) Offsite Resident Fisherman (Adult/Child) Ecological Receptors Rationale

For current scenarios, all pathways for surface soil are incomplete because a 2-foot cap Inhalation of covers the entire site. If the cap is removed in the future, some exposure pathways may be Surface Windborne Fugitive Soil potentially complete. For future scenarios for onsite workers, inhalation may be a potentially Particulates Particulates Potentially Potentially complete pathway from fugitive dust generated during dry, windy conditions or during Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Potentially Complete Potentially Complete Insignificant Complete Complete construction or remediation activities. Potentially complete for future offsite residents, onsite recreational fishermen, or trespassers if the cap were removed and dusty conditions developed. Exposure to COPCs by dermal absorption by wildlife is expected to be insignificant compared to exposure by ingestion pathways.

Inhalation of Volatilization VOCs For current scenarios, all pathways for surface soil are incomplete because a 2-foot cap Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant covers the entire site. Inhalation pathway is considered insignificant for future pathways because significant levels of volatile organic compounds were not detected in soils.

Dermal Direct Absorption Contact For current scenarios, all pathways for surface soil are incomplete because a 2-foot cap covers the entire site. Dermal absorption from surface soil is potentially complete for future onsite workers during construction or remediation activities. Insignificant for offsite residents due to minimal potential and volume of soil that could migrate to offsite residential areas. Potentially Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Potentially Complete Insignificant Potentially Complete Insignificant Dermal absorption from surface soil is potentially complete for future ecological receptors, but Complete scientific data to estimate this exposure in wildlife is lacking, so the pathway is not evaluated quantitatively. Soil invertebrates ingested as food by wildlife are assumed to take up soil COPCs through the skin. Exposure to COPCs by dermal absorption by wildlife is expected to be insignificant compared to exposure by ingestion pathways.

Incidental Ingestion of Soil For current scenarios, all pathways for surface soil are incomplete because a 2-foot cap covers the entire site. For future scenarios, incidental ingestion of surface soil by onsite workers is potentially complete due to potential exposure during construction or remediation Potentially Potentially activities. Insignificant for offsite residents due to minimal potential and volume of soil that Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Potentially Complete Insignificant Potentially Complete Complete Complete could migrate to offsite residential areas. Potentially complete for onsite recreational fishermen and onsite visitors or trespassers if the 2-foot cap were damaged or removed. For future scenarios, incidental ingestion of surface soil by terrestrial wildlife is part of normal feeding activities, therefore, this pathway is considered potentially complete.

Ingestion of Bio-uptake Plants/Animals (bio-uptake) For current scenarios, all pathways for surface soil are incomplete because a 2-foot cap covers the entire site. There are no agricultural activities on site, and pathways to human Potentially Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete receptors are incomplete for future scenarios. For future scenarios, incidental ingestion of Complete surface soil by terrestrial wildlife is part of normal feeding activities, therefore, this pathway is considered potentially complete due to potential erosion of the cap.

Figure 4: Conceptual Site Model, Record of Decision, Ford Island Landfill, JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, Hawaii Receptors Current Land Use Future Land Use

Onsite Onsite Visitor or Onsite Onsite Visitor or Onsite Worker Offsite Resident Recreational Trespasser Ecological Onsite Worker Recreational Trespasser Contributing Sources Transport Mechanisms Exposure Route (Adult/Child) (Adult/Child) Fisherman (Adult/Child) Receptors (Adult/Child) Offsite Resident Fisherman (Adult/Child) Ecological Receptors Rationale

Dermal Contamination is present in subsurface soil, so exposure pathways to onsite workers for Absorption current and future scenarios are potentially complete if construction or remedial activities are Subsurface Soil Direct Contact conducted. Incomplete for offsite residents for current and future scenarios. Incomplete for current recreational fishermen and onsite visitors or trespassers, but these receptors could be Potentially Incidental Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Potentially Complete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete exposed to contaminated subsurface soil if the cap were removed or damaged in the future. Complete Ingestion Terrestrial wildlife do not normally contact subsurface soils, therefore this pathway is considered incomplete. The majority of bird and mammal exposure comes from ingestion of food (plants and soil invertebrates). The majority of plant and invertebrate chemical exposure is from uptake in the top 2 feet of soil.

Leaching to Direct Ingestion of Groundwater Contact Groundwater Human receptors may be exposed to groundwater during construction and excavation activities. Dermal absorption, incidental ingestion, and inhalation are all insignificant or Dermal incomplete pathways for both current and future scenarios. Groundwater samples indicated Absorption Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete that the presence of metals in soil is not leaching to groundwater at concentrations that have the potential to adversely affect human health due to direct contact. Ecological receptors are Inhalations of not normally exposed to groundwater. VOCs

Groundwater Dermal For current use, human receptor exposure to groundwater seeps entering Pearl Harbor is discharge to Absorption Direct considered insignificant due to low frequency and dilution/attenuation of constituents. Pearl Harbor Contact Incidental ingestion of fish and shellfish which may have been impacted by groundwater seeps Potentially Potentially Potentially Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Incomplete entering Pearl Harbor is considered potentially complete. However, The Hawaii Dept. of Complete Complete Complete Health (DOH) issued a health advisory in 1998 that warns people not to eat fish or shellfish Incidental Ingestion from Pearl Harbor. Aquatic ecological receptor exposure to groundwater seeps entering Pearl Harbor is considered potentially complete.

Inhalation of Inhalation pathway is considered insignificant for future pathways because significant levels of VOCs Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete volatile organic compounds were not detected in groundwater samples collected at the site.

Figure 4: Conceptual Site Model, Record of Decision, Ford Island Landfill, JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, Hawaii (cont'd) Receptors Current Land Use Future Land Use

Onsite Onsite Visitor or Onsite Onsite Visitor or Onsite Worker Offsite Resident Recreational Trespasser Ecological Onsite Worker Recreational Trespasser Contributing Sources Transport Mechanisms Exposure Route (Adult/Child) (Adult/Child) Fisherman (Adult/Child) Receptors (Adult/Child) Offsite Resident Fisherman (Adult/Child) Ecological Receptors Rationale

Human receptors potentially exposed to sediment that eroded from the Ford Island Landfill Dermal Absorption Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Site prior to construction of the cap include recreational fishermen. Any potential sediment Sediment Direct Contact Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Complete Complete Complete Complete exposure to current and future receptors is being addressed in the Pearl Harbor Sediment Study.

Incidental Ingestion For current and future scenarios, exposure of humans by ingestion of sediment is not likely to occur and considered incomplete. For current and future scenarios, incidental ingestion of Potentially Potentially surface soil by terrestrial wildlife is part of normalnormal feeding activities, therefore, this pathway is Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Complete Complete considered potentially complete since soil may have eroded to and impacted sediments prior to construction of the 2-foot cap. Any potential sediment exposure to current and future receptors is being addressed in the Pearl Harbor Sediment Study.

Air Transport Inhalation of VOCs Inhalation pathway is considered insignificant for future pathways because significant levels of Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant volatile organic compounds were not detected in soil or groundwater samples collected at the site.

Inhalation of Particulates Contaminated soil potentially eroded to and impacted adjacent sediment prior to construction of the 2-foot cap. However, construction of the 2-foot cap has eliminated any additional erosion and transport of impacted soil to adjacent sediments and any exposure of onsite Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Insignificant Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete workers though inhalation of sediment is considered minimal and insignificant, and exposure of other receptors through sediment inhalation is considered incomplete. Any potential sediment exposure to current and future receptors is being addressed in the Pearl Harbor Sediment Study.

Figure 4: Conceptual Site Model, Record of Decision, Ford Island Landfill, JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, Hawaii (cont'd) ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

The human health risk assessment evaluated risks from potential exposure of the adult visitor, child visitor, recreational user, and recreational fisherman to site related COCs. A summary of estimated risks are presented below. The data tables contained within the initial risk evaluation have been updated to adhere to EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Part D format and are included in Attachment C and updates have been made to include current screening criteria and information.

An evaluation of COPCs indicated that, with the exception of one hotspot, a large number of chemicals (VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PAHs, TPHs, and metals) were detected at low concentrations in surface soil. All of the VOCs were considered common laboratory contaminants. The presence of pesticides and herbicides were not considered to be site-related because of their low concentrations and the lack of a distinct distribution pattern with their occurrence. The screening criteria selected for the site included the 1995 EPA Region 9 preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and the 95th percentile of the Oahu caprock soil background levels concentration range (Earth Tech 2006), which were agreed upon by EPA Region 9 and DOH and finalized in 2006. The Oahu caprock soil background concentrations are considered protective of both human and terrestrial ecological receptors on Ford Island.

After comparing the results with PRGs, the COCs identified in surface soil included TPH as diesel range organics (DRO), arsenic, and beryllium. Higher concentrations of chemicals were found in subsurface soils; however, only metals (arsenic, copper, and mercury), Aroclor-1260, and TPH were identified as COCs. Antimony and copper were identified as COCs in groundwater based on a comparison of site data to State of Hawaii Surface Water Standards. Antimony and mercury were identified as COCs in sediment based on a comparison of site data to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and State of Washington Marine Sediment Quality Standards. In addition, COCs identified for the fish ingestion pathway included arsenic, copper, mercury, silver, and TPHs. Estimated groundwater concentrations of several contaminants detected in soil were made using Summer’s Model and used in the evaluation of the fish ingestion pathway.

Because of the limited number of surface soil samples collected, the 95th upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean exceeded the maximum detected concentrations at the site. Therefore, maximum detected concentrations were used as the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) values. The fish ingestion pathway was evaluated for recreational fishermen using chemical specific bioaccumulation factors. The only COC evaluated was Aroclor-1260 due to the elevated concentration detected and its high bioaccumulation factor in marine fish.

The risks to the onsite child/recreational user, onsite adult/recreational user, and onsite recreational fisherman are summarized in Table 2. For the soil direct contact exposure pathway, the cumulative RME excess cancer risk and hazard index (HI) to adult current visitors, and/or future recreational users were 2E−05 and 1.6E−01, respectively. The average excess cancer risk and HI were calculated to be 4E−08 and 5.9E−04. For child current visitors and/or future recreational users, the cumulative RME excess cancer risk and HI were 6E–06 and 5E–01, respectively, with average excess cancer risk and HI of 3E–08 and 5.7E–03, respectively. Note that the risk evaluation did not distinguish between surface and subsurface soil risks. For the soil ingestion component, arsenic was the greatest contributor to the excess cancer risk and HI, whereas for the dermal contact component, the risk drivers were beryllium for the carcinogenic risk, and TPH-DRO for the noncarcinogenic hazard. These health risks indicate that the average and RME excess cancer risks and noncarcinogenic HI to current onsite visitors and/or onsite recreational users are below the EPA thresholds of 1E–04 for cumulative cancer risk and a cumulative noncancer HI of 1.0.

2-23 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 2: Current and Future Land Use Scenario – Cumulative/Actual/Potential Health Risks

Excess Cancer Risk a HQ Pathway Average RME Average RME Onsite Child Visitor/Recreational User b Soil Ingestion 3E−08 4E–06 5.7E–03 4.3E–01 Dermal Contact with Soil b 5E–10 1E–06 2.5E–05 6.8E–02 Soil Ingestion b 3E–08 4E–06 5.7E–03 4.3E–01 Onsite Adult Visitor/Recreational User Soil Ingestion b 3E–08 8E–06 5.6E–04 5.1E–02 Dermal Contact with Soil b 3E–09 1E–05 3.3E–05 1.1E–01 SUBTOTAL 4E–08 2E–05 5.9E–04 1.6E–01 Onsite Recreational Fisherman Ingestion of Fish c 5E–09 2E–06 4.8E–04 1.7E–02 SUBTOTAL 5E–09 2E–06 4.8E–04 1.7E–02 HQ hazard quotient While the fish ingestion values in the above table match the values calculated in the 1995 Table F-17b, they do not correlate with the values in the F-20 summary table (2E–9, 7E–7, 2E–4, and 8E–3). Mild variance in the above values compared with the 1995 Appendix F Summary Table F-20 may result from values beyond the significant digits displayed in the 1995 tables. For example, while a table may display 3.4, it may actually use 3.44 to calculate intake, risk, and hazard; thus, making a summation of these values slightly different than the truncated version of the shown resultant. Mild variance between this summary table and the 1995 Table F-20 are detailed below. The RME dermal child hazard is slightly different at 6.8E–2 instead of the above 6.7E–2 value. The summary child RME risk is slightly different at 5E–6 instead of the above 6E–6 value. The summary adult CTE risk is slightly different at 3E–8 instead of the above 4E–8 value. a Compared with the 1995 appendix F Summary Table F-20, the above table displays a large variance in fish ingestion and a few minor variances in other parameters. b Based on maximum concentrations of three COPCs for the RME case: arsenic, beryllium, and TPH-DRO in surface soil. c Based on maximum concentrations of COPCs for the RME case: Aroclor-1260, arsenic, copper, mercury, silver, and TPH- DRO in soils.

The fish ingestion pathway was evaluated for recreational fishermen along the landfill shoreline at Pearl Harbor. The RME results based on 95th UCL concentration values indicate that RME excess cancer risk and noncancer HI were 2E–06 and 1.7E–02, respectively, with average risk levels of 5E-09 and 4.8E–04. These risk values were significantly below the EPA thresholds of 1E−04 for cumulative cancer risk and a cumulative noncancer HI of 1.0. In the event that there was subsistence fishing taking place at Pearl Harbor (a situation that does not exist), which would involve ingestion of 54 grams of fish for 350 days per year (EPA 1991), the excess cancer risk for the fish ingestion pathway posed by COCs discharged into Pearl Harbor would be approximately 1E–05.

The risk characterization results suggested that site-related contaminants in surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater would not pose any unacceptable risks to human receptors with direct contact to soil and via the fish ingestion pathways because of leaching and groundwater discharge to Pearl Harbor. However, the following recommendations were presented for consideration at the landfill:

 The area should continue to be used for open recreational space.  A landfill containment system that includes a cap be installed.

2.7.1.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION The landfill has an engineered fill layer of varying thickness and comprises construction-grade earthen fill. The vegetation/erosion layer comprises earthen fill with a minimum thickness of 12 inches. The principal function of this layer is to serve as the primary barrier to direct contact with landfill wastes. Fill soil was compacted to a minimum relative density of 90 percent The topsoil layer

2-24 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

is a minimum of 6 to 12 inches thick and was designed to support vegetation. The topsoil was placed over the fill and not compacted. Surface vegetation, consisting of common Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), is intended to stabilize the cap surface and prevent erosion (Ogden 1998). This cover may support a terrestrial ecological community. Surface dwelling biota has no exposure to the underlying landfill material. However, burrowing animals, primarily rats, could contact the underlying material via burrowing. This exposure pathway cannot be excluded. However, exposure to the landfill material is unlikely, because (1) the compacted fill layer makes burrowing difficult, and (2) the content of the landfill, primarily construction rubble and debris, is not highly attractive for burrowers. In 30 monitoring events since 1997, no sign of burrowing animals have been noted, indicating the incompleteness of the pathway. Ongoing monitoring will note the continued absence of burrowing, and if burrowing is observed measures will be taken to eliminate burrowing in view of the need to discourage compromising the integrity of the cap.

Long-term monitoring, including the collection of groundwater and surface water samples, has been conducted since 1997. As of April 2011, a total of 30 monitoring events have been completed. Table 3 presents the maximum detected concentrations of COCs that have been detected above their respective State of Hawaii Surface Water Standards (DOH 2004), which have been established as screening criteria for groundwater and surface water at the site and are only applicable to dissolved concentrations.

During long-term monitoring at the site, dissolved concentrations of arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc have been detected intermittently in the shallow groundwater at concentrations that exceed their respective surface water standards selected as screening criteria. Similarly, surface water sampling results indicate that dissolved copper, lead, mercury, and zinc have been detected above their respective screening criteria. The maximum detected concentrations for dissolved concentrations of arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc since 1997, and sampling results between 2008 and 2011 for wells located closest to Pearl Harbor (MW-11 through MW-13) and surface water sampling locations SW-01 through SW-09 are presented in Table 3. All historical groundwater and surface water sampling results are included in Attachment B.

Based on historical data (Attachment B), concentrations of dissolved metals in the landfill wells appear to be decreasing and no significant upward trends were identified as part of the data evaluation conducted after the 29th monitoring event (AECOM 2011). The data for the three wells (MW-11 through MW-13) located along the Pearl Harbor shoreline (Table 3) shows the declining trend in recent monitoring compared to historical maxima. The most recent sampling event, in April 2011, showed no exceedances of default State of Hawaii surface water screening values in these wells. These concentrations also include anthropogenic background concentrations. Since groundwater is considered ecologically important due to potential discharge to surface water, only data from wells MW-11 through MW-13 are located where groundwater merges into the transition zone and should be considered as representing ecologically important groundwater.

2-25 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 3: Dissolved COC Concentration Summary: May 2008 to April 2011

Location Date Sampled Arsenic (d) (µg/L) Copper (d) (µg/L) Lead (d) (µg/L) Mercury (d) (µg/L) Nickel (d) (µg/L) Zinc (d) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 36 2.9 5.6 0.025 8.3 86 Groundwater Wells Adjacent to Surface Water MW-11 Max value prior May 2008 4.7 76 3.93 <0.2 20.1 56 5/7/2008 <1.27 1.4 4.9 <0.018 <1.2 15.2 11/6/2008 <1.27 <0.42 <1.78 <0.027 <1.2 <33.3 6/25/2009 1.2 <0.84 <0.22 <0.025 1 5.9 1/14/2010 0.99 1.30 <0.11 <0.025 1.90 26 10/28/2010 1.6 0.73 <0.11 <0.025 <1.5 15.3 4/19/2011 1.6 0.28 J < 0.11 < 0.025 0.52 < 4.60 MW-12 Max value prior May 2008 4.3 82 4.6 <0.2 20.1 130 5/6/2008 2.6 2.8 4.1 <0.018 2.2 45 11/6/2008 <1.27 4.3 <1.78 <0.027 3.1 85.5 6/25/2009 0.68 3.1 <0.22 <0.025 2.4 35.7 1/14/2010 1.40 2.80 1.10 <0.025 3.10 44.80 10/28/2010 2.1 13.2 5.8 <0.025 4.80 46.60 4/21/2011 1.9 < 0.52 < 0.22 < 0.025 2.8 30.5 MW-13 Max value prior May 2008 4.7 196 2.1 0.22 26.3 124 5/6/2008 2.1 3.9 5.4 <0.018 4.3 69 11/6/2008 <1.27 4.9 <1.78 <0.027 1.8 55.5 6/25/2009 4.9 4.1 0.66 <0.025 3.5 49.7 1/14/2010 4.8 3.4 1.20 <0.025 3.8 72.1 10/28/2010 1.9 3.5 0.46 <0.025 4.2 57.9 4/21/2011 0.83 J 1.4 J < 0.55 < 0.025 4.4 53.5 4/21/2011 0.94 J 1.2 J < 0.55 < 0.025 4.2 52.1 Surface Water Adjacent to Landfill SW-01 Max value prior May 2008 4.6 100 2.06 0.14 22 44 5/5/2008 <1.27 <1.2 2.8 0.039 <1.2 <6.65 11/4/2008 <1.27 <0.86 2.7 <0.027 1.2 <33.3 6/25/2009 1.5 5.2 <0.22 <0.025 0.71 17.6 1/13/2010 1.5 2.4 <0.82 <0.025 1.6 19.5 10/27/2010 2.8 1.5 <0.11 <0.025 <1.4 4.0 4/20/2011 1.9 < 0.26 < 0.11 < 0.025 0.51 7.1 J

2-26 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Location Date Sampled Arsenic (d) (µg/L) Copper (d) (µg/L) Lead (d) (µg/L) Mercury (d) (µg/L) Nickel (d) (µg/L) Zinc (d) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 36 2.9 5.6 0.025 8.3 86 SW-02 Max value prior May 2008 4.6 91.2 <25 <0.2 <25 5.2 5/5/2008 1.5 <0.97 2.2 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 7/23/2008 <1.4 <0.76 1.9 <0.018 1.2 8.3 11/4/2008 2.4 <1.1 2.8 <0.027 1.2 <33.3 2/17/2009 2.4 0.69 <1.78 <0.016 <1.2 <6.65 6/25/2009 1.7 2.1 <0.22 <0.025 0.8 5.2 10/6/2009 1.5 0.94 <0.11 <0.025 1.1 6.8 1/13/2010 1.6 1.4 0.19 <0.025 1.5 13.8 4/20/2010 2.5 0.57 <0.11 <0.025 0.67 2.8 10/27/2010 2.3 0.96 <0.11 <0.025 <0.32 5.8 4/20/2011 1.8 < 1.30 < 0.55 < 0.025 < 1.60 < 24.00 SW-03 Max value prior May 2008 <50 10.8 <25 <0.2 <25 45 5/5/2008 1.9 <1.2 2.6 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 11/4/2008 1.9 <1.5 3.5 <0.027 1.2 <33.3 6/25/2009 1.5 2 <0.22 <0.025 0.6 4.7 1/13/2010 1.5 3.3 0.28 <0.025 1.8 21.7 10/27/2010 2.5 1.2 <0.11 <0.025 <0.32 14.2 4/20/2011 1.9 < 1.30 < 0.55 < 0.025 0.89 J < 24.00 SW-04 Max value prior May 2008 5.4 95.3 3.4 <0.2 2.6 3.9 5/5/2008 2.8 <1.2 3.5 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 7/23/2008 <1.27 <0.73 1.8 <0.018 <1.2 8.2 11/4/2008 1.9 <1.3 3.4 <0.027 <1.2 <33.3 2/17/2009 2.9 0.76 <1.78 <0.016 <1.2 <6.65 6/25/2009 1.7 1.3 <0.22 <0.025 1 <4.6 10/6/2009 1.5 1.5 <0.11 <0.025 1.2 11.8 1/13/2010 1.6 2.2 0.34 <0.025 4.10 25.5 4/20/2010 2.5 0.67 <0.11 <0.025 0.53 4 10/27/2010 2.3 0.69 <0.11 <0.025 <1.1 7.5 4/20/2011 2.2 < 0.52 < 0.22 < 0.025 0.58 J 5.5 J

2-27 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Location Date Sampled Arsenic (d) (µg/L) Copper (d) (µg/L) Lead (d) (µg/L) Mercury (d) (µg/L) Nickel (d) (µg/L) Zinc (d) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 36 2.9 5.6 0.025 8.3 86 SW-05 Max value prior May 2008 <50 9.0 <25 <0.2 <25 <50 5/5/2008 2.7 <0.71 3.9 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 11/4/2008 1.4 <1.3 6.1 <0.027 <1.2 <33.3 6/25/2009 1.5 1 <0.22 <0.025 0.62 <4.6 1/13/2010 1.6 2.40 3.10 <0.025 1.8 19.20 10/27/2010 2.0 1.3 <0.11 <0.025 <1.5 17.50 4/20/2011 2.2 < 0.52 0.42 < 0.025 1.2 14.0 J SW-06 Max value prior May 2008 4.6 40 <25 <0.2 2.4 4.1 5/5/2008 2.1 <0.95 2.7 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 7/23/2008 <1.27 <0.53 <1.78 <0.018 1.6 11.1 11/4/2008 <1.27 <0.79 6.8 <0.027 <1.2 <33.3 2/17/2009 2.6 0.72 <1.78 <0.016 <1.2 <6.65 6/25/2009 1.7 2 <0.22 <0.025 0.53 <4.6 10/6/2009 1.4 1.3 <0.11 <0.025 10.6 31.7 1/13/2010 1.8 <1.6 0.25 <0.025 3.2 13.7 4/20/2010 2.0 0.52 0.12 <0.025 0.5 3.3 10/27/2010 2.3 0.63 <0.11 <0.025 <0.32 13.3 4/20/2011 1.9 0.49 J < 0.22 < 0.025 0.79 J 18.4 J SW-07 Max value prior May 2008 <50 9.3 <25 <0.2 <25 <50 5/5/2008 1.5 1.5 3.3 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 11/4/2008 1.7 <0.87 5.1 <0.027 <1.2 <33.3 6/25/2009 1.5 2.8 <0.22 <0.025 0.8 19.1 1/13/2010 1.6 2.4 0.27 <0.025 1.4 15.1 10/27/2010 2.2 1.90 <0.11 <0.025 <0.32 29.5 4/20/2011 1.6 < 1.30 < 0.55 < 0.025 < 1.60 < 24.00 4/20/2011 2 < 0.52 < 0.22 < 0.025 0.51 J 6.6 J

2-28 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Location Date Sampled Arsenic (d) (µg/L) Copper (d) (µg/L) Lead (d) (µg/L) Mercury (d) (µg/L) Nickel (d) (µg/L) Zinc (d) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 36 2.9 5.6 0.025 8.3 86 SW-08 Max value prior May 2008 3.2 8.5 <25 <0.2 <25 8.17 5/5/2008 2.3 <1 2.8 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 7/23/2008 <1.27 0.57 <1.78 <0.018 <1.2 8.4 11/4/2008 1.9 <1.5 4.5 <0.027 1.8 <33.3 2/17/2009 2.5 0.93 <1.78 <0.016 <1.2 <6.65 6/25/2009 1.7 <1.4 <0.22 <0.025 0.51 <4.6 10/6/2009 1.4 6.60 <0.11 <0.025 0.94 32.10 1/13/2010 1.5 1.7 <0.11 <0.025 0.95 13.9 4/20/2010 1.9 1.2 <0.11 <0.025 1.2 3.7 10/27/2010 2 1.2 <0.11 <0.025 <1.4 13.3 4/20/2011 2 < 0.52 < 0.22 < 0.025 1.1 14.3 J SW-09 Max value prior May 2008 1.9 13.8 <25 <0.2 <25 4.3 5/5/2008 2 <0.74 3 <0.018 <1.2 <6.65 7/23/2008 <1.27 <0.61 1.8 <0.018 <1.2 17.7 11/4/2008 1.4 <1.3 2.5 0.044 <1.2 <33.3 2/17/2009 2.9 0.8 <1.78 <0.016 <1.2 <6.65 6/25/2009 1.7 1.4 <0.22 <0.025 0.8 <4.6 10/6/2009 1.4 0.92 <0.11 <0.025 0.73 14.7 1/13/2010 1.5 2.2 <0.11 <0.025 0.9 15.6 4/20/2010 1.8 0.6 <0.11 <0.025 0.6 3.8 10/27/2010 2.5 1.7 <0.11 <0.025 <2.4 21.2 4/20/2011 1.9 < 0.52 < 0.22 < 0.025 0.81 J 14.6 J Bold exceeds project screening criteria (d) dissolved result

2-29 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

To evaluate potential risks to ecological receptors in Pearl Harbor, groundwater and surface water data have been compared to the State of Hawaii Surface Water Standards (DOH 2004). The surface water standards are intended to be protective for all marine habitats, and are applicable at this site in the absence of site-specific information. The primary COPC is copper, and data collected since the 25th monitoring event in November 2008 indicate that only dissolved copper and dissolved lead have been detected in groundwater above their respective screening criteria. Dissolved copper has been detected in surface water at concentrations above screening criteria. Nickel and mercury has had single reported exceedances in surface water, but not in groundwater. The maximum dissolved copper concentration was 13.2 µg/L detected in MW-12 in October 2010, although it was non-detect at this location during prior and subsequent sampling events. In MW-13 concentrations of dissolved copper between 3 µg/L and 5 µg/L were present prior to April 2011. However, compared to historical (pre-2008) monitoring data, dissolved copper concentrations have declined substantially from maxima of up to 196 µg/L that was detected in January 1998. Dissolved lead has been noted in excess of its screening criterion (5.6 µg/L) in MW-12 on a single occasion, where it was detected at 5.8 µg/L, although all other recent sampling showed lower concentrations.

In recent (2008 or later) surface water samples, dissolved copper exceeded its screening criterion on one occasion in three close sampling locations (SW-01, SW-03, and SW-08) at concentrations of 5.2 µg/L, 3.3 µg/L, and 6.6 µg/L, respectively. A single exceedance for nickel in 2009 and two exceedances for mercury in 2008 also have been recorded.

Based on the historical groundwater and surface water data and trends, exposure of potential ecological receptors in the transition zone between groundwater and surface water and in nearby surface water is low and declining over time. In the most recent sampling, no exceedances were noted. Potential ecological risk from concentrations resulting from groundwater discharge that would result in adverse impacts is low and declining.

2.8 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES Onsite soil contains concentrations of several metals, two SVOCs, and one form of PCB at concentrations that exceed unrestricted use screening levels. In addition, metals that exceed surface water standards have been detected in the shallow groundwater underlying the site and in adjacent surface water. The selected response action will prevent the migration or relocation of contaminated soil to areas (i.e., shoreline, Pearl Harbor) where human or ecological exposure could occur, and ensure COCs do not impact the underlying groundwater. Groundwater at Ford Island is not currently used for drinking water purposes nor is it considered a potential source of drinking water due to elevated concentrations of chlorides and TDS as described in Section 2.5.5. However, the site borders Pearl Harbor where the discharge of groundwater containing elevated concentrations of contaminants could impact ecological receptors. The DOH has classified the shallow groundwater as “ecologically important but not suitable for drinking.”

The objectives of the response action are as follows:

 To protect human and ecological health − The selected response action alternative will prevent direct contact and ingestion of contaminated soil.  To protect ecological health − The selected response action will ensure COCs originating from the landfill do not impact the underlying groundwater or adjacent surface water at concentrations that would adversely impact ecological receptors.

2-30 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Potential contamination in shoreline sediments adjacent to the site is not being addressed as part of the current response action and is not included in this ROD since these sediments are under investigation as part of a separate ongoing study being conducted by the Navy.

2.9 DESCRIPTION AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE ACTION ALTERNATIVES This section describes the response action alternatives, the alternative evaluation process, and the alternative selected as the final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill. Detailed evaluation of the response action alternatives and the rationale for recommending the alternative selected as final remedy is presented in the FFS (AECOM 2010).

2.9.1 Description of Response Action Alternatives Response action alternatives are broad classes of actions that may meet the response action objectives for a site, and can include treatment, containment, excavation, extraction, disposal, institutional actions (e.g., LUCs), or a combination of these actions. The following alternatives for the final response action were evaluated in detail in the FFS (AECOM 2010):

 Alternative 1: No Action  Alternative 2: LUCs  Alternative 3: Cleanup for Unrestricted Land Use

The activities that would be required to implement each response action alternative are summarized in Table 4. Details regarding the assumptions used to develop the cost estimates for each alternative are presented in the FFS.

2.9.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY COMPONENTS Alternative 1: No Action. The no action alternative assumes that site conditions will be left in their current state. For this response alternative, the estimated 71,650 cubic yards (yd3) of remaining contaminated soil and debris fill will be left in place. Although an engineered landfill containment system does exist at the site, its presence and integrity will not be monitored nor maintained. This alternative includes ensuring the 13 existing monitoring wells at the site are properly abandoned. No additional actions, such as institutional controls (e.g., restrictive land use covenants, legal notices) or groundwater or surface water monitoring, will be implemented at the site. However, the no action alternative will be considered further to provide a baseline comparison with other alternatives being evaluated. It is estimated that well abandonment associated with this alternative could be completed in less than one year at an estimated present value cost of $56,000.

2-31 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 4: Identification of Action Alternatives

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: LUCs Alternative 3: Cleanup for Unrestricted Land Use • No further action is taken at site. • Institutional (legal) controls placed in Navy land use registries including: • Excavate all remaining debris and soil contaminated with • Abandonment of 13 existing – Land use restrictions (restricting site construction activities, prohibiting development and metals concentrations that exceed background levels. monitoring wells. placement of structures upon the landfill and limiting land use to Recreational Open • Confirmation samples are collected at sites to verify Space) running in perpetuity or until no longer necessary. • Well abandonment would be attainment of the target cleanup goals. completed in less than one year. – Notice of site contamination and land use restrictions. • Excavated areas are backfilled with clean, on-island soil and – Right of access for purposes of site inspection and further response action, if necessary. • Cost Summary: re-vegetated. Capital Costs: $56,563 • Long-term maintenance and reporting including: • Excavated soil and debris is containerized for shipment and Operations & Maintenance Costs: $0 – Long-term monitoring and maintenance of the landfill containment system to ensure its disposal at a disposal facility approved to accept CERCLA structural integrity and continued effectiveness. remediation waste. Discount Rate: n/a – Since the landfill containment system prevents direct exposure to contaminated media, • No CERCLA 5-year reviews are required. Cost Projection Duration: 0 years site access restrictions (i.e., fencing) are not required as long as the structural integrity of Total Cost (present value): $56,563 the landfill containment system is maintained. However, signs will be placed around the • No LUCs are required since site becomes suitable for unrestricted use. • Total Cost (future value): n/a landfill indicating the site contains subsurface soil contamination and no digging or 3 vehicles are allowed at the site without contacting the Navy Environmental Office. • No long-term monitoring or maintenance is required. • An estimated 71,650 yd of debris and soil contaminated with metals – A long-term groundwater and surface water monitoring plan will be prepared that presents • It is estimated that cleanup activities could be completed would remain onsite. the details of the long-term monitoring program. All samples would be analyzed for site and unrestricted land use achieved within approximately one COCs (i.e., select metals) and general water chemistry parameters. Long-term year. groundwater monitoring would be conducted to ensure that the site does not pose a threat to the adjacent surface water in Pearl Harbor and that additional action to prevent potential • Cost Summary: impacts to Pearl Harbor is not required. Statistical data trend analysis and comparison to Capital Costs: $30,767,720 background levels will be used to evaluate COCs in groundwater. Details regarding the Operations & Maintenance Costs: $591,774 specific requirements and exit criteria for long-term monitoring will be presented in a LTM Discount Rate: 2.7% plan. It is assumed for cost estimating purposes that monitoring will be required for 30 Cost Projection Duration: 1 year years. However, the LTM plan will incorporate the requirements of the LTM program Total Cost (present value): $30,768,494 including protocols to reduce or expand the scope and duration of the groundwater monitoring program, as appropriate, in response to data trends and stakeholder • Total Cost (future value): $32,011,541 agreement with the goal of ensuring that the remedy remains protective of human health • Total volume of soil and debris that would be removed and and environment. The LTM plan and any subsequent revisions will be provided to EPA disposed of at a CERCLA-approved disposal facility is and DOH for review and concurrence. estimated to be 71,650 yd3. – CERCLA five-year reviews to ensure that the landfill containment system is not disturbed and the site remains protective. – LUCs would likely be required in perpetuity; however, the cost estimate assumes 30 years for estimating purposes. The current land use is restricted to recreational use and would remain the same for future use. – Cost Summary: Capital Costs: 0 Operations & Maintenance Costs: $2,155,882 Discount Rate: 2.7% Cost Projection Duration: 30 years Total Cost (present value): $2,032,961 – Total Cost (future value): $3,041,318 – An estimated 71,650 yd3 of debris and soil contaminated with metals would remain onsite and managed to ensure the containment system is maintained and human and ecological receptors are not exposed to media with metals at concentrations that pose unacceptable risks. n/a not available yd3 cubic yards 2-32 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Alternative 2: Land Use Controls. The LUC alternative includes the landfill containment system currently in place at the site. LUCs would be applied to the current 4.4-acre landfill boundary (Figure 3), which contains an estimated 71,650 yd3 of contaminated soil and landfill debris. In addition, institutional (legal) controls and periodic site inspections, monitoring, and maintenance would be implemented to ensure the continued integrity and effectiveness of the containment system. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that monitoring and maintenance at the site will include quarterly inspection of the topsoil and vegetative cover to ensure its integrity, inspection and testing of the landfill irrigation system, inspection of the drainage trench for any cracks, inspection of the shoreline protection and inspection, maintenance, and repair of the above grade portion of monitoring wellheads.

For cost estimating purposes, it was also assumed that long-term groundwater and surface water monitoring would be conducted semiannually. The same locations currently sampled in the LTM program (MW-02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -11, -12, -13), background well MW-14, four near shore surface water sampling locations, and five offshore surface water sampling locations, including one located over 450 feet offshore and within the primary navigation channel) were also included for cost estimating purposes. However, the exact number of sampling locations and frequency of sampling could be changed based on new data collected.

All samples would be analyzed for site COCs (i.e., select metals) and general water chemistry parameters. Long-term groundwater monitoring would be conducted to ensure that the site does not pose a threat to the adjacent surface water in Pearl Harbor and that additional action to prevent potential impacts to Pearl Harbor is not required. Statistical data trend analysis and comparison to background levels will be used to evaluate COCs in groundwater. Details regarding the specific requirements and exit criteria for long-term monitoring will be presented in a LTM plan. It is assumed for cost estimating purposes that monitoring will be required for 30 years. However, the LTM plan will incorporate the requirements of the LTM program including protocols to reduce or expand the scope and duration of the groundwater monitoring program, as appropriate, in response to data trends and stakeholder agreement with the goal of ensuring that the remedy remains protective of human health and environment. The LTM plan and any subsequent revisions will be provided to EPA and DOH for review and concurrence.

Signs will be installed at the site to provide a warning that subsurface contamination is present at the site and indicate that land use is restricted. Future actions associated with the LUC alternative are expected to be easily implemented, effective in protecting human health and the environment, and cost effective. Therefore, this alternative was retained for further evaluation.

LUCs would likely be required in perpetuity; however, for estimating purposes, the cost estimates are based on implementing LUCs over 30 years. The total present value cost for completing all activities associated with the LUC alternative is estimated to be approximately $2 million and the total future value cost is estimated to be approximately $3 million.

Alternative 3: Cleanup for Unrestricted Land Use. The removal of remaining contaminated media (with no LUCs) alternative involves excavating all remaining site debris and soil contaminated with metals concentrations above background levels to be disposed off site, leaving the site safe for human and ecological receptors and allowing unrestricted use of the site. Total volume of media to be removed is estimated to be approximately 71,650 yd3. Excavation of the landfill debris would be conducted until all visible debris has been removed. Soil confirmation samples would be collected from the excavation sides around the perimeter of the landfill to ensure the lateral extent of impacted soil has been excavated and from the excavation bottom to ensure the vertical extent of impacted soil

2-33 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

has been removed or to characterize the soil conditions just above the water table. The vertical extent of the excavation would then continue until all visible debris below groundwater has been removed. Confirmation soil samples would be collected from the perimeter and bottom of the excavation to ensure all landfill debris and contaminated soil have been removed to the extent practicable. Soil samples from the excavated media would also be collected for waste characterization. Excavated areas would be backfilled with clean, on-island soil and re-vegetated. Excavated contaminated media would be disposed of at a permitted, offsite (but on-island) disposal facility approved to accept CERCLA remediation waste. LUCs (i.e., engineering and institutional controls), LTM, and compliance reporting would not be required.

The estimated number of truck loads to transport the debris off-site (approximately 71,650 yd3) is estimated to be 7,100, adding a significant traffic volume that would have to be cleared with the Navy’s operation of the Admiral Cleary Bridge linking Ford Island to the mainland portion of Oahu.

Based on cross sections developed for the site (Appendix A of the FFS [AECOM 2010]), it is assumed that the landfill debris is present at depths less than 25 feet bgs and 15 feet below the water table surface, which would allow for use of a track hoe to remove waste at depth without dewatering the excavation. To facilitate excavation activities, the cost estimate assumes that excavation of debris over approximately one-third of the landfill located nearest the Pearl Harbor shoreline would be conducted while tides are at their lowest level. However, it is estimated that approximately 10,400 yd3 of material requiring excavation is located beneath the water table and would need to be dewatered prior to transport off site. Additional wastewater would be generated during decontamination. Decanted water removed from the excavated waste and soil, as well as decontamination water would be containerized on site in tanks and subsequently discharged to the Navy’s Public Works Center treatment system.

This alternative would be effective in protecting human health and the environment in the long term; however, planning and implementation costs associated with extensive site excavation and contaminated soil transport and disposal would be high, and in the short term, workers could potentially be exposed to COCs during implementation. This alternative was retained for further evaluation. It is estimated that activities associated with cleaning up to unrestricted use could be completed within approximately one year. The estimated total present value cost is approximately $30 million and the total future value cost is approximately $32 million.

2.9.1.2 COMMON ELEMENTS AND DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1: No Action. Alternative 1 does not comply with the ARAR and TBC criteria that must be met. With the exception of monitoring well abandonment, Alternative 1 requires no action and is easily implementable.

Alternative 2: LUCs. Alternative 2 complies with all of the ARAR and TBC criteria that must be met. Alternative 2 will result in leaving all contaminated soil and debris, estimated to be 71,650 yd3, in place; however, implementation and enforcement of LUCs, inspection, monitoring and maintenance will ensure that unacceptable exposure of human and ecological receptors to contaminated media does not occur. Alternative 2 is technically feasible and can be readily implemented. Although the cost for Alternative 2 is significantly greater than the cost for Alternative 1, the cost for implementing Alternative 2 is approximately 10 percent of the overall cost for Alternative 3.

Alternative 3: Cleanup for Unrestricted Land Use. Alternative 3 complies with all of the ARAR and TBC criteria that must be met. Alternative 3 will result in removal of all contaminated soil and

2-34 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

debris, estimated to be 71,650 yd3, and site restoration. It is anticipated that Alternative 3 could be implemented within approximately 1 year. Alternative 3 total cost is approximately 10 times greater than the cost for Alternative 2.

2.9.1.3 EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF EACH ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1: No Action. This alternative will result in potential unacceptable exposure if the landfill containment system is not maintained. It is anticipated that the regulatory agencies and community would not find this alternative to be acceptable due to the potential future risks that would remain.

Alternative 2: LUCs. Currently, the land use is restricted for recreational use only and would not change in the future. Although Alternative 2 will meet all of the remedial objectives, Regulatory agencies prefer remedies that destroy contaminants or include treatment. It is anticipated that the public would find this alternative acceptable. This is supported by the fact that no written comments were received during the public comment period, and while several questions were fielded from the public during the 14 September 2010 public meeting, the questions consisted of technical inquiries pertaining to details of the site, and did not reflect dissatisfaction with the proposed remedy. Additional response actions could be required if the regulatory agencies do not concur that the remedy serves as the final remedy since contaminants will be left on site.

Alternative 3: Cleanup for Unrestricted Land Use. Removal of all impacted media at the site would result in no potential exposure for future receptors; therefore, the future site use would be unrestricted. However, regulatory agencies prefer remedies that destroy contaminants or include treatment. Regulatory agencies also prefer remedies that do not involve off-island disposal. It is anticipated that the public would find this alternative acceptable.

2.9.2 Comparative Analysis of Response Action Alternatives 2.9.2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The response action alternative analysis was based on the nine criteria specified by the NCP (40 CFR 300.430(e)(a)(iii)) and EPA guidance for conducting remedial investigations and feasibility studies under CERCLA (EPA 1988). The NCP criteria are listed in Table 5.

Table 5: NCP Criteria for Analysis of Response Action Alternatives

Criterion Application of Criterion and Rating on 5-Tiered Scale Threshold Criteria Overall Protectiveness of Public Application: Assesses the ability of an alternative to eliminate, reduce, or control the risks Health and the Environment associated with exposure pathways, including direct contact, potential migration, and risks to ecosystems. Rating: Excellent if highly protective. Poor if not protective. Compliance with ARARs Application: Evaluates the potential of an alternative to comply with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs and TBC criteria. Rating: Excellent if compliant. Poor if non-compliant. Primary Balancing Criteria Long-Term Effectiveness and Application: Measures the ability of an alternative to permanently protect human health and Permanence the environment. Rating: Excellent if highly effective. Poor if not effective. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, Application: Evaluates the ability of an alternative to permanently or significantly reduce the or Volume Through Treatment toxicity, mobility, or volume of the constituents through treatment. Rating: Excellent if reduces all contaminants of concern. Poor if no reduction.

2-35 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Criterion Application of Criterion and Rating on 5-Tiered Scale Short-Term Effectiveness Application: Assesses the capability of an alternative to protect human health and the environment during implementation of a response action. Rating: Excellent if highly effective. Poor if not effective. Implementability Application: Evaluates technical feasibility and the difficulty of applying the alternative at the site, the reliability of the technology, the unknowns associated with the alternative, and the need for treatability studies. Assesses administrative requirements, including regulatory agency approval, permits and waivers, mobilization needs, accessibility of equipment, and availability of trained personnel required to implement the alternative. Rating: Excellent if highly feasible and available. Poor if not feasible and available. Cost Application: Assesses the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of each alternative. Rating: Excellent if < $1 Million. Poor if >$4 Million. Modifying Criteria Regulatory Agency Acceptance Application: Evaluates the likelihood of approval by the regulatory agencies. Rating: Excellent if highly acceptable. Poor if not acceptable. Public Acceptance Application: Assesses the anticipated level of acceptance by the public. Rating: Excellent if highly acceptable. Poor if not acceptable.

The first two criteria (i.e., overall protection of human health and the environment, and compliance with ARARs and TBC criteria) are threshold criteria representing the statutory requirements that a response action must achieve in order to comply with CERCLA requirements. The next five criteria (i.e., long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost) are the primary balancing criteria upon which selection of a response action is based. Together, these first seven criteria are considered evaluation criteria; the final two criteria (i.e., state and public acceptance) are considered modifying criteria.

The following sections compare the relative performance of each response action alternative with respect to the NCP criteria to identify the most appropriate final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill.

2.9.2.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Each response action alternative was evaluated against the NCP criteria listed in Table 5 and rated for general effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The ratings for each alternative were then compared to assess their relative performance and identify the most appropriate alternative for the final remedy. A summary of the response action alternative analysis is presented in Table 6. A five tiered scale (poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent) was then applied to each of the final alternatives as shown in Table 7, which assesses the relative performance of each alternative and select the preferred alternative.

The cost estimates for Alternative 2: Land Use Controls, and Alternative 3: Cleanup for Unrestricted Land Use were developed using the Department of Defense (DoD) cost estimating software program Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER), which bases cost estimates on historical cost averages for individual remedial activities, adjusted for typical cost variations within the general region of the subject site. Real costs based on similar projects were used where appropriate (e.g., costs for work plan development and travel).

2.10 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTE The NCP establishes an expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats (i.e., source material that is highly toxic and/or highly mobile) posed by a site wherever practicable.

2-36 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

No highly toxic or highly mobile source material was identified at the Ford Island Landfill; therefore, no principal threat wastes exist.

2.11 SELECTED FINAL REMEDY Based on the screening of remedial action alternatives and the evaluation and comparative analysis of retained alternatives, the recommended alternative for the Ford Island Landfill is Alternative 2, LUCs including long-term monitoring and landfill containment system maintenance. LUCs would be applied to the current 4.4-acre landfill boundary.

2-37 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 6: Evaluation of Response Action Alternatives

Criterion Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Land Use Controls Alternative 3: Removal of Remaining Contaminated Media (no LUCs) Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Provides no additional protection of human Provides protection of human health and the environment Provides protection of human health and the environment by Human Health and health and the environment beyond which because the landfill containment system prevents direct removing all impacted soil. Increases the mass of waste material at Environment presently exists. Level of protection would exposure to impacted soil, protecting human and the disposal facility, which is mitigated by placement in a facility diminish through time. ecological receptors. The landfill containment system also specially designed to receive the waste and to ensure long-term prevents surface soil erosion, reducing impacts to Pearl containment of the waste through monitoring. Additional audits Harbor waters, and reduces storm water runoff infiltration, performed by the EPA, as part of the CERCLA Off-Site Rule, further reducing impacts to groundwater. LUCs would maintain the ensure protection of public health and environment. integrity of the landfill containment system and prevent physical disturbances of the permeable and vegetative soil cap. Compliance with Does not comply with the identified ARARs and Complies with the identified ARARs and TBC criteria. Complies with the identified ARARs and TBC criteria. ARARs TBC criteria. Because this is an offsite action, the disposal facility must be approved under CERCLA’s Off-Site Rule; Land Disposal Restrictions and Minimum Technical Requirements are applicable and depend on the waste classification. Primary Balancing Criteria Long-Term Provides no long-term effectiveness, as the Attains long-term effectiveness. However, contaminated Attains long-term effectiveness and permanence because waste Effectiveness and integrity of the landfill containment system would soil will remain in place at the site, requiring materials are removed from the site. Following removal, long-term Permanence not be maintained, and any physical implementation of LUCs and five-year reviews as long as effectiveness for the alternative is continued by placement in a facility disturbances of the permeable and vegetative contamination remains at the site. The LUCs and five-year specially designed, constructed, and monitored to receive such soil cap would not be prevented. reviews will ensure that the contaminated areas are not wastes. disturbed or potential routes for exposure are created due to future land use changes. Reduction of Does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume Does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through Does not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. Toxicity, Mobility, or through treatment. treatment. Volume Through Treatment Short-Term Existing engineered landfill containment system Would not involve short-term physical disturbances, and Workers would be protected during implementation of this alternative Effectiveness would offer some short-term protection by thus would be protective in the short-term. with monitoring, personal protective equipment, and engineering eliminating direct exposure to soil contamination. controls to mitigate concerns about fugitive dust emissions and Existing soil permeable and vegetative soil cap stormwater management. would not involve short-term physical Transport of hazardous materials or regulated substances is not disturbances, but lack of LUCs would not prevent considered dangerous; however, multiple modes of transport and physical disturbances either. multiple transfer points are involved, elevating risks to surrounding populations.

2-38 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Criterion Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Land Use Controls Alternative 3: Removal of Remaining Contaminated Media (no LUCs) Implementability No action taken. This alternative is technically feasible and can be readily Uses conventional equipment for excavation, transport, and disposal. implemented. Since this action involves movement of soil, verification of removal action objectives is straight forward. Currently, one facility (PVT Landfill) on Oahu is approved to accept CERCLA waste. Any waste that cannot be disposed of on-island would require disposal at a mainland facility. Minimal coordination with governmental agencies is involved for mainland disposal, including coordination with the USDA, for export of soil. Ocean transport and disposal of hazardous wastes in another state involve additional administrative procedures. The procedures for pre- shipment acceptance manifest requirements and transport and disposal are reliable and easily implemented. Export of waste soil, sludge/fines, and liquid wastes requires additional administrative procedures including coordinating with the USDA. Cost Total Cost (present value): $56,563 Total Cost (present value): $2,032,961 Total Cost (present value): $30,768,494 Total Cost (future value): n/a Total Cost (future value): $3,041,318 Total Cost (future value): $32,011,541 Modifying Criteria Projected It is unlikely that regulatory agencies would Regulatory agencies generally prefer treatment Regulatory agencies generally prefer treatment technologies that Regulatory Agency accept the no action alternative because it does technologies that chemically destroy or alter contaminants. chemically destroy or alter contaminants. Therefore, regulators may Acceptance not mitigate potential risks from impacted soil. Therefore, regulators may view this alternative as less view this alternative as less favorable than alternatives that employ favorable than alternatives that employ treatment. treatment. Regulatory agencies generally prefer alternatives that do Additional response actions may be required at the site if not involve off-island disposal if on-island options are available. the regulators do not concur that the action serves as a final response action. Projected It is anticipated that the public would not find this It is anticipated that the public would find this alternative It is anticipated that the public would find this alternative acceptable. Community alternative acceptable. acceptable. However, additional response actions may be Acceptance required at the site if the public does not concur that the action serves as a final response action. USDA United States Department of Agriculture

2-39 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 7: Response Action Alternative Ratings

Alternative 3: Removal of Remaining Contaminated Criterion 5-Tiered Scale a Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: LUCs Media (no LUCs) Threshold Criteria Overall Protectiveness of Public Excellent if highly protective Poor Very Good Excellent Health/Environment Poor if not protective (is protective) Compliance with ARARs Excellent if alternative complies with all Poor Excellent Excellent ARARs Poor if alternative does not comply with all ARARs Primary Balancing Criteria Long-Term Effectiveness and Excellent if highly effective Poor Very Good Excellent Permanence Poor if not effective (is effective) Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Excellent if reduces all contaminants Poor Poor Poor Volume Through Treatment Poor if no reduction Short-Term Effectiveness Excellent if highly effective Very Good Very Good Good Poor if not effective (is effective) (is effective) (effective, but some potential for exposure occurs during soil removal) Implementability Excellent if highly feasible and Excellent Excellent Fair available Poor if not feasible and available Capital Cost b Excellent if Excellent Good Poor <$1,000,000 Good if <$3,000,000 Poor if >$4,000,000 Modifying Criteria Regulatory Agency Acceptance Excellent if highly acceptable Poor Very Good Very Good Poor if not acceptable Public Acceptance Excellent if highly acceptable Poor Very Good Very Good Poor if not acceptable Overall Ranking Poor c Very Good Very Good a The 5-tiered scale is a subjective scale that includes the following categories in decreasing order used to indicate the degree to which criteria are met: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor. b See detailed cost estimates in Section 2.11.2.4. c Ranked “Poor” because alternative does not meet the threshold criteria.

2-40 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2.11.1 Rationale for Selected Remedy The objective of the final remedy at the Ford Island Landfill Site is to prevent exposure to COCs present in subsurface soil and to prevent the migration or relocation of contaminants to areas where human or ecological exposure could occur (i.e., non-contaminated areas, Pearl Harbor). Alternative 2 would prevent future exposure to contaminated soil and minimize transport of contaminated soil directly into Pearl Harbor. In addition, LUCs are necessary because contamination will be left in place. Long-term monitoring will be conducted to ensure the future integrity of the landfill containment system. Although Alternative 3 was assigned a similar overall ranking as Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is cost-prohibitive. Alternative 2, LUCs, including long-term monitoring and landfill containment system maintenance, is judged to provide the best balance between effectiveness, implementability, and cost for addressing COCs at the Ford Island Landfill.

2.11.2 Description of Selected Remedy The selected remedy for the Ford Island Landfill consists of the following elements:

 LUCs  Landfill containment system maintenance  Long-term monitoring

2.11.2.1 LAND USE CONTROL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES Under CERCLA, LUCs are appropriate for sites that have been shown to be safe and suitable for restricted (e.g., recreational) reuse, but may not be suitable for unrestricted (residential) reuse. Completed investigation and risk evaluation efforts have shown the Ford Island Landfill Site to be suitable for recreational reuse as long as LUCs are implemented. The establishment of LUCs provides the best alternative for eliminating or limiting future exposure pathways. The Navy and EPA, with concurrence from the DOH, recommend that LUCs and LTMM serve as the final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill Site. Information on planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing LUCs is provided in the EPA Guidance, Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, Interim Final (EPA 2010).

Performance objectives for the LUCs include the following:

 Minimize or eliminate direct human contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil.  Provide adequate notice of the presence of contaminated soil to users, workers, and any potential landowners.  Prevent unauthorized excavation, uncontrolled soil removal without proper handling and disposal, and construction and prevent migration or relocation of contaminated soil to areas where human or ecological exposure could occur.  Ensuring the landfill containment system is maintained.  Ensuring metals have not impacted the underlying shallow groundwater at concentrations that could adversely impact adjacent Pearl Harbor.

LUCs will be required within the Ford Island Landfill site boundaries shown on Figure 3 in perpetuity, or until it is determined that they are no longer necessary. A RAWP will be prepared as the land use component of the remedial design for the Ford Island Landfill. In compliance with Section 8.3 of the FFA for the PHNC, within 21 days of ROD signature, the Navy shall prepare and

2-41 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

submit to EPA for review and approval, proposed deadlines for completion of all subsequent primary documents, including the draft RAWP. Agreements to the schedule of the subsequent primary documents shall follow the stipulations cited in the FFA. The Navy is responsible for implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing LUCs at the Ford Island Landfill Site. Although the Navy may later transfer these responsibilities to another party by contract, property transfer agreement, or through other means, and the Navy may enforce such contracts or other agreements against transferees or other parties, the Navy shall retain ultimate responsibility for remedy integrity. LUCs will be maintained until the concentrations of hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater are at such levels to allow unrestricted use and exposure.

The Navy will submit to EPA and DOH for approval a RAWP, which will be prepared in accordance with the Principles and Procedures for Specifying Monitoring and Enforcement of Land Use Controls and Other Post ROD Actions (DoD 2004). The RAWP will include details on the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement actions associated with the LUCs, including periodic site inspections. The Navy will implement internal procedures for upholding LUCs by maintaining a database to track the LUCs (i.e., Naval Installation Restoration Information Solution). The Navy will notify the EPA in advance of any changes to the internal procedures that would affect the LUCs.

The RAWP will also include a requirement that, in the event that the Navy decides to transfer the landfill site outside of the federal government, the Navy shall record, pursuant to state law, restrictive covenants running with the land. The RAWP will set out specific prohibitions and restrictions on use of the land that must be met with respect to the Ford Island Landfill Site.

2.11.2.2 LANDFILL CONTAINMENT SYSTEM MAINTENANCE LTMM of the landfill containment system will ensure their structural integrity and continued effectiveness. Routine inspections of the landfill containment system will be conducted to ensure that the topsoil and vegetative cover are not affected by disease or pest infestation (plant or animals) resulting in damage (i.e., dying grass, root damage, animal burrows, erosion, stormwater ponding, settlement, rifts, cracks, or man-inflicted damage).

Since the permeable and vegetative soil cap prevents direct exposure to underlying contaminated media, site access restrictions (i.e., fencing) are not required as long as the structural integrity of the landfill containment system is maintained.

2.11.2.3 LONG-TERM MONITORING Groundwater and surface water sampling events are currently being conducted semiannually. During each event, groundwater and surface water samples are collected from eight landfill monitoring wells, one background well, and nine surface water sampling locations and analyzed for dissolved metals and general water chemistry parameters. A revised LTM plan will be prepared that presents the details of the LTM program including protocols to reduce or expand the groundwater monitoring program, as appropriate, in response to data trends and stakeholder agreement.

2.11.2.4 ESTIMATED COST OF THE SELECTED FINAL REMEDY The estimated present value cost of the selected final remedy, including legal and administrative costs, is $2,032,961. The RACER cost estimate documentation report for the selected final remedy is presented in Attachment D.

2-42 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2.11.3 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Final Remedy The selected final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill Site will reduce potential future human health and ecological risks associated with contaminated soil by preventing exposure to soil that could pose unacceptable risks under the current or potential future land use scenarios. The site use will remain as it is under current conditions and restricted to undeveloped, recreational open space. The caprock groundwater underlying the Ford Island Landfill is not currently used as a source of potable water and site-specific hydrogeologic factors, along with relevant federal and state regulations and guidance, indicate that the groundwater will not be developed as a potable water source in the future. The final remedy does not change the current or planned future land or groundwater use. A LTM plan will be prepared that presents the requirements and end point for groundwater monitoring. The groundwater monitoring program will be evaluated during the five-year reviews to evaluate potential optimization of the groundwater sampling program, determine if the requirements for the exit strategy have been met, and make recommendations for continuing or discontinuing groundwater monitoring. The final remedy does not reduce the toxicity or volume of waste or contaminants at the site, and requires that restrictive LUCs be implemented because site conditions will not be compatible with unrestricted land use.

2.11.4 Statutory Determinations Executive Order 12580 authorizes the Navy to conduct environmental cleanup and remediation activities at Navy sites. Therefore, the Navy is the lead agency for the Ford Island Landfill. The Navy has determined that the selected final remedy will ensure protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs, as required under CERCLA.

2.11.4.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT The selected remedy for the Ford Island Landfill is protective of human health and the environment, complies with all ARARs, is cost-effective, and uses permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

The landfill containment system prevents direct contact with contaminated soil and reduces the mobility of pollutants and the likelihood they will impact the environment. Continued groundwater monitoring at the Ford Island Landfill site will be used to determine whether COCs are migrating via groundwater at concentrations that could adversely impact Pearl Harbor. The final remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the final remedy.

Because this remedy results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or COCs remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, statutory reviews will be conducted every 5 years after initiation of the selected final remedy until the site is suitable for unrestricted use, as required under CERCLA Section 121(c) and NCP (40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii)). The five-year reviews will be performed to ensure that the LUCs remain protective of human health and the environment over time.

2.11.4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS The ARARs and TBC criteria identified for the selected final remedy are summarized in Table 8. Detailed discussions of the ARARs and TBC criteria that were considered to evaluate the response action alternatives and select the final remedy are presented in the FFS (AECOM 2010).

2-43 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

2.11.4.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS The selected final remedy is cost-effective and represents a reasonable value for the expended public funding. Each response alternative was evaluated to determine whether the overall effectiveness satisfied the threshold criteria. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of the selected alternative was determined to be proportional to its costs. The selected final remedy is effective in meeting response action objectives and protecting human health and the environment, is implementable, and is cost-effective. Table 9 summarizes the cost-effectiveness of the three response action alternatives.

2-44 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 8: ARARs and TBC Criteria for the Selected Final Remedy

Policy/Regulation (Citation) Description Regulatory Status Potential Application to Site Location-specific ARARs and TBC Criteria Federal RCRA provisions of 40 Identifies criteria that define an “open dump,” “Relevant and appropriate All response actions will be required to mitigate site conditions to meet the CFR 257, Subpart A – Criteria for which is prohibited under Section 4005 of the requirements” for all response regulatory requirements. Classification of Solid Waste RCRA. These criteria include adverse impacts to action alternatives. Disposal Facilities And Practices floodplains; endangered or threatened species (Sections 257.1 through 257.4) and their habitat; potable groundwater quality; surface water quality; air quality; and human health and ecological resources. The regulations are applicable to facilities that received waste after 15 October 1979. Hawaii Solid Waste Management Regulates the landfilling of municipal and C&D “Relevant and appropriate The Ford Island Landfill site contains municipal and C&D waste. Response actions Control Rules (HAR 11-58.1) (DOH waste disposed after 9 October 1991. requirements” for response that leave waste in place will be required to meet the substantive provisions of the 1994) action alternatives that leave state law including construction of a landfill containment system, groundwater waste in place. monitoring, cap maintenance, and reporting. A hybrid-landfill closure (i.e., does not meet RCRA Subtitle D requirements for a cap with a low permeability barrier and a gas collection system) will be designed and implemented at the site using the existing cap to protect human health and the environment as discussed in 53 Federal Register 51446 and EPA’s “RCRA ARARs: Focus on Closure Requirements” [EPA 1989]). Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Regulatory guidance that establishes source TBC criteria for response Response action alternatives that contain waste shall consider the Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA 1993); containment as the CERCLA presumptive action alternatives that leave appropriateness of implementing the remedy components identified in the Application of the CERCLA remedy for municipal landfill sites and similar waste in place. guidance. Municipal Landfill Presumptive military landfill sites (including those that contain Remedy to Military Landfills (EPA construction debris). Identifies components of 1996) the containment presumptive remedy that may be necessary based on site-specific conditions (i.e., landfill cap, groundwater control, leachate collection/treatment, landfill gas collection/treatment, institutional controls). Federal provisions for municipal Regulates the landfilling of municipal waste “Relevant and appropriate The Ford Island Landfill site contains municipal and C&D waste. Response actions landfills contained in 40 CFR 258, disposed after 9 October 1991. requirements” for response that leave waste in place will be required to meet the substantive provisions of the Subpart E – Groundwater action alternatives that leave federal law including maintenance of the landfill containment system, groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action waste in place. monitoring, and reporting. (Section 258.61) Endangered Species Act of 1973 Conservation of endangered species or Applicable requirement for all The Navy will informally consult with the USFWS to identify threatened or (16 U.S.C. Section 1536[a]) threatened species. Requires informal response action alternatives. endangered species that may be impacted by response activities and necessary consultation with the USFWS to determine the mitigating measures to be taken. All response actions will be conducted in a potential impacts of the proposed project on any manner to minimize adverse impacts to such species, such as the green sea turtle federally listed species designated as (Chelonia mydas) and their habit. Sensitive species and habitat were previously threatened or endangered for compliance with identified during the screening ecological risk assessment conducted for sites on Section 7 of the Act. Ford island during the Ford Island RI (Earth Tech 2003). Hawaii Endangered and Threatened Regulations prohibit the taking of any state-listed Applicable requirement for all All response actions will be conducted in a manner to protect listed species. Effort Species Regulations threatened or endangered species, without response action alternatives. will be made to conduct response activities away from areas identified during the (HAR Chapter 13-122 and 124 obtaining a permit. Ford Island RI (Earth Tech 2003) ecological screening risk assessment that [DLNR 2002, 1998]) potentially provide habitat to endangered species or sensitive receptors.

2-45 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Policy/Regulation (Citation) Description Regulatory Status Potential Application to Site National Historic Preservation Act Regulations regarding mitigating impacts to Applicable requirement for all All response actions will be conducted in compliance with the substantive (16 U.S.C. Section 470 et seq.) historic structures and landmarks during federal response action alternatives. requirements. The Navy will consult with the Hawaii Department of Land and projects. Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to identify historical structures and landmarks, potential impacts to these historical resources from response actions, and any necessary mitigating measures to be taken. National Historic Landmarks near the cleanup site include Ford Island itself, and Structure S-362 (seaplane pier), Ramp 6. CZM Program Federal Consistency Requirement for a consistency determination to Applicable requirement for all All response actions will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Hawaii (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR ensure that the project meets the state CZM response action alternatives. CZM Program (OSP1990) and Hawai‘i Ocean Resources Management Plan (OSP 930) Program policy guidelines and objectives. 2006). Action-specific ARARs and TBC Criteria RCRA Hazardous Waste Requires generators of solid waste to determine Applicable requirement for Remediation waste (e.g., soil, debris) generated at the site will be screened and Determination if their waste is regulated as hazardous waste, response action alternatives characterized to determine whether it is RCRA hazardous. Such hazardous waste (40 CFR 262.11) according to 40 CFR 261. that generate remediation has special management and disposal requirements that must be complied with. waste. DoD Policy and Guidance Provides guidance on implementing, TBC criteria for alternatives Used to identify, evaluate, and select appropriate LUCs (e.g., landfill containment Document on Land Use Controls documenting, and managing LUCs at active with LUC components. system, fencing, signage, deed restrictions, legal notifications) for the protection of Associated with Environmental military installations. the human health and the environment at the site. Restoration Activities for Active Installations (DoD 2001) C&D construction and demolition CZM Coastal Zone Management HAR Hawaii Administrative Rules U.S.C. United States Code USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

2-46 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Decision Summary

Table 9: Ford Island Landfill Response Action Alternative Cost Effectiveness Summary

2010 Worth Long-Term Effectiveness and Reduction of Toxicity, Cost Effectiveness Alternative Cost Permanence Mobility, and Volume Rating No Action $56,563 No reduction in long-term risk to No reduction in toxicity, Poor human health or the environment mobility, or volume LUCs $2,032,961 Substantial reduction in long-term Reduction in mobility, no Very Good risk to human health or the reduction in toxicity or environment volume Removal of Remaining $32,011,541 Substantial reduction in long-term Reduction in toxicity, Poor Contaminated Media risk to human health or the mobility, and volume at the (no LUCs) environment site

2.11.4.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES The selected final remedy represents the maximum extent to which a permanent solution can be implemented in a cost-effective manner. Specifically, this alternative provides the best short- and long-term effectiveness, is protective of human health and the environment, complies with ARARs, achieves the response action objectives, reduces contaminant mobility, and is technically feasible. Details of the response action alternative evaluation are presented in the FFS (AECOM 2010).

2.11.4.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT The selected final remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the final remedy. The NCP [Section 300.430(a)(iii)(A)] establishes the expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats at a site where practicable. A principal threat waste is source material with toxicity and mobility characteristics that combine to pose a potential risk greater than the risk level that is acceptable under the current or future exposure scenarios. As discussed in Section 2.7, there are no principal threat wastes at the Ford Island Landfill; therefore, treatment is not required as a principal element of the final remedy.

2.11.4.6 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENT The selected final remedy will allow contaminants to remain on site at concentrations that could pose unacceptable risk if unlimited use and unrestricted exposure are allowed; therefore, statutory five- year reviews will be required to ensure that the final remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment.

2.11.5 Documentation of Significant Changes The PP (DON 2010) identified LUCs (including landfill containment system maintenance and LTM) as the final remedy selected for the Ford Island Landfill. The PP was released for public comment on 25 August 2010, and a public meeting to present and discuss the PP was held on 14 September 2010. The public comment period for the proposed plan was held between 25 August 2010 and 23 September 2010. The Navy received no comments on the PP from the public that would affect the selected remedy; therefore, no significant changes have occurred.

2-47 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Responsiveness Summary

3. Responsiveness Summary A public notice announcing availability for review of the PP was placed in the Honolulu Star Advertiser on 22 August 2010. The public comment period for the PP was held between 25 August and 23 September 2010. The public meeting for the PP was held on 14 September 2010 at the Aiea Public Library. This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of the public comments received during the public meeting.

Members of the community present at the public meeting expressed verbal comments on the PP. Responses to the written and verbal comments received during the comment period and public meeting are presented as a Responsiveness Summary in Attachment E within this ROD. The complete transcript of the public meeting is available in the Administrative Record file.

3.1 STAKEHOLDER AND LEAD AGENCY RESPONSES A written transcript of the public meeting conducted on 14 September 2010 was thoroughly reviewed by the Navy to prepare the Responsiveness Summary. The comments and questions from the public have been condensed to provide a better understanding of each specific issue. The Navy and EPA Region 9, with approval from Headquarters EPA, and with concurrence from the DOH, have selected the final remedy for the Ford Island Landfill Site only after careful consideration of the public’s comments on the PP.

3.2 TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES The key technical issue for the selected final remedy is the continued long-term management of the containment system to be protective of human health and the environment. In addition, groundwater monitoring will be required at the site. The Navy is responsible for the long-term management of the Ford Island Landfill Site and is committed to conducting inspections and maintenance of the landfill containment system.

Potential legal issues for the selected final remedy consist of implementation of the necessary LUCs that include restricting future land use of the Ford Island Landfill Site. The Navy will retain ownership of the site for the near future and has no plans to transfer the property, or to use the site other than as open space. Any future land owner will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the LUCs, and any activities conducted at the Ford Island Landfill Site that might have impact on the integrity of the landfill containment system will need approval from the Navy and EPA, and concurrence from the DOH. Although the Navy may later transfer these responsibilities to another party by contract, property transfer agreement, or through other means, and the Navy may enforce such contracts or other agreements against transferees or other parties, the Navy shall retain ultimate responsibility for remedy integrity.

3-1 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI References

4. References Executive Office. 1987. Presidential Executive Order No. 12580: Superfund Implementation. 23 January.

AECOM. 2010. Focused Feasibility Study, Ford Island Landfill, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Hawaii: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. May.

———. 2011. Monitoring Report, 29th Long Term Monitoring Event, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Hawaii: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. March.

City and County of Honolulu Board of Water Supply (CCH BWS). 2000. Personal communication with Chester Lao, Chief Geologist and Hydrogeologist. 27 October, 11 November.

Dawson Group, Inc. 2003. Draft Long-Term Monitoring of the Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex. Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. August.

———. 2004. Annual Monitoring Report for the Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, HI. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. April.

De Carlo, E. H, V. L. Beltran, and M. S. Tomlinson. 2004. Composition of Water and Suspended Sediment in Streams of Urbanized Subtropical Watersheds in Hawaii. Applied Geochemistry 19:1011-1037.

De Carlo, E. H., M. S. Tomlinson, and S. A. Anthony. 2005. Trace elements in streambed sediments of small subtropical streams on Oahu, Hawaii: Results from the USGS NAWQA Program. Applied Geochemistry 20(12):2157-2188.

Department of Defense (DoD). 2001. Policy on Land Use Controls Associated with Environmental Restoration Activities. Memorandum from Sherri W. Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security). Washington: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. 17 January.

———. 2004. Principles and Procedures for Specifying Monitoring and Enforcement of Land Use Controls and Other Post ROD Actions. January.

Department of Health, State of Hawaii (DOH). 1992. Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 11, Chapter 23: Underground Injection Control. Honolulu. 12 November.

———. 1994. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 58.1: Solid Waste Management Control. January.

———. 1999. Underground Injection Control Well Map: Island of Oahu, Underground Injection Control Areas. Honolulu: Safe Drinking Water Branch.

———. 2004. Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 11, Chapter 54: Water Quality Standards. Honolulu. 31 August.

———. 2009. Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 11, Chapter 54: Water Quality Standards. Honolulu. 19 March.

4-1 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI References

Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii (DLNR). 1998. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Introduced Wild Birds. Hawaii Administrative Rule §13-124-1 through §13-124-10. Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 2 March.

———. 2002. Rules Regulating Game Bird Hunting, Field Trials and Commercial Shooting Preserves. Hawaii Administrative Rule (HAR) §13-122. Division of Forestry and Wildlife. December.

Department of the Navy (DON). 2009a. Record of Decision, Building 284 and Former Buildings 80 and 302, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii. August.

———. 2009b. Record of Decision, Ford Island Hazardous Substance and 32 Transformer Sites, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii. August.

———. 2010. Proposed Plan, Ford Island Landfill, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. August.

Earth Tech, Inc. (Earth Tech). 2003. Remedial Investigation, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. February.

———. 2006. Environmental Background Analysis of Metals in Soil at Navy Oahu Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. June.

———. 2007. Draft Revised Long-Term Monitoring Plan, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. October.

———. 2008. Tidal Study Report, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. July.

Environmental Protection Agency, United States (EPA). 1986. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 9601- 9675).

———. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/004. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. October.

———. 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: RCRA ARARs: Focus on Closure Requirements. Directive 9234.2-04FS. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. October.

———. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual: Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.

———. 1993. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. Quick Reference Fact Sheet. EPA/540/F-93/035. Directive 9355.0-49FS. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. September.

4-2 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI References

———. 1996. Application of the CERCLA Municipal Landfill Presumptive Remedy to Military Landfills. EPA/540/F-96/020. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. December.

———. 2010. Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, Interim Final. EPA-540-R-09001. Directive 9355.0-89. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. November.

———. 2011. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. EPA Office of Superfund. June.

Environmental Protection Agency, State of Hawaii, and United States Department of the Navy (EPA, State of Hawaii, and DON). 1994. Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120, in the matter of: The U.S. Department of the Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii. Administrative Docket Number 94-05. March.

Mink, J. F., and L. S. Lau (Mink and Lau). 1990. Aquifer Identification and Classification for O‘ahu: Groundwater Protection Strategy for Hawai‘i. Revised. Tech. Report No. 179. Honolulu: Univ. of Hawaii, Water Resources Research Center. February.

Munro, K. 1981. The Subsurface Geology of Pearl Harbor with Engineering Application. Master’s thesis, Univ. of Hawaii, Geology and Geophysics. August.

Nakai, Glynnis. 1997. Pers. comm. with Acting Refuge Manager, Oahu Refuges United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 13 August.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific; and Environmental Protection Agency, United States (NAVFAC Pacific and EPA). 2001. Groundwater Classification Issue Paper for PACNAVFACENGCOM IR Sites Located in Hawaii. Joint Issue Paper between NAVFAC Pacific, U.S. EPA, and Hawaii State Department of Health. August.

Office of State Planning, State of Hawaii (OSP). 1990. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program.

———. 2006. Hawai‘i Ocean Resources Management Plan.

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. (Ogden). 1993. Ford Island Landfill Site Inspection Report. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. November.

———. 1995. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Ford Island Landfill Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. June.

———. 1997. Ground-Water Monitoring Plan, Revised Final for Ford Island Landfill Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. September.

———. 1998. Operation and Maintenance Plan for Ford Island Landfill Containments System, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. April.

4-3 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI References

———. 2002. Ground-Water Monitoring Report #12, (April 2002 Sampling Event), Ford Island Landfill Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. June.

OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM). 1997. Ford Island Landfill Removal Action Final Remediation Verification Report. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. September.

Smith, M. K. 1993. An ecological perspective on inshore fisheries in the main Hawaiian Islands. in Marine Fisheries Review. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Spring.

Somerton, D. A. 1989. Baitfish Stock Assessment Using the Egg Production Method: an Application on the Hawaiian Anchovy, or nehu (Enchrasicholina purpurea). Tuna baitfish in the Indo-Pacific region: Proceedings of a workshop (Honiara, Solomon Islands, 11-13 December 1989), p. 152- 158. Victoria, Australia: Inkata Press.

Stearns, H. T., and K. N. Vaksvik. 1938. Records of the Drilled Wells on Oahu, Hawaii. Hawaii Division of Hydrography Bulletin 4:213.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS). 1972. Soil Survey of Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. In cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C. August.

Wentworth, C. K. 1951. Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Honolulu-Pearl Harbor Area Oahu, Hawaii. Honolulu: City and County of Honolulu, Board of Water Supply.

4-4

Attachment A Detailed Reference Table

ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Attachment A

Table A-1: Detailed Reference Table

Identification of Referenced Document Available in the Administrative Item Reference Phrase in ROD Location in ROD Record 1 SI recommended Section 2.2.2.1, Ford Island Landfill Site Inspection Report. Pearl Harbor, HI, containment Paragraph 2, Executive Summary, Ogden, November 1993. Page 2-2 2 Oahu caprock soil Section 2.2.2.1, Environmental Background Analysis of Metals in Soil at Navy Oahu background levels Paragraph 3, Facilities, Oahu, Hawaii, Table 4-1, Earth Tech, June 2006. Page 2-2 3 engineering evaluation/cost Section 2.2.2.1, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Ford Island Landfill analysis (EE/CA) Paragraph 5, Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Page 2-4 Harbor, HI, Executive Summary, Ogden 1995. 4 permeable and vegetative Section 2.2.2.1, Operation and Maintenance Plan for Ford Island Landfill cap Paragraph 6, Containments System, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Page 2-5 Pearl Harbor, HI, Appendix A: Landfill Containment System As-Built Drawings, Ogden, April 1998. 5 irrigation system Section 2.2.2.1, Operation and Maintenance Plan for Ford Island Landfill Paragraph 8, Containments System, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Page 2-5 Pearl Harbor, HI, Appendix B: Irrigation System As-Built Drawings, Ogden, April 1998. 6 concrete drainage trench Section 2.2.2.1, Operation and Maintenance Plan for Ford Island Landfill Paragraph 8, Containments System, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Page 2-5 Pearl Harbor, HI, Appendix B: Irrigation System As-Built Drawings, Ogden, April 1998. 7 Discontinuing the Section 2.2.2.1, Ground-Water Monitoring Report #12, (April 2002 Sampling Event), groundwater monitoring Paragraph 9, Ford Island Landfill Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl program was recommended Page 2-6 Harbor, Hawaii, Section 5.0: Conclusions, Ogden, June 2002. 8 draft long-term monitoring Section 2.2.2.1, Draft Long-Term Monitoring of the Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor plan was prepared in August Paragraph 10, Naval Complex. Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI, Executive Summary, 2003 Page 2-6 Dawson Group, August 2003. 9 current configuration of the Section 2.2.2.1, Draft Revised Long-Term Monitoring Plan, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl monitoring program Paragraph 12, Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, Section 3.2.3, October 2007. Page 2-6 10 a total of 30 monitoring Section 2.2.2.1, Monitoring Report, 29th Long Term Monitoring Event, Ford Island events have been conducted Paragraph 14, Landfill, Pearl Harbor naval Complex, Hawaii, Table 1, AECOM, April Page 2-9 2011. 11 tidal study Section 2.2.2.1, Tidal Study Report, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Paragraph 20, Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI, Section 5: Conclusions and Page 2-10 Recommendations, Earth Tech, July 2008. 12 PP Section 2.2.2.1, Proposed Plan, Ford Island Landfill, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Paragraph 22, Complex, Hawaii. Department of the Navy (DON). August. Page 2-10 13 Site-specific geology Section 2.5.4, Focused Feasibility Study, Ford Island Landfill, Ford Island, Pearl Paragraph 5, Harbor Naval Complex, Hawaii, Appendix A:Cross Sections, AECOM, Page 2-15 May 2010. 14 during high tide Section 2.5.5, Tidal Study Report, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Paragraph 2, Oahu, Hawaii, Figure 5, Earth Tech, July 2008. Page 2-15 15 during low tide Section 2.5.5, Tidal Study Report, Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Paragraph 2, Oahu, Hawaii, Figure 6, Earth Tech, July 2008. Page 2-15 16 DOH 1992 Section 2.6, State of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 23. UIC Map Paragraph 6, of Oahu. Page 2-16 17 inactive and undeveloped Section 2.7.1, Proposed Plan, Ford Island Landfill, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Paragraph 2, Complex, Hawaii, Photo 2, Department of the Navy (DON), August Page 2-17 2010.

A-1 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Attachment A

Identification of Referenced Document Available in the Administrative Item Reference Phrase in ROD Location in ROD Record 18 risk evaluation Section 2.7.1.1, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Ford Island Landfill Paragraph 1, Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Page 2-17 Harbor, HI, Appendix F, Ogden 1995. 19 ARARs Section 2.7.1.1, Focused Feasibility Study, Ford Island Landfill, Ford Island, Pearl Paragraph 1, Harbor Naval Complex, Hawaii, Section 2.1 Applicable or Relevant Page 2-18 and Appropriate Requirements, AECOM, May 2010. 20 was installed in 1996 Section 2.7.1.1, Final Remediation Verification Report, Ford Island Landfill Removal Paragraph 2, Action, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Executive Summary, OHM, September Page 2-18 1997. 21 30 monitoring events have Section 2.7.1.2, Monitoring Report, 29th Long Term Monitoring Event, Ford Island been completed Paragraph 2, Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Hawaii, Table 1, AECOM, April Page 2-25 2011.

A-2

Attachment B Historical Analytical Data (on CD-ROM)

Attachment B.1 Events 1 - 12 (Ogden 2002)

The attached tables are from:

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. (Ogden). 2002. Ground-Water Monitoring Report #12, (April 2002 Sampling Event), Ford Island Landfill Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. June.

Appendix B.1.1 Site Inspection Data Removal Site Evaluation Data Monitoring Events 1-6

Appendix B.1.2 Site Inspection Data Removal Site Evaluation Data Monitoring Events 7-12

Attachment B.2 Event 13 (Dawson 2004)

The attached table is from:

Dawson Group, Inc. 2004. Annual Monitoring Report for the Ford Island Landfill, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, HI. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. April.

TABLE 2 Summary of Groundwater / Surface Water Sample Results - September 2003 Ford Island Landfill Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii

MONITORING WELLS & SAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONS SURFACE WATER QC SAMPLE SAMPLE MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7A MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13

HFL0011 1 HFL007 HFL006 HFL003 HFL002 HFL005 HFL004 HFL009 1 HFL0010 1 HFL001 HFL012 HFL008 SELECTED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ANALYTICAL METHOD 09/11/03 09/09/03 09/10/03 09/09/03 09/09/03 09/10/03 09/09/03 09/11/03 09/11/03 09/08/03 09/10/03 09/10/03 CRITERIA 2 UNITS Dioxins *: 2,3,7,8-TCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 - - < 2.3E-06 - - - - < 2.5E-06 < 2.5E-06 < 7.0E-07 < 2.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 NE ug/L Total TCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 - - < 2.3E-06 - - - - < 2.5E-06 < 2.5E-06 < 7.0E-07 < 2.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 4.0E-06 < 4.8E-06 - - < 4.8E-06 - - - - < 4.4E-06 < 5.2E-06 < 1.7E-06 < 3.9E-06 < 4.5E-06 NE ug/L Total PeCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 4.0E-06 < 4.8E-06 - - < 4.8E-06 - - - - < 4.4E-06 < 6.6E-06 < 1.7E-06 < 3.9E-06 < 4.5E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.1E-06 < 3.0E-06 - - < 3.5E-06 - - - - < 2.9E-06 < 4.4E-06 < 7.9E-07 < 3.1E-06 < 3.3E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.5E-06 < 2.5E-06 - - < 2.9E-06 - - - - < 2.4E-06 < 3.6E-06 < 7.7E-07 < 2.5E-06 < 2.8E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.6E-06 < 2.6E-06 - - < 3.0E-06 - - - - < 2.5E-06 < 3.8E-06 < 7.3E-07 < 2.6E-06 < 2.9E-06 NE ug/L Total HxCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.1E-06 < 3.4E-06 - - < 4.7E-06 - - - - < 2.9E-06 < 4.4E-06 < 9.3E-07 < 3.1E-06 < 3.3E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 4.5E-06 < 2.7E-06 - - < 2.9E-06 - - - - < 2.1E-06 < 2.8E-06 < 1.9E-06 < 2.3E-06 < 2.4E-06 NE ug/L Total HpCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 4.5E-06 < 2.7E-06 - - < 2.9E-06 - - - - < 2.1E-06 < 2.8E-06 < 1.9E-06 < 2.3E-06 < 2.4E-06 NE ug/L OCDD EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.3E-06 < 3.6E-06 - - < 2.5E-06 - - - - < 3.1E-06 < 4.0E-06 < 7.7E-06 < 2.8E-06 < 3.9E-06 NE ug/L Furans *: 2,3,7,8-TCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 1.6E-06 < 1.5E-06 - - < 1.8E-06 - - - - < 2.1E-06 < 2.8E-06 < 1.3E-06 < 1.6E-06 < 1.6E-06 NE ug/L Total TCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 1.6E-06 < 1.5E-06 - - < 1.8E-06 - - - - < 2.1E-06 < 2.8E-06 < 1.3E-06 < 1.6E-06 < 1.6E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.6E-06 < 2.6E-06 - - < 2.6E-06 - - - - < 2.9E-06 < 3.3E-06 < 1.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 < 2.6E-06 NE ug/L 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.6E-06 < 2.6E-06 - - < 2.6E-06 - - - - < 2.9E-06 < 3.3E-06 < 1.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 < 2.6E-06 NE ug/L Total PeCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.6E-06 < 2.6E-06 - - < 2.6E-06 - - - - < 2.9E-06 < 3.3E-06 < 1.4E-06 < 2.5E-06 < 2.8E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 1.7E-06 < 2.4E-06 - - < 1.9E-06 - - - - < 2.3E-06 < 2.8E-06 < 1.3E-06 < 2.1E-06 < 2.4E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 1.5E-06 < 2.0E-06 - - < 1.6E-06 - - - - < 2.0E-06 < 2.4E-06 < 6.1E-07 < 1.8E-06 < 2.0E-06 NE ug/L 2,3,4,6,78-HxCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 1.8E-06 < 2.4E-06 - - < 2.0E-06 - - - - < 2.4E-06 < 2.9E-06 < 6.3E-07 < 2.2E-06 < 2.5E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.0E-06 < 2.8E-06 - - < 2.2E-06 - - - - < 2.7E-06 < 3.2E-06 < 6.5E-07 < 2.4E-06 < 2.8E-06 NE ug/L Total HxCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 2.0E-06 < 2.8E-06 - - < 2.2E-06 - - - - < 2.7E-06 < 3.2E-06 < 1.3E-06 < 2.4E-06 < 2.8E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.1E-06 < 1.8E-06 - - < 2.4E-06 - - - - < 2.0E-06 < 2.7E-06 < 4.2E-06 < 1.8E-06 < 1.9E-06 NE ug/L 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.6E-06 < 2.1E-06 - - < 2.8E-06 - - - - < 2.3E-06 < 3.2E-06 < 4.8E-06 < 2.1E-06 < 2.2E-06 NE ug/L Total HpCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.6E-06 < 2.1E-06 - - < 2.8E-06 - - - - < 2.3E-06 < 3.2E-06 < 4.8E-06 < 2.1E-06 < 2.2E-06 NE ug/L OCDF EPA Method 8290 - - < 3.4E-06 < 3.5E-06 - - < 3.1E-06 - - - - < 2.9E-06 < 4.3E-06 < 1.6E-06 < 2.6E-06 < 3.8E-06 NE ug/L PCBs *: Aroclor 1016 EPA Method 8082 ------< 1.0 ------2.0 ug/L Aroclor 1221 EPA Method 8082 ------< 1.0 ------2.0 ug/L Aroclor 1232 EPA Method 8082 ------< 1.0 ------2.0 ug/L Aroclor 1242 EPA Method 8082 ------< 1.0 ------2.0 ug/L Aroclor 1248 EPA Method 8082 ------< 1.0 ------2.0 ug/L Aroclor 1254 EPA Method 8082 ------< 1.0 ------2.0 ug/L Aroclor 1260 EPA Method 8082 ------0.59 B ------2.0 ug/L TPH: as Gasoline EPA Method 8015M ------< 50 < 50 ------< 50 - - - - NE ug/L as Diesel EPA Method 8015M ------< 50 < 50 ------< 50 - - - - NE ug/L Total Metals: Antimony EPA Method 6020 1.0 B 0.66 B < 10.0 0.23 B 0.31 B,J < 10.0 0.18 B 1.1 B 4.2 B 21.0 0.71 B 0.18 B NE ug/L Arsenic EPA Method 6020 32 < 10.0 < 10.0 4.5 B < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 NE ug/L Beryllium EPA Method 6020 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 NE ug/L Copper EPA Method 6020 46 J 29 J 13 J 6.1 B,J 4.8 B,J 7.2 B,J 6.1 B,J 46 J 48 J 18 J 39 J 26 J NE ug/L

CTO 9 FI L- GW Rpt - Tables.xls / T2 - Sum of Results (AMEC ALs) Page 1 of 2 Dawson Group, Inc. TABLE 2 Summary of Groundwater / Surface Water Sample Results - September 2003 Ford Island Landfill Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii

MONITORING WELLS & SAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONS SURFACE WATER QC SAMPLE SAMPLE MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7A MW-10 MW-11 MW-12 MW-13

HFL0011 1 HFL007 HFL006 HFL003 HFL002 HFL005 HFL004 HFL009 1 HFL0010 1 HFL001 HFL012 HFL008 SELECTED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ANALYTICAL METHOD 09/11/03 09/09/03 09/10/03 09/09/03 09/09/03 09/10/03 09/09/03 09/11/03 09/11/03 09/08/03 09/10/03 09/10/03 CRITERIA 2 UNITS Lead EPA Method 6020 7.6 3.3 B 2.9 B < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 6.3 8.1 3.8 B 4.9 B 2.7 B 5.6 ug/L Mercury EPA Method 7270A < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.1 B 0.091 B 0.11 B < 0.2 < 0.2 NE ug/L Nickel EPA Method 6020 13 B 5.6 B 5.5 B 7.8 B,J 3.7 B,J 4.6 B 5.3 B,J 6.9 B 12.0 20.0 J 5.7 B 4.6 B NE ug/L Zinc EPA Method 6020 210 100 61 9.3 B,J 7.9 B,J 11 B 5.8 B,J 180 220 120 J 140 91 NE ug/L Dissolved Metals: Antimony EPA Method 6020 < 10.0 0.54 B < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 0.71 B 4.2 B 24 0.59 B < 10.0 NE ug/L Arsenic EPA Method 6020 24 < 10.0 < 10.0 5.3 B < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 4.2 B < 10.0 < 10.0 NE ug/L Beryllium EPA Method 6020 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 NE ug/L Copper EPA Method 6020 32 J 20 J 11 J 6.5 B,J 4.6 B,J 7.7 B,J 6.8 B,J 28 J 42 J 19 J 29 J 26 J NE ug/L Lead EPA Method 6020 3.6 B 0.83 B 2.0 B 0.44 B < 5.0 < 0.2 < 5 2.6 B 4.6 B 2.1 B 2.4 B 1.8 B 5.6 ug/L Mercury EPA Method 7270A < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.21 < 5.0 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.12 B < 0.2 0.065 B NE ug/L Nickel EPA Method 6020 10 2.9 B 4.4 B 7.4 B,J 3.3 B,J 4.5 B 5.1 B,J 3.6 B 8.8 B 21 J 3.5 B 2.7 B NE ug/L Zinc EPA Method 6020 86 32 23 B 10 B,J 6.3 B,J 9.2 B 7.8 B,J 56 130 120 J 55 44 NE ug/L General Chemistry Parameters: Alkalinity WW 310.1 5.56E+05 1.33E+05 3.03E+05 3.03E+05 3.16E+05 3.26E+05 1.94.E+05 1.18.E+05 1.26E+05 1.31E+05 1.31E+05 1.18.E+05 NE ug/L Hardness WW 130.2 3.60E+06 Q 6.0E+06 Q 1.1E+06 Q 3.4E+06 Q 2.27E+06 Q 3.9E+06 Q 3.75.E+06 Q 6.8.E+06 Q 5.85E+06 Q 6.35E+06 Q 6.35E+06 Q 6.25.E+06 Q NE ug/L hydro Phosphate ------NE ug/L MBAS (surfactants) ------NE ug/L Nitrate as Nitrogen WW 300.0A < 1200 G < 2500 G < 1000 G < 2500 G < 1000 G < 2500 G < 2500 G < 2500 G < 2500 G < 2500 G < 1000 G < 2500 G NE ug/L Nitrate-Nitrite WW 353.2 < 250 G 210 < 50 < 50 < 50 78 91 350 58 70 100 < 50 NE ug/L ortho Phosphate WW 300.0A < 5000 G < 1.0E+04 G < 4.0 G < 1.0E+04 G < 4000 G < 1.0E+04 G - - < 1.0E+04 G < 1.0E+04 G < 1.0E+04 G < 4000 G < 1.0E+04 G NE ug/L pH EPA Method 9040 7.2 7.8 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.8 8.2 NE pH Specific Conductance WW 120.1 2.96E+04 5.12E+04 2.29E+04 2.98E+04 20200 3.42.E+04 3.61.E+04 4.76.E+04 4.93E+04 5.28E+04 5.15E+04 5.16E+04 NE umhos/cm Sulfate WW 300.0A 1.19E+06 Q 2.88E+06 Q 1.03E+06 Q 1.34E+06 Q 7.21E+05 Q 1.25.E+06 Q 1.47.E+06 Q 2.58.E+06 Q 2.45E+06 Q 2.72E+06 Q 2.75E+06 Q 2.58E+06 Q NE ug/L Total Dissolved Solids WW 160.1 1.92E+07 Q 3.82E+07 Q 1.58E+07 Q 2.02E+07 Q 1.31E+07 Q 2.39.E+07 Q 2.44.E+07 Q 2.05.E+07 Q 3.78E+07 Q 3.86E+07 Q 3.74E+07 Q 3.96E+07 Q NE ug/L Total Phosphate as Phosphorous WW 365.3 76 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 - - < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 NE ug/L

LABORATORY NOTES: B Estimated result. Result is less than the reporting limit. G Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to matrix interference. J Method blank contamination. The associated method blank contains the target analyte at a reportable level. Q Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels.

NOTES: * carcinogen 7.6 Analytical result exceeds the selected comparative criteria. TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons - - Sample was not analyzed for the analyte NE None established EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 Ambient temperature of sample was recorded at 11 degrees Celsius upon receipt at laboratory; therefore, results are estimated. ug/L micrograms per liter QC quality control 2 Based on selections made in the Ground-Water Monitoring Plan Revised Final for Ford Island Landfill Removal Action, umhos/cm micro mhos per centimeter U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., September 1997. PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

CTO 9 FI L- GW Rpt - Tables.xls / T2 - Sum of Results (AMEC ALs) Page 2 of 2 Dawson Group, Inc.

Attachment B.3 Summary of Metals and General Water Chemistry for Events 1 - 30 (AECOM 2011)

The attached tables are from:

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). 2011. Monitoring Report, 30th Monitoring Event, Ford Island Landfill, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific. August.

Table A.1-1: MW-02 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium Magnesium (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-02 4/23/1997 278 <2.1 2.4 31.4 31.5 <0.02 <0.02 NS NS NS 0.71 0.73 1226 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 8/12/1997 338 <3.3 6.1 29.2 30.8 <0.1 0.52 NS NS NS 3.1 4.6 1295 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 0.11 0.11 MW-02 11/1/1997 400 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 4.258 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.1 1.136 2180 0.02 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 Dup 11/1/1997 388 <2.9 <2.9 35.27 35.58 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.1 <1.1 1,500 0.09 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 5/24/1999 384 <2.2 <2.2 38 41 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 1.5 1.3 2200 0.08 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 12/8/1999 478 <4.9 <4.9 <21.6 25 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS 3.2 <1.9 2250 0.13 <12 <12 NS NS 0.07 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 6/13/2000 504 <4.6 <4.6 32.11 29.89 0.3333 0.4435 NS NS NS <2.1 7.959 2400 0.11 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 12/13/2000 540 <2.4 <2.4 34.52 36.27 0.3532 0.3531 NS NS NS <1.5 <1.5 2600 0.11 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 12/6/2001 580 <2.2 <2.2 25 26.7 0.95 0.89 NS NS NS <4.4 <4.4 4900 0.11 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS 0.062 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 4/9/2002 520 <1.8 <1.8 35.4 43.3 <0.1 0.18 NS NS NS <1.7 11.1 4700 0.11 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.077 <0.1 <0.1 MW-02 9/11/2003 556 <10 1 24 32 <5 <5 NS NS NS 32 46 3600 NS 3.6 7.6 NS NS NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-02 4/13/2005 600 <0.5 <0.27 17.4 15.7 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 30.1 25.9 3900 NS <0.08 <0.34 NS NS NS <0.03 <0.03 MW-02 12/13/2005 540 <2.1 <2.1 22.2 27.3 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 3400 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-02 11/1/2006 500 4.05 NS <9.07 NS <0.513 NS 271000 NS 9900 2.5 NS 6700 NS <1.78 NS 556000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-02 8/16/2007 505 <50 <50 <50 61 <10 <10 NS 284000 10600 <50 <50 3510 NS <25 <25 NS 679000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-02 5/6/2008 480 <3.01 <3.01 4.8 11.9 <0.513 <0.513 293000 273000 9700 <0.18 0.21 3700 NS 9.9 12.3 693000 654000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-02 11/7/2008 540 <15.1 NS 26.5 NS <2.57 NS 249000 NS 9500 <0.35 NS 3400 NS 4 NS 548000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-02 6/26/2009 464 <0.6 NS 15 NS <0.08 NS 276000 NS 8050 5.2 NS 3070 NS <0.22 NS 579000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-02 1/13/2010 421 0.27 NS 12.80 NS <0.04 NS 224000 NS 8010 1.7 NS 2630 NS 0.29 NS 504000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-02 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 25.10 42.6 NS NS NS NS 7960 0.6 2 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-02 4/21/2011 NS NS NS 10.9 NS NS NS NS NS 6970 <0.52 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-1: MW-02 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate / Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrite as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-02 4/23/1997 2.4 2.5 <0.25 NS NS NS <0.1 7.5 0.19 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8350 655 9020 19.3 20.5 MW-02 8/12/1997 4.4 7.8 <0.1 NS NS NS 0.12 7.4 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 12600 711 9520 46.8 27.1 MW-02 11/1/1997 2.928 4.15 0.03 NS NS NS 0.03 7.38 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 22850 1020 12000 13.98 30.02 MW-02 Dup 11/1/1997 2.587 2.68 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.37 0.09 NS NS NS NS NS NS 16200 662 10100 13.36 12.01 MW-02 5/24/1999 4.5 4.6 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.32 0.08 NS NS NS NS NS NS 20100 811 14000 4.7 2.8 MW-02 12/8/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.19 0.14 NS NS NS NS NS NS 28800 885 11400 5.6 6.6 MW-02 6/13/2000 <4.8 5.653 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.18 0.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS 25400 996 12700 <1.5 <1.5 MW-02 12/13/2000 <1.3 <1.3 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.2 0.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS 19800 1130 14300 <0.8 <0.8 MW-02 12/6/2001 <2 <2 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.11 0.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS 27380 866 16600 11.6 12.7 MW-02 4/9/2002 <2.8 <2.8 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.28 0.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS 27480 1010 20200 2.6 3.7 MW-02 9/11/2003 10 13 <1.2 <0.25 NS NS <5 7.2 76 NS NS NS NS NS NS 29600 1190 19200 86 210 MW-02 4/13/2005 8.7 8.5 NS NS 0.14 NS 0.054 7 NS 0.058 NS NS NS NS NS 21000 NS 26000 5.9 8.9 MW-02 12/13/2005 10 11.4 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.01 7 NS 0.06 NS NS NS NS NS 25000 NS 16940 <9.8 <26.7 MW-02 11/1/2006 6.38 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.034 0.054 7.1 NS 0.066 308000 NS NS 3910000 NS 23000 1300 17000 10.4 NS MW-02 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0479 NS NS <0.5 6.79 NS 0.016 NS NS NS 5480000 5550000 29000 1450 19200 <50 <50 MW-02 5/6/2008 8.6 7.7 NS <0.04 NS 0.011 0.042 6.95 NS 0.14 273000 252000 NS 6360000 5840000 21000 1300 15000 <6.65 <6.65 MW-02 11/7/2008 6.4 NS NS 0.017 NS <0.0047 0.02 7.2 NS 0.059 209000 NS NS 5110000 NS 28000 500 15000 <33.3 NS MW-02 6/26/2009 6.4 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 7.55 NS 67 209000 NS 12 4120000 NS 31300 1080 16600 5.8 NS MW-02 1/13/2010 7.10 NS <0.01 NS 0.047 NS <5.25 7.5 NS 58 171000 NS 17.4 4360000 NS 28300 1110 15300 19.6 NS MW-02 10/28/2010 5.70 6.9 NS NS NS NS NS 7.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 31000 NS 17700 15.2 26.7 MW-02 4/21/2011 10.40 NS NS NS NS NS NS 6.95 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 24600 NS 14300 <5.4 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-2: MW-03 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony Antimony Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium Chloride Copper Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium Magnesium (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-03 4/22/1997 159 <2.1 <2.1 <1.9 1.9 <0.022 <0.022 NS NS NS <0.5 0.67 3029 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 8/14/1997 87 <3.3 <3.3 2.5 <2.4 0.13 0.1 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 5045 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 11/4/1997 157 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 0.2476 0.3152 NS NS NS 1.848 4.64 5850 0.04 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 5/24/1999 156 <2.2 <2.2 <2.9 10.2 0.52 0.58 NS NS NS 1.1 <3.3 5460 0.03 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 12/6/1999 180 <4.9 <4.9 6.6 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 5300 0.02 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 6/12/2000 124 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.33 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.1 <2.1 6200 0.02 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 12/12/2000 204 <2.4 <2.4 5.298 <2.5 0.3392 0.273 NS NS NS 2.959 <1.5 5100 0.02 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 12/3/2001 204 <2.2 <2.2 <1.5 <1.5 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1 <1 7500 0.027 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-03 4/11/2002 212 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.4 <1.4 6700 0.025 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.062 <0.1 0.13 MW-03 9/10/2003 133 0.54 0.66 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 20 29 6000 NS 0.83 3.3 NS NS NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-03 Dup 9/10/2003 131 0.59 0.71 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 29 39 6350 NS 2.4 4.9 NS NS NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-03 4/13/2005 200 <1.6 <0.87 4 3.6 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 51.9 37.6 5200 NS <0.11 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.03 <0.03 MW-03 12/12/2005 180 <2.1 <2.9 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 4800 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-03 11/7/2006 120 <4.15 NS 1.72 NS <0.513 NS 369000 NS 16000 11.2 NS 5400 NS <2.26 NS 1080000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-03 8/16/2007 176 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 363000 16500 <50 <50 5400 NS <25 <25 NS 1090000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-03 5/7/2008 180 <3.01 <3.01 2 <1.27 <0.513 <0.513 348000 352000 16000 0.45 0.66 5400 NS 6.8 6.9 1200000 1250000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-03 11/6/2008 160 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 359000 NS 18000 <1 NS 6000 NS <1.78 NS 1050000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-03 6/25/2009 205 0.35 NS 1 NS <0.08 NS 301000 NS 12900 1.7 NS 4190 NS <0.22 NS 835000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-03 1/13/2010 186 0.81 NS 1.20 NS <0.04 NS 292000 NS 13800 1.6 NS 4160 NS <0.11 NS 835000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-03 10/29/2010 NS NS NS 2.00 2.5 NS NS NS NS 16400 0.97 3.3 NS NS 0.15 0.4 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-03 4/19/2011 NS NS NS 1.6 NS NS NS NS NS 13200 0.41 NS NS NS <0.11 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-2: MW-03 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate / Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrite as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium Potassium Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-03 4/22/1997 1.4 2.2 0.46 NS NS NS <0.2 7.7 0.16 NS NS NS NS NS NS 38800 1610 31800 19.9 35.2 MW-03 8/14/1997 3.2 2.5 0.24 NS NS NS <0.1 7.6 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 57600 7100 31600 26.7 23 MW-03 11/4/1997 1.15 2.821 0.19 NS NS NS 0.02 7.05 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 59800 2060 33000 22.17 26.69 MW-03 5/24/1999 <1.4 2.1 0.17 NS NS NS 0.03 7.64 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 49500 2210 31800 12.8 10.8 MW-03 12/6/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.11 NS NS NS 0.02 7.5 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 52300 2060 28500 9.8 7.3 MW-03 6/12/2000 <4.8 <4.8 0.06 NS NS NS 0.02 7.8 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 63700 2760 34400 <1.5 <1.5 MW-03 12/12/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.12 NS NS NS 0.02 7.69 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 50700 2110 29100 <0.8 <0.8 MW-03 12/3/2001 <2.1 <2.1 0.083 NS NS NS 0.018 7.41 0.019 NS NS NS NS NS NS 50880 2400 28500 24.4 <25.9 MW-03 4/11/2002 <2.8 <2.8 0.13 NS NS NS 0.021 7.4 0.019 NS NS NS NS NS NS 47160 1780 36000 6.5 6.9 MW-03 9/10/2003 2.9 5.6 <2.5 0.21 NS NS <10 7.8 <0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 51200 2880 38200 32 100 MW-03 Dup 9/10/2003 3.5 5.7 <1.0 0.1 NS NS <4.0 7.8 <0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 51500 2750 37400 55 140 MW-03 4/13/2005 2.2 2.2 NS NS 0.11 NS 0.018 7.5 NS 0.025 NS NS NS NS NS 34000 NS 25000 7.5 7.9 MW-03 12/12/2005 3.2 <1.2 NS NS 0.12 NS 0.015 7.4 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 37000 NS 20000 <13.1 <32.2 MW-03 11/7/2006 1.88 NS NS 0.11 NS <0.005 0.022 7.8 NS 0.025 472000 NS NS 8030000 NS 36000 2100 23000 6.69 NS MW-03 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0112 NS NS 0.15 6.73 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 8720000 9070000 43500 2210 30600 <50 <50 MW-03 5/7/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS 0.1 NS <0.002 0.014 7.6 NS <0.02 369000 371000 NS 8410000 10400000 38000 2000 27000 <6.65 <6.65 MW-03 11/6/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.12 NS <0.0027 0.02 7.3 NS <0.02 401000 NS NS 9360000 NS 49000 1600 36000 <33.3 NS MW-03 6/25/2009 1 NS <0.01 NS 0.17 NS <10.5 7.62 NS <24 289000 NS 17.7 6120000 NS 38100 1700 25100 7.6 NS MW-03 1/13/2010 1.6 NS 0.024 NS 0.16 NS <5.25 7.5 NS <24 290000 NS 33 7480000 NS 50400 1740 26100 60.20 NS MW-03 10/29/2010 <0.89 <1.5 NS NS NS NS NS 7.83 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 57800 NS 32900 6.70 10.2 MW-03 4/19/2011 0.62 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.34 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 19400 NS 21400 <4.6 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-3: MW-04 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium Magnesium (surfactants) Mercury Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/l (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-04 4/22/1997 116 <2.1 <2.1 <1.9 <1.9 <0.022 <0.022 NS NS NS 1.9 1.1 1195 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 8/11/1997 313 <3.3 <3.3 <2.4 <2.4 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 2.6 4.4 1268 <0.1 3.8 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 0.1 <0.1 MW-04 11/3/1997 440 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.1 <1.1 1780 0.1 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 5/21/1999 304 <2.2 <2.2 <1.8 <1.8 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1 <1 1880 0.02 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 12/9/1999 268 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 2500 0.02 12.5 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 6/12/2000 304 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.1 <2.1 2500 0.02 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 12/12/2000 316 <2.4 <2.4 <2.5 3.408 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.5 <1.5 2600 0.01 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.09 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 12/4/2001 328 <2.2 <2.2 4.1 3.6 0.38 0.4 NS NS NS 17 <1 3800 0.028 <0.6 0.78 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 4/8/2002 310 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.4 <1.4 2720 0.018 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.057 <0.1 <0.1 MW-04 9/10/2003 303 <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 11 13 1100 NS 2 2.9 NS NS NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-04 4/14/2005 220 <0.14 <0.54 <1.2 <1.4 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 8.4 6.2 2000 NS 1.1 1.3 NS NS NS <0.11 <0.074 MW-04 12/11/2005 240 <2.8 <3 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS 3.3 <10.6 2100 NS <2 <2.6 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-04 11/1/2006 290 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 171000 NS 930 <1.7 NS 5900 NS 3.17 NS 371000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-04 8/17/2007 285 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 236000 7490 <50 <50 2760 NS <25 <25 NS 527000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-04 11/7/2008 340 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 198000 NS 7700 <3.1 NS 2800 NS 7.2 NS 421000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-04 6/24/2009 312 <0.02 NS 0.82 NS <0.08 NS 132000 NS 4660 2.8 NS 1430 NS 1.6 NS 268000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-04 1/12/2010 336 0.25 NS 0.75 NS <0.04 NS 127000 NS 4430 2.8 NS 1530 NS 2.1 NS 294000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-04 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 0.99 0.85 NS NS NS NS 5330 1.1 2.7 NS NS 1.6 1.6 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-04 4/19/2011 NS NS NS 0.71 NS NS NS NS NS 3530 <1.3 NS NS NS 1.5 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-3: MW-04 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) TDS (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-04 4/22/1997 1.8 1.7 <0.05 NS NS NS <0.2 7.5 0.08 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8390 824 8300 23 10.8 MW-04 8/11/1997 19.5 5.6 <0.2 NS NS NS <0.1 7.4 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 12600 7580 12100 48.1 55.4 MW-04 11/3/1997 1.05 1.401 0.26 NS NS NS 0.02 7.5 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 18300 786 9750 10.56 87.11 MW-04 5/21/1999 1.6 1.6 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.04 7.47 <0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 17100 849 10800 12.4 2.5 MW-04 12/9/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.26 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 24800 974 11900 3.6 <1.8 MW-04 6/12/2000 <4.8 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.34 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 24900 959 12400 <1.5 <1.5 MW-04 12/12/2000 <1.3 <1.3 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.51 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 19500 1130 13500 <0.8 <0.8 MW-04 12/4/2001 4.6 <2.1 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.29 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 25020 959 15100 10.3 13.3 MW-04 4/8/2002 <2.8 <2.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.016 7.36 0.019 NS NS NS NS NS NS 19490 1030 13200 <1 1.4 MW-04 9/10/2003 4.4 5.5 <1 <0.05 NS NS <0.004 7.4 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 22900 1030 15800 23 61 MW-04 4/14/2005 <1.3 <1.5 NS NS 0.09 NS 0.012 7.6 NS 0.031 NS NS NS NS NS 13000 NS 9800 <2.2 <3.8 MW-04 12/11/2005 1.4 1.3 NS NS 0.14 NS 0.024 7.4 NS 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS 14000 NS 3600 <34.8 <40.1 MW-04 11/1/2006 <1.2 NS NS 0.079 NS <0.005 <0.02 7.4 NS 0.029 182000 NS NS 2580000 NS 16000 5900 11000 <6.65 NS MW-04 8/17/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.159 NS NS 0.116 6.61 NS 0.04 NS NS NS 3660000 3860000 20700 1040 13000 <50 <50 MW-04 11/7/2008 6.3 NS NS 0.19 NS <0.0031 0.02 7.3 NS <0.02 156000 NS NS 3770000 NS 22000 650 13000 <33.3 NS MW-04 6/24/2009 1.2 NS <0.01 NS 0.087 NS <2.1 7.34 NS <24 97500 NS 7.5 2290000 NS 19700 779 9660 5.3 NS MW-04 1/12/2010 1.6 NS <0.01 NS 0.18 NS <2.1 7.3 NS 28 106000 NS 12.2 2750000 NS 20400 765 9110 36.3 NS MW-04 10/28/2010 <1.2 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS 7.18 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 20800 NS 10800 7.8 19.8 MW-04 4/19/2011 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.3 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 13100 NS 7010 <24 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-4: MW-05 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-05 4/1/1997 382 <2.1 2.2 3.6 4.8 <0.02 <0.02 NS NS NS <0.5 0.98 1301 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 Dup 4/1/1997 < 250 <2.1 <2.1 4.3 4.6 <0.02 <0.02 NS NS NS 0.82 0.75 1286 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 8/12/1997 419 <3.3 <3.3 3.7 4.1 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 3 2.5 1869 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 11/3/1997 388 <2.9 <2.9 34.95 28.84 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 2.459 <1.1 1640 0.08 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 1/22/1998 330 <3.5 <3.5 6.6 3.8 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <2.3 <2.3 2550 0.03 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 5/24/1999 330 <2.2 <2.2 11.8 12.4 <0.1 0.22 NS NS NS <1 8.5 2320 0.02 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 12/9/1999 308 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS 17.4 <1.9 3050 0.02 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 Dup 12/9/1999 302 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 3200 0.02 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 6/14/2000 348 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.3432 0.376 NS NS NS <2.1 <2.1 3100 0.02 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.08 0.162 <0.1 MW-05 Dup 6/14/2000 348 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.332 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.1 <2.1 2800 0.02 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 12/14/2000 316 <2.4 <2.4 5.727 4.423 0.3424 0.349 NS NS NS <1.5 <1.5 3500 0.03 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 Dup 12/14/2000 316 <2.4 <2.4 7.285 3.905 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS 3.951 <1.5 3500 0.02 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 12/4/2001 324 <2.2 <2.2 <3.9 4.4 1.1 0.95 NS NS NS <4.4 <4.4 5000 0.024 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 4/8/2002 330 <1.8 <1.8 5 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.4 <1.4 5100 0.024 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.072 <0.1 <0.1 MW-05 9/9/2003 303 <10 0.23 5.3 4.5 <5 <5 NS NS NS 6.5 6.1 3400 NS 0.44 <5 NS NS NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-05 4/13/2005 330 <1.2 <1.2 6.1 5.9 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 15.2 11.2 2800 NS <0.15 <0.47 NS NS NS <0.03 <0.03 MW-05 12/11/2005 310 <4.1 <4 <8.3 <6 <0.35 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 2800 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-05 11/1/2006 300 4.83 NS <2.21 NS <0.513 NS 214000 NS 9100 <1.7 NS 6800 NS <1.78 NS 514000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-05 8/16/2007 300 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 220000 8190 <50 <50 2770 NS <25 <25 NS 538000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-05 Dup 8/16/2007 NS <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 199000 NS <50 <50 NS NS <25 <25 NS 367000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-05 5/6/2008 300 <3.01 <3.01 4.2 3.6 <0.513 <0.513 237000 228000 7800 <0.78 0.11 3200 NS 12.7 11.6 497000 491000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-05 11/5/2008 340 <15.1 NS 3.8 NS <2.57 NS 237000 NS 9300 <0.93 NS 3300 NS 3.2 NS 566000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-05 6/24/2009 337 <0.02 NS 3.8 NS <0.08 NS 184000 NS 7010 1 NS 2160 NS <0.22 NS 414000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-05 1/12/2010 312 0.59 NS 4.5 NS <0.04 NS 187000 NS 7000 <0.77 NS 2400 NS <0.11 NS 470000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-05 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 4.4 4.8 NS NS NS NS 7970 2.6 0.4 NS NS 0.5 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-05 4/18/2011 NS NS NS 4.1 NS NS NS NS NS 5550 <1.3 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-4: MW-05 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-05 4/1/1997 2 2 0.5 NS NS NS <0.1 7.5 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8800 882 7570 12.3 24.3 MW-05 Dup 4/1/1997 1.9 1.8 < 0.25 NS NS NS < 5 7.4 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 14400 819 10400 16.5 24 MW-05 8/12/1997 9.6 3.4 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 7.6 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1100 4840 61 46.2 MW-05 11/3/1997 4.095 1.983 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.37 0.09 NS NS NS NS NS NS 16200 630 10100 13.31 12.33 MW-05 1/22/1998 4 2.6 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.3 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 24800 1070 13100 5.9 4.4 MW-05 5/24/1999 <1.4 6.6 0.01 NS NS NS 0.02 7.36 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 22500 946 13800 2.2 7 MW-05 12/9/1999 <2.6 <2.6 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.24 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 30500 1190 15600 15.3 <1.8 MW-05 Dup 12/9/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.26 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 30400 1190 15600 <1.8 1.8 MW-05 6/14/2000 <4.8 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.29 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 29800 1200 15300 <1.5 <1.5 MW-05 Dup 6/14/2000 6.834 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.26 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 30000 1180 15100 <1.5 <1.5 MW-05 12/14/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.03 NS NS NS <0.01 7.32 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 31200 1540 18500 <0.8 <0.8 MW-05 Dup 12/14/2000 5.253 3.966 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.33 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 32800 1550 19100 <0.8 <0.8 MW-05 12/4/2001 <2 2.9 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.33 0.024 NS NS NS NS NS NS 31080 1590 21100 13 16.1 MW-05 4/8/2002 3.8 4.5 0.017 NS NS NS <0.01 7.29 0.026 NS NS NS NS NS NS 31520 1360 23400 <1 3.6 MW-05 9/9/2003 7.4 7.8 <2.5 <0.05 NS NS <10 7.3 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 29800 1340 20200 10 9.3 MW-05 4/13/2005 3.6 3.9 NS NS 0.05 NS 0.019 7.3 NS 0.024 NS NS NS NS NS 18000 NS 16000 13.3 10.2 MW-05 12/11/2005 2.8 5.4 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.016 7.3 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 19000 NS 11500 <11.2 <37.4 MW-05 11/1/2006 2.4 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 <0.02 7.3 NS 0.021 268000 NS NS 3850000 NS 2200 1500 16000 <6.65 NS MW-05 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0633 NS NS 0.51 6.63 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 4120000 4300000 23200 1140 15500 <50 <50 MW-05 Dup 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 4240000 2950000 NS NS NS <50 <50 MW-05 5/6/2008 1.7 1.7 NS <0.04 NS <0.0032 0.017 7.18 NS 0.023 201000 180000 NS 4960000 4530000 18000 1100 13000 <6.65 <6.65 MW-05 11/5/2008 3.4 NS NS 0.025 NS <0.0038 0.029 7.4 NS 0.027 198000 NS NS 4760000 NS 28000 1100 18000 <33.3 NS MW-05 6/24/2009 2.4 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <5.25 7.36 NS 24 142000 NS 10.5 3410000 NS 24900 1090 14100 <4.6 NS MW-05 1/12/2010 6.4 NS <0.01 NS 0.056 NS <2.1 7.3 NS 26 149000 NS 16.1 4020000 NS 26300 1040 14400 14.5 NS MW-05 10/28/2010 2.7 3.6 NS NS NS NS NS 7.16 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 31600 NS 17300 19 22.9 MW-05 4/18/2011 1.50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.16 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 19300 NS 10300 <24 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-5: MW-06 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-06 4/23/1997 296 <2.1 <2.1 3.3 2.5 <0.02 <0.02 NS NS NS 1.7 1.3 748 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 8/12/1997 393 <3.3 <3.3 <2.4 <2.4 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 3.1 3.6 997 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 11/3/1997 362 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.1 <1.1 1320 0.04 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 1/22/1998 360 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <2.3 <2.3 1400 0.05 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 5/24/1999 340 <2.2 <2.2 4.3 <1.8 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 2.7 <1 1490 0.04 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 12/9/1999 320 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 1900 0.04 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 6/14/2000 360 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.3018 <0.3 NS NS NS 2.758 <2.1 1750 0.03 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.09 0.203 <0.1 MW-06 12/14/2000 348 <2.4 <2.4 6.628 2.94 0.2351 0.2141 NS NS NS <1.5 <1.5 2400 0.04 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 12/4/2001 340 <2.2 <2.2 <3.9 <3.9 0.93 0.85 NS NS NS <4.4 <4.4 3500 0.043 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 4/9/2002 340 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 2.8 <1.7 3400 0.033 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.051 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 Dup 4/9/2002 340 <1.8 <1.8 3.9 7.4 0.27 0.22 NS NS NS < 1.7 4.5 3200 0.036 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-06 9/9/2003 316 <10 0.31 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 4.6 4.8 2270 NS <5 <5 NS NS NS 0.21 <0.2 MW-06 4/13/2005 340 <0.85 <0.14 2.6 2.7 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 3.2 5.6 1800 NS <0.36 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.03 <0.03 MW-06 12/11/2005 350 <3.1 <2.3 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 2200 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-06 10/31/2006 330 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 181000 NS 7400 <1.7 NS 7300 NS <1.78 NS 332000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-06 Dup 10/31/2006 330 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 179000 NS 5600 < 1.1 NS 3200 NS 2.05 NS 328000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-06 8/16/2007 349 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 187000 5460 <50 <50 1950 NS <25 <25 NS 359000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-06 5/6/2008 320 <3.01 <3.01 2.4 <1.9 <0.513 <0.513 178000 179000 5100 <0.63 0.15 2000 NS 16.6 15 316000 350000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-06 Dup 5/6/2008 330 <3.01 <3.01 <1.27 1.9 <0.513 <0.513 179000 175000 5000 <0.18 <0.032 2000 NS 16.7 17.4 318000 318000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-06 11/5/2008 380 <15.1 NS 1.4 NS <2.57 NS 203000 NS 5600 <0.38 NS 2100 NS <1.78 NS 319000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-06 Dup 11/5/2008 390 <15.1 NS < 1.27 NS <2.57 NS 168000 NS 5300 <0.21 NS 2100 NS 8.1 NS 306000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-06 6/24/2009 349 0.19 NS 2.1 NS <0.08 NS 140000 NS 4120 <0.4 NS 1350 NS <0.22 NS 242000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-06 1/12/2010 324 0.47 NS 2.2 NS <0.04 NS 144000 NS 4120 2.7 NS 1500 NS 0.14 NS 277000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-06 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.6 2.8 NS NS NS NS 4870 2.5 0.94 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-06 4/18/2011 NS NS NS 2.2 NS NS NS NS NS 3140 <0.26 NS NS NS <0.11 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-5: MW-06 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-06 4/23/1997 0.74 0.77 <0.25 NS NS NS <0.1 7.6 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 6020 531 11200 43.1 27.7 MW-06 8/12/1997 13 6.4 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 7.5 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8130 612 6850 24.1 84.9 MW-06 11/3/1997 <0.9 1.203 0.01 NS NS NS 0.03 7.48 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 12150 614 7330 11.07 13.34 MW-06 1/22/1998 <2.1 <2.1 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.02 7.34 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 13800 724 7520 5.1 3.6 MW-06 5/24/1999 2 <1.4 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.03 7.37 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 14600 709 8620 5.1 2.8 MW-06 12/9/1999 <2.6 <2.6 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.24 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 20400 809 10000 1.8 1.8 MW-06 6/14/2000 <4.8 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.03 7.27 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 18700 774 9620 <1.5 <1.5 MW-06 12/14/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.01 NS NS NS 0.02 7.35 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 18400 1110 12200 <0.8 <0.8 MW-06 12/4/2001 <2 <2 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.013 7.28 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 19810 994 13800 7.5 7.8 MW-06 4/9/2002 <2.8 <2.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.016 7.38 0.034 NS NS NS NS NS NS 16170 801 14300 <1 1.4 MW-06 Dup 4/9/2002 <2.8 <2.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.015 7.31 0.038 NS NS NS NS NS NS 16200 793 14100 1.6 <1 MW-06 9/9/2003 3.3 3.7 <1 <0.05 NS NS <4 7.3 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 20200 721 13100 6.3 7.9 MW-06 4/13/2005 <0.9 <1.1 NS NS 0.05 NS 0.032 7.3 NS 0.042 NS NS NS NS NS 12000 NS 9800 8.1 3.5 MW-06 12/11/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.035 7.3 NS 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS 13000 NS 9700 <22.6 <23.2 MW-06 10/31/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 0.042 7.5 NS 0.048 159000 NS NS 2210000 NS 14000 1100 9900 <6.65 NS MW-06 Dup 10/31/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 0.041 7.4 NS 0.049 168000 NS NS 2200000 NS 14000 820 9500 <6.65 NS MW-06 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0247 NS NS 1.2 6.78 NS 0.066 NS NS NS 2940000 2910000 17200 810 10200 <50 <50 MW-06 5/6/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0027 0.036 7.19 NS 0.04 123000 120000 NS 4000000 3660000 12000 750 7100 <6.65 <6.65 MW-06 Dup 5/6/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 d <0.0034 0.047 7.25 NS 0.046 122000 123000 NS 3660000 3570000 12000 720 6100 <6.65 <6.65 MW-06 11/5/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.02 NS <0.0019 0.034 7.4 NS 0.036 118000 NS NS 3460000 NS 16000 370 10000 <33.3 NS MW-06 Dup 11/5/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.19 NS <0.0032 0.033 7.4 NS 0.038 119000 NS NS 2930000 NS 16000 570 9400 <33.3 NS MW-06 6/24/2009 0.59 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <2.1 7.24 NS 38 88100 NS 6.5 2000000 NS 16300 616 4140 5.8 NS MW-06 1/12/2010 0.88 NS <0.01 NS 0.041 NS <2.1 7.4 NS 43 91500 NS 10.6 2390000 NS 17900 716 8990 17.1 NS MW-06 10/27/2010 <0.32 <0.32 NS NS NS NS NS 7.09 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64800 NS 10500 32.8 55.9 MW-06 4/18/2011 0.28 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.14 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 13600 NS 6120 <5.9 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-6: MW-07A Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium Magnesium (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-07A 4/22/1997 272 <2.1 <2.1 1.9 <1.9 <0.022 <0.022 NS NS NS 0.56 <0.5 2229 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 8/14/1997 274 <3.3 <3.3 <2.4 <2.4 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 2856 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 11/3/1997 375 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 0.1064 0.1326 NS NS NS <1.1 <1.1 3020 0.01 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 1/22/1998 325 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <2.3 <2.3 3050 0.03 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 5/21/1999 331 <2.2 <2.2 <1.8 7.5 <0.1 0.2 NS NS NS <1 5.1 3300 <0.01 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A Dup 5/21/1999 319 <2.2 <2.2 <1.8 <1.8 0.22 0.33 NS NS NS 1.7 6.3 3290 0.01 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 12/8/1999 308 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 3550 0.005 <12 <12 NS NS 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 6/12/2000 328 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.4868 <0.3 NS NS NS 9.175 4.678 3800 0.02 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.09 <0.1 0.135 MW-07A 12/12/2000 352 <2.4 <2.4 2.839 <2.5 0.2895 <0.2 NS NS NS 4.032 <1.5 3600 0.02 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 12/2/2001 370 <2.2 <2.2 3 2.7 <0.2 0.22 NS NS NS <1 7.2 5700 0.016 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A Dup 12/2/2001 380 <2.2 <2.2 <1.5 <3.9 0.34 0.26 NS NS NS <1 1.5 6000 0.015 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 4/8/2002 360 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.4 <1.4 5700 0.018 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-07A 9/10/2003 326 <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 7.7 7.2 3900 NS <0.2 <5 NS NS NS <5 <0.2

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-6: MW-07A Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-07A 4/22/1997 1.8 1.9 2.7 NS NS NS <0.2 7.8 0.08 NS NS NS NS NS NS 26400 1250 18300 12.5 31.2 MW-07A 8/14/1997 2.9 3.7 0.71 NS NS NS <0.1 7.3 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 26200 1510 19400 20 39.8 MW-07A 11/3/1997 1.546 2.066 1.14 NS NS NS 0.01 7.43 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 6320 1140 16900 13.72 10.47 MW-07A 1/22/1998 <2.1 <2.1 1.02 NS NS NS 0.01 7.24 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 31100 1270 16800 7.3 5.3 MW-07A 5/21/1999 <1.4 2.8 0.15 NS NS NS 0.02 7.3 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 298000 1350 19800 2.4 21.5 MW-07A Dup 5/21/1999 1.5 3.7 0.32 NS NS NS 0.02 7.31 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 29600 1440 19500 6 3.7 MW-07A 12/8/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.17 NS NS NS 0.02 7.29 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 34800 1450 19000 3.5 2.8 MW-07A 6/12/2000 5.077 <4.8 0.09 NS NS NS 0.01 7.27 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 39400 1480 20100 <1.5 <1.5 MW-07A 12/12/2000 7.493 8.052 0.19 NS NS NS 0.02 7.43 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 38100 1580 20400 <0.8 <0.8 MW-07A 12/2/2001 <2.1 <2.1 0.089 NS NS NS 0.015 7.12 0.017 NS NS NS NS NS NS 35600 1470 22200 20 19.5 MW-07A Dup 12/2/2001 <2.1 <2.1 0.082 NS NS NS 0.016 7.07 0.015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 35920 1930 23700 19 18.8 MW-07A 4/8/2002 <2.8 <2.8 0.12 NS NS NS 0.018 7.21 0.018 NS NS NS NS NS NS 37600 1570 28900 <1 1.7 MW-07A 9/10/2003 4.5 4.6 2.5 0.078 NS NS <0.01 7.3 <0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 34200 1250 23900 9.2 11

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-7: MW-10 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium Magnesium (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-10 4/22/1997 168 <2.1 <2.1 <1.9 2.5 <0.022 <0.022 NS NS NS <0.5 1.1 2288 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 8/13/1997 223 <3.3 <3.3 <2.4 <2.4 0.13 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 2450 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 Dup 8/13/1997 219 <3.3 <3.3 <2.4 <2.4 0.11 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 2,477 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 11/5/1997 265 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.1 <1.1 2720 0.04 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 1/21/1998 243 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <2.3 <2.3 2900 0.03 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 5/24/1999 238 <2.2 2.3 <1.8 <1.8 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 4.5 <1 3340 0.04 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 12/9/1999 202 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 3600 0.04 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 6/13/2000 240 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.415 0.3033 NS NS NS <2.1 <2.1 3500 0.04 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 12/12/2000 228 <2.4 3.226 8.436 8.248 0.3207 0.3671 NS NS NS <1.5 2.358 3500 0.11 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 12/4/2001 152 <2.2 <2.2 2.1 8.3 0.48 0.6 NS NS NS <1 <1 4200 0.053 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 4/10/2002 220 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 1.8 <1.7 5600 0.039 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.064 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 Dup 4/10/2002 220 <1.8 <1.8 2.4 14.6 0.1 0.18 NS NS NS < 1.7 3.1 5200 0.036 <0.8 0.8 NS NS 0.075 <0.1 <0.1 MW-10 9/9/2003 194 <10 0.18 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 6.8 6.1 3750 NS <5 <5 NS NS NS <0.2 <0.2

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-7: MW-10 Complete Analytical Results for Metal (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-10 4/22/1997 1.3 0.82 <0.05 NS NS NS 0.19 7.1 0.08 NS NS NS NS NS NS 25600 1250 16700 9.6 21.5 MW-10 8/13/1997 3.4 2.6 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 7.7 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 23600 1270 17000 23.4 30.8 MW-10 Dup 8/13/1997 2.2 < 2.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 7.6 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 26800 1330 17000 19.9 28.7 MW-10 11/5/1997 <0.9 <0.9 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.62 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 39700 1080 16700 5.97 14.21 MW-10 1/21/1998 <2.1 2.1 0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.75 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 31400 1250 18700 7.1 5.7 MW-10 5/24/1999 3.1 <1.4 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.65 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 34900 1370 20300 2.6 <1.1 MW-10 12/9/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.56 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 40300 1350 20500 4.1 3.1 MW-10 6/13/2000 <4.8 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.61 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 39100 1450 20000 <1.5 <1.5 MW-10 12/12/2000 <1.3 <1.3 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.58 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 42200 1500 20400 <0.8 <0.8 MW-10 12/4/2001 <2.1 <2.1 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.76 0.054 NS NS NS NS NS NS 33400 1050 20800 12.6 13 MW-10 4/10/2002 2.9 <2.8 0.011 NS NS NS <0.01 7.68 0.038 NS NS NS NS NS NS 37800 1380 27200 1.7 <1 MW-10 Dup 4/10/2002 < 2.8 <2.8 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.64 0.037 NS NS NS NS NS NS 38480 1290 27100 1 <1 MW-10 9/9/2003 5.1 5.3 <2.5 0.091 NS NS NS 7.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 36100 1470 24400 7.8 5.8

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-8: MW-11 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-11 4/22/1997 74.5 11.7 12 <1.9 2.4 <0.022 <0.022 NS NS NS 2.7 2.3 3928 <0.1 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 8/13/1997 56 5.1 <3.3 4.7 4 <0.1 0.12 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 5296 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 11/4/1997 144 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <1.1 <1.1 5750 0.04 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 1/22/1998 125 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <2.3 <2.3 6000 0.03 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 5/6/1998 134 <5.1 <5.1 4.7 <7 <0.3 <0.1 NS NS NS <3.4 <1.2 6000 0.02 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 7/22/1998 138 <80.5 <99.1 <4.9 <4.9 1.1 <1.2 NS NS NS 31.2 36.8 10800 0.03 <1.9 <1.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 5/25/1999 142 <2.2 2.3 <1.8 <1.8 0.48 0.3 NS NS NS 8.7 <1 5850 0.03 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 12/6/1999 134 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS 3.2 <1.9 6000 0.04 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 6/12/2000 124 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.5847 0.4773 NS NS NS 4.916 <2.1 6100 0.03 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 12/13/2000 144 2.417 <2.4 3.108 5.056 0.4491 0.4593 NS NS NS <1.5 8.018 6000 0.03 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.15 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 12/3/2001 140 <2.2 <2.2 <1.5 <1.5 <0.2 0.25 NS NS NS <1 3.3 8000 0.034 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS 0.083 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 4/10/2002 152 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 0.11 0.17 NS NS NS <1.7 2.1 7900 0.024 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.082 <0.1 <0.1 MW-11 9/11/2003 118 0.71 1.1 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 28 46 6800 NS 2.6 6.3 NS NS NS <0.2 0.1 MW-11 4/14/2005 130 <1.2 <3.3 4.4 5.5 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 76 55.4 7200 NS <0.08 1.8 NS NS NS <0.099 <0.12 MW-11 12/13/2005 140 <2.1 <2.5 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 8.6 2800 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-11 11/2/2006 110 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 366000 NS 18000 8.9 NS 6100 NS 3.93 NS 1200000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-11 8/16/2007 121 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 371000 19300 <50 <50 5940 NS <25 <25 NS 1220000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-11 5/7/2008 110 <3.01 <3.01 <1.27 1.5 <0.513 <0.513 382000 397000 20000 1.4 0.48 6500 NS 4.9 5.1 1580000 1580000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-11 11/6/2008 140 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 339000 NS 19000 <0.42 NS 6300 NS <1.78 NS 982000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW11 Dup 11/6/2008 140 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 343000 NS 19000 < 1.5 NS 6300 NS 1.8 NS 957000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-11 6/25/2009 116 0.8 NS 1.2 NS <0.08 NS 388000 NS 18300 <0.84 NS 5990 NS <0.22 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-11 1/14/2010 129 10.7 NS 0.99 NS <0.04 NS 333000 NS 17100 1.3 NS 5800 NS <0.11 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-11 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 1.6 1.7 NS NS NS NS 17700 0.73 8.4 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-11 4/19/2011 NS NS NS 1.6 NS NS NS NS NS 16200 0.28 NS NS NS <0.11 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-8: MW-11 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-11 4/22/1997 2.4 2.8 <0.05 NS NS NS <0.2 7.9 0.22 NS NS NS NS NS NS 45000 2240 36600 29.8 40.6 MW-11 8/13/1997 4.1 4.2 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 7.8 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 59600 2590 41000 28.8 29.1 MW-11 11/4/1997 <0.9 <0.9 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.03 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 55400 2250 32800 25.19 31.72 MW-11 1/22/1998 2.3 <2.1 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.63 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56800 2520 33200 11.6 21.1 MW-11 5/6/1998 <1.3 32.7 0.08 NS NS NS <0.01 7.62 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 57500 2490 33600 <1.9 10.6 MW-11 7/22/1998 20.1 23.8 0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.67 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 67000 2460 34500 12.6 12.9 MW-11 5/25/1999 5.4 <1.4 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.74 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 41300 2480 33400 8.5 9 MW-11 12/6/1999 <2.6 <2.6 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 7.75 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 60600 2570 32800 16.5 23.9 MW-11 6/12/2000 <4.8 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.75 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 62800 2480 34200 <1.5 <1.5 MW-11 12/13/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.87 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 62200 2780 35700 <0.8 <0.8 MW-11 12/3/2001 <2.1 <2.1 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.63 0.028 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56960 2730 33400 26.6 40.4 MW-11 4/10/2002 <2.8 <2.8 <0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 7.98 0.022 NS NS NS NS NS NS 53920 2350 44500 1.2 14.3 MW-11 9/11/2003 3.6 6.9 <2.5 0.35 NS NS <10 7.7 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 47600 2580 20500 56 180 MW-11 4/14/2005 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.05 NS 0.03 7.5 NS 0.035 NS NS NS NS NS 34000 NS 40000 <5.8 48.6 MW-11 12/13/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.017 7.1 NS 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS 43000 NS 37000 <33.1 <45.9 MW-11 11/2/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.0081 0.026 7.8 NS 0.032 577000 NS NS 9030000 NS 42000 2300 33000 9.34 NS MW-11 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0964 NS NS <0.5 7.22 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 10300000 10100000 49400 2570 36200 <50 <50 MW-11 5/7/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS 0.27 NS <0.0047 0.017 7.88 NS 0.023 454000 462000 NS 11400000 10400000 45000 2600 34000 15.2 45.4 MW-11 11/6/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.03 NS <0.0056 0.02 7.3 NS 0.02 401000 NS NS 9540000 NS 49000 1500 35000 <33.3 NS MW11 Dup 11/6/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.027 NS < 0.0051 0.02 7.3 NS 0.032 405000 NS NS 10000000 NS 49000 1400 36000 <33.3 NS MW-11 6/25/2009 1 NS <0.01 NS 0.21 NS <0.0105 7.88 NS <0.024 390000 NS 23.1 7540000 NS 44300 2460 36000 5.9 NS MW-11 1/14/2010 1.9 NS 0.031 NS 0.042 NS <0.0105 7.6 NS <0.024 436000 NS 45.6 9710000 NS 67000 2330 36400 26 NS MW-11 10/28/2010 <1.5 <1.8 NS NS NS NS NS 7.58 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 62100 NS 33300 15.3 30.9 MW-11 4/19/2011 0.52 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.76 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 45000 NS 27800 <4.6 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-9: MW-12 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (t) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-12 4/21/1997 45.6 3.6 8.7 <1.9 1.9 <0.022 0.02 NS NS NS 3.2 51.2 4135 <0.1 <1.1 30.2 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 8/13/1997 82 <3.3 <3.3 4.3 <2.4 0.11 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 3122 <0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 11/4/1997 176 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 3.967 0.1187 0.158 NS NS NS <1.1 7.357 4600 0.04 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 1/21/1998 157 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS <2.3 <2.3 4600 0.05 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 5/6/1998 158 <5.1 <5.1 <3.7 <3.7 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <3.4 <3.4 4850 0.05 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 Dup 5/6/1998 82 <5.1 <5.1 <3.7 <3.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS < 1.2 1.2 4700 0.05 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 7/22/1998 148 79.5 74.6 <4.9 <4.9 1 0.98 NS NS NS 30.8 29.2 4650 0.06 <1.9 3.4 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 5/25/1999 156 2.2 <2.2 <1.8 7.8 0.23 0.27 NS NS NS <1 <1 4800 0.05 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 12/8/1999 116 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 <1.9 5000 0.02 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 6/13/2000 144 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.4218 0.4045 NS NS NS 4.606 6.038 4800 0.03 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.14 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 12/13/2000 128 <2.4 5.339 <2.5 5.266 0.5661 0.3947 NS NS NS <1.5 7.495 5600 0.04 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.19 <0.1 0.218 MW-12 12/5/2001 136 4 3.6 1.7 <1.5 1.1 0.99 NS NS NS 8.2 5.9 8500 0.017 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS 0.057 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 4/9/2002 132 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 2.5 11 5800 0.025 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.07 <0.1 <0.1 MW-12 9/11/2003 126 4.2 4.2 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 42 48 5850 NS 4.6 8.1 NS NS NS <0.2 0.091 MW-12 4/14/2005 130 <2.4 <2.4 3.6 3.6 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 82 58.2 5800 NS <0.2 6.3 NS NS NS <0.092 <0.1 MW-12 12/13/2005 130 <3.8 <7.2 <3.3 <3.2 <0.32 <0.3 NS NS NS 2.7 21.8 6200 NS <1.8 18.2 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-12 11/7/2006 100 <8.97 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 36600 NS 16000 24.7 NS 5700 NS <3.91 NS 1090000 NS NS <0.048 NS MW-12 8/16/2007 114 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 387000 19300 <50 <50 5840 NS <25 <25 NS 1180000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-12 5/6/2008 240 <3.01 13 2.6 <1.27 <0.513 <0.513 408000 415000 20000 2.8 4.6 6800 NS 4.1 4.8 1200000 1230000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-12 11/6/2008 120 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 349000 NS 18000 4.3 NS 5300 NS <1.78 NS 937000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-12 6/25/2009 118 3.5 NS 0.68 NS <0.08 NS 372000 NS 18900 3.1 NS 5380 NS <0.22 NS 1080000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-12 1/14/2010 105 9.1 NS 1.4 NS <0.04 NS 330000 NS 16700 2.8 NS 5350 NS 1.1 NS 1100000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-12 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 2.1 2.1 NS NS NS NS 18700 13.2 10.4 NS NS 5.8 6.2 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-12 4/21/2011 NS NS NS 1.9 NS NS NS NS NS 16600 <0.52 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-9: MW-12 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-12 4/21/1997 7 9.9 0.65 NS NS NS <0.2 7.5 0.19 NS NS NS NS NS NS 49700 2310 38900 84.6 137 MW-12 8/13/1997 3.7 3.5 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 7.8 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 49000 1400 34200 34.4 50.9 MW-12 11/4/1997 <0.9 4.306 0.02 NS NS NS 0.04 7.09 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 51000 1490 28000 28.04 31.7 MW-12 1/21/1998 <2.1 <2.1 <0.01 NS NS NS <0 7.69 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 47400 1660 27600 17.8 20.1 MW-12 5/6/1998 2.3 3.1 0.02 NS NS NS 0.02 7.56 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 49900 1690 28600 7.6 8.9 MW-12 Dup 5/6/1998 < 1.3 < 1.3 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.03 6.25 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 49500 1670 29400 6 10.6 MW-12 7/22/1998 20.1 17.7 0.02 NS NS NS 0.02 7.68 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 52600 1720 29200 5.3 18.2 MW-12 5/25/1999 <1.4 <1.4 0.02 NS NS NS 0.04 7.79 0.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS 38700 1700 29200 8.4 21.6 MW-12 12/8/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.29 NS NS NS 0.01 7.58 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 54800 1960 30900 40.3 60.5 MW-12 6/13/2000 <4.8 <4.8 0.04 NS NS NS 0.02 7.37 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 54600 1770 33400 <1.5 16.75 MW-12 12/13/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.06 NS NS NS 0.03 7.77 0.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS 54500 2500 33300 <0.8 55.39 MW-12 12/5/2001 11.5 8.6 0.1 NS NS NS 0.011 7.52 0.019 NS NS NS NS NS NS 58360 2740 34500 107 112 MW-12 4/9/2002 <2.8 <2.8 0.16 NS NS NS 0.019 7.62 0.028 NS NS NS NS NS NS 51160 1660 40600 17.9 58.5 MW-12 9/11/2003 8.8 12 <2.5 0.058 NS NS <10 7.7 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 49300 2450 37800 130 220 MW-12 4/14/2005 5.3 6.6 NS NS 0.34 NS 0.017 7.4 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 41000 NS 38000 55.4 78.4 MW-12 12/13/2005 2.9 4.3 NS NS 0.24 NS 0.016 7.6 NS 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS 43000 NS 37000 <58.5 92.6 MW-12 11/7/2006 5.39 NS NS 0.014 NS <0.005 <0.02 7.8 NS 0.034 436000 NS NS 8770000 NS 37000 2100 21000 61.5 NS MW-12 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.104 NS NS 0.05 6.94 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 10000000 10200000 48800 2450 35800 56 59 MW-12 5/6/2008 2.2 3.3 NS 0.14 NS <0.0016 0.0094 7.48 NS <0.02 404000 399000 NS 11300000 18900000 37000 2700 27000 45 70.5 MW-12 11/6/2008 3.1 NS NS 0.32 NS <0.0086 0.02 7.2 NS <0.02 404000 NS NS 9400000 NS 47000 1000 32000 85.5 NS MW-12 6/25/2009 2.4 NS <0.01 NS 0.22 NS <10.5 7.67 NS <24 358000 NS 23.6 8760000 NS 53200 2450 36900 35.7 NS MW-12 1/14/2010 3.10 NS 0.023 NS 0.77 NS <10.5 7.5 NS <24 444000 NS 44 9730000 NS 65000 2090 34500 44.80 NS MW-12 10/28/2010 4.80 4.6 NS NS NS NS NS 7.64 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64100 NS 46100 46.60 64.2 MW-12 4/21/2011 2.80 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.51 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 56200 NS 36000 30.5 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-10: MW-13 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-13 4/21/1997 45.6 6.6 5.8 <1.9 <1.9 <0.022 <0.022 NS NS NS 4.7 8.8 3893 <0.1 <1.1 2.3 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 8/12/1997 79 <3.3 <3.3 <2.4 <2.4 0.11 <0.5 NS NS NS 53.6 73.7 4200 <0.1 <1.4 <7 NS NS <0.1 0.13 0.11 MW-13 11/5/1997 132 <2.9 <2.9 <2.5 <2.5 <0.1 0.2152 NS NS NS 49.66 101.7 5700 <0.01 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 1/21/1998 132 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 196 435 5850 0.02 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 5/6/1998 128 <5.1 <5.1 <8.2 <7.4 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 157 240 5500 0.02 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 7/22/1998 120 87.1 81.6 <4.9 <4.9 <1.1 <1.1 NS NS NS 36 359 5750 0.03 <1.9 <1.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 5/25/1999 118 <2.2 2.7 <1.8 3.9 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 10.1 213 5800 0.02 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.06 0.22 <0.1 MW-13 12/8/1999 128 5.7 7.3 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS 6.9 9.5 6150 0.02 <12 <12 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 6/13/2000 164 5.2 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.3284 0.3749 NS NS NS 4.49 8.5 6000 <0.01 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 12/13/2000 140 4.76 5.831 4.685 3.619 0.3577 0.3382 NS NS NS 2.809 3.612 6200 0.02 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.24 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 12/5/2001 132 7 8.4 <1.5 3.8 0.82 0.76 NS NS NS 2.6 8.7 8200 0.016 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 4/11/2002 168 5 4.9 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 4.8 4.3 8000 0.022 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.11 <0.1 <0.1 MW-13 9/8/2003 131 24 21 4.2 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 19 18 6350 NS 2.1 3.8 NS NS NS 0.12 0.11 MW-13 4/14/2005 130 7.4 7.1 3.9 3.6 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 106 74.2 7000 NS <0.26 8.7 NS NS NS <0.097 <0.096 MW-13 Dup 4/14/2005 130 6.9 7 4 3.5 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 90.8 56.8 7000 NS < 0.22 7.3 NS NS NS < 0.11 < 0.097 MW-13 12/12/2005 130 <6.7 <7.7 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS 5.2 8.9 6400 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-13 Dup 12/12/2005 130 < 6.2 < 10.6 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS 5.5 8.8 6200 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-13 11/7/2006 110 32.7 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 395000 NS 16000 28.9 NS 5700 NS <2.7 NS 1130000 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-13 8/16/2007 125 <50 <50 <50 42 <10 <10 NS 392000 19700 <50 <50 6240 NS <25 <25 NS 1280000 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-13 5/6/2008 120 13.1 <3.01 2.1 <1.27 <0.513 <0.513 417000 408000 20000 3.9 2.7 6800 NS 5.4 4.8 1290000 1190000 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-13 11/6/2008 140 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 377000 NS 20000 4.9 NS 6500 NS <1.78 NS 1150000 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-13 6/25/2009 121 19.9 NS 4.9 NS <0.08 NS 374000 NS 19500 4.1 NS 5460 NS 0.66 NS 1100000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-13 Dup 6/25/2009 123 13.3 NS 0.82 NS <0.08 NS 431000 NS 19600 4.4 NS 6310 NS 0.55 NS 1270000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-13 1/14/2010 118 19.1 NS 4.8 NS <0.04 NS 415000 NS 17300 3.4 NS 6050 NS 1.2 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-13 Dup 1/14/2010 NS 15.8 NS 1.9 NS <0.05 NS 482000 NS NS 4.1 NS NS NS 1.3 NS 1380000 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-13 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 1.9 1.5 NS NS NS NS 18000 3.5 5.2 NS NS 0.46 2.9 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-13 DUP 10/28/2010 NS NS NS 1.5 1.6 NS NS NS NS NA 3.3 5.7 NS NS 0.45 2.7 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-13 4/21/2011 NS NS NS 0.8 NS NS NS NS NS 16500 1.4 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS MW-13 Dup 4/21/2011 NS NS NS 0.94 NS NS NS NS NS NA 1.2 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-10: MW-13 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-13 4/21/1997 5.1 5.4 <0.05 NS NS NS <0.2 7.7 0.21 NS NS NS NS NS NS 52000 2400 38100 36.3 39.9 MW-13 8/12/1997 4.4 15 0.15 NS NS NS <0.1 7.3 0.15 NS NS NS NS NS NS 44700 2370 32500 69.5 114 MW-13 11/5/1997 4.488 8.524 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.01 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 62400 2130 33300 89.72 130.1 MW-13 1/21/1998 2.3 5.4 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.38 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56600 2230 32600 72.5 78.9 MW-13 5/6/1998 1.7 <1.3 0.02 NS NS NS NS 6.92 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56000 1960 32500 76.1 108 MW-13 7/22/1998 26.3 24.8 0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 6.82 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 58700 2140 33200 104 122 MW-13 5/25/1999 14.9 10.3 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 7.14 <0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 48500 2110 34300 88.3 91.2 MW-13 12/8/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.14 NS NS NS <0.01 7.47 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 65700 2470 33700 119 121 MW-13 6/13/2000 5.184 6.231 0.1 NS NS NS <0.01 7.74 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 62900 2450 29300 86.21 88.21 MW-13 12/13/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.06 NS NS NS <0.01 7.53 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 65800 2870 35200 90.99 97.51 MW-13 12/5/2001 4.3 8 0.11 NS NS NS 0.014 7.56 0.023 NS NS NS NS NS NS 57520 2780 34900 124 126 MW-13 4/11/2002 5.5 5.2 0.1 NS NS NS 0.018 7.29 0.013 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56760 2370 46600 118 118 MW-13 9/8/2003 21 20 <2.5 0.07 NS NS <10 7.5 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 52800 2720 38600 120 120 MW-13 4/14/2005 7.1 11 NS NS 0.14 NS 0.016 7.1 NS 0.044 NS NS NS NS NS 37000 NS 45000 78.5 120 MW-13 Dup 4/14/2005 6.5 10.4 NS NS 0.28 NS 0.017 7.3 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 37000 NS 40000 77.4 113 MW-13 12/12/2005 <1.2 5.7 NS NS 0.18 NS 0.02 7 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 41000 NS 31400 94.8 106 MW-13 Dup 12/12/2005 <1.2 5.6 NS NS 0.18 NS 0.029 7.3 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 41000 NS 31400 102 106 MW-13 11/7/2006 6.39 NS NS 0.24 NS <0.005 0.027 7.7 NS 0.04 461000 NS NS 8680000 NS 37000 2300 23000 77.7 NS MW-13 8/16/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.114 NS NS <0.5 7.04 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 10400000 10200000 50400 2710 36600 83 85 MW-13 5/6/2008 4.3 2.8 NS 0.2 NS <0.0014 0.24 7.08 NS <0.02 403000 410000 NS 12500000 12700000 37000 2600 31000 69 45.4 MW-13 11/6/2008 1.8 NS NS 0.18 NS <0.003 0.02 7.3 NS <0.02 422000 NS NS 9530000 NS 51000 1500 35000 55.5 NS MW-13 6/25/2009 3.5 NS NS 0.24 NS <0.01 <10.5 7.64 NS 0.024 354000 NS NS 8870000 NS 52800 2610 36700 49.7 NS MW-13 Dup 6/25/2009 4.1 NS NS 0.17 NS <0.01 0.0105 7.65 NS 0.044 396000 NS NS 8560000 NS 55700 2630 35600 50.8 NS MW-13 1/14/2010 3.8 NS 0.031 NS 0.18 NS <0.0105 7.7 NS <0.024 429000 NS 48.9 9820000 NS 71200 2450 36500 72.1 NS MW-13 Dup 1/14/2010 6.4 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 466000 NS NS 11000000 NS NS NS NS 52.4 NS MW-13 10/28/2010 4.2 4.1 NS NS NS NS NS 7.58 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 62800 NS 43700 57.9 51.5 MW-13 DUP 10/28/2010 3.8 4 NS NS NS NS NS 7.58 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA NS NA 49.6 47.2 MW-13 4/21/2011 4.4 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.44 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 57200 NS 14300 53.5 NS MW-13 Dup 4/21/2011 4.2 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.44 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA NS NA 52.1 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds proect screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-11: MW-14 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC MW-14 8/21/2007 294 <50 <50 43 51 <10 <10 NS 55700 979 <50 <50 375 NS <25 <25 NS 57300 NS <0.2 <0.2 MW-14 1/10/2008 327 <50 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 20300 233 <50 NS 120 NS <25 NS NS 16800 NS <0.2 NS MW-14 5/7/2008 320 <3.01 <3.01 2.2 2.1 <0.513 <0.513 41800 35100 930 1.6 0.95 600 NS 12.9 13.7 36200 31100 NS <0.018 <0.018 MW-14 7/23/2008 350 <3.01 NS 2.3 NS <0.513 NS 20600 NS 250 <0.66 NS 130 NS 6.5 NS 17200 NS NS <0.018 NS MW-14 11/7/2008 360 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 34800 NS 1100 <0.76 NS 400 NS 7.1 NS 49500 NS NS <0.027 NS MW-14 2/17/2009 300 <15.1 NS 2.2 NS <0.513 NS 40300 NS 760 <0.52 NS 400 NS 8 NS 67200 NS NS <0.016 NS MW-14 Dup 2/17/2009 290 18.5 NS 2.0 NS <0.513 NS 50400 NS 760 <0.52 NS 550 NS 12.5 NS 67500 NS NS <0.016 NS MW-14 6/26/2009 323 0.35 NS 2.1 NS <0.08 NS 32400 NS 880 1.6 NS 225 NS <0.22 NS 34900 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-14 10/6/2009 286 <0.01 NS 1.7 NS <0.04 NS 53600 NS 1450 0.81 NS 473 NS <0.20 NS 82400 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-14 Dup 10/6/2009 290 <0.01 NS 1.7 NS <0.04 NS 51800 NS 1410 0.75 NS 429 NS <0.11 NS 72900 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-14 1/14/2010 299 <0.01 NS 2.4 NS <0.04 NS 39800 NS 1130 <1.3 NS 311 NS 2.2 NS 51300 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-14 4/20/2010 287 <0.11 NS 2.0 NS <0.08 NS 51300 NS 1400 1.9 NS 401 NS <0.11 NS 66300 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-14 Dup 4/20/2010 NS <0.02 NS 1.8 NS <0.08 NS 51200 NS NS 1.9 NS NS NS <0.11 NS 70200 NS NS <0.025 NS MW-14 10/29/2010 NS NS NS 1.9 2.1 NS NS NS NS 588 2.1 2.2 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 MW-14 4/18/2011 NS NS NS 1.7 NS NS NS NS NS 199 <1.3 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-11: MW-14 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrite as Ortho as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC MW-14 8/21/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.002 NS NS 0.0778 7.39 NS 0.12 NS NS NS 686000 695000 3760 145 2060 <50 <50 MW-14 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS 2.2 NS NS 0.12 7.88 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 358000 NS 1440 66.3 842 <50 NS MW-14 5/7/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS 1.8 NS 0.032 0.11 7.88 NS 0.14 47400 48600 NS 1100000 890000 3600 <500 2000 <6.65 <6.65 MW-14 7/23/2008 <1.2 NS NS 2.7 NS <0.0032 0.099 7.8 NS 0.11 21000 NS NS 265000 NS 160 63 820 9.4 NS MW-14 11/7/2008 2.9 NS NS 2.2 NS 0.016 0.087 7.8 NS 0.076 50500 NS NS 666000 NS 4000 120 2900 <33.3 NS MW-14 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS 2.1 NS 0.017 0.074 7.64 NS 0.065 85500 NS NS 856000 NS 4500 150 2200 <6.65 NS MW-14 Dup 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS 2.1 NS 0.01 0.063 7.64 180 0.064 84900 NS NS 924000 NS 5300 NS 3300 <6.65 NS MW-14 6/26/2009 0.72 NS <0.01 NS 2.2 NS <0.42 7.83 NS 81 35100 NS 1.7 83200 NS 4610 119 376 <4.6 NS MW-14 10/6/2009 1.1 NS <0.01 NS 1.8 NS <0.42 7.85 NS 43 69700 NS 4.1 1040000 NS 742 168 3010 13.5 NS MW-14 Dup 10/6/2009 1.5 NS <0.01 NS 1.8 NS 0.42 7.52 NS 49 64700 NS 4.2 975000 NS 758 160 2940 24 NS MW-14 1/14/2010 0.72 NS <0.01 NS 2.1 NS <0.42 7.8 NS 91 58600 NS 3.2 726000 NS 5920 144 2540 15.4 NS MW-14 4/20/2010 0.47 NS NS NS 1.9 <0.02 <2.1 7.5 NS 78 57400 NS 3.4 924000 NS 6170 160 3130 6.2 NS MW-14 Dup 4/20/2010 0.44 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 56300 NS NS 888000 NS NS NS NS 13.1 NS MW-14 10/29/2010 <2 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS 7.61 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 3320 NS 1980 12.5 12.2 MW-14 4/18/2011 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.49 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1630 NS 834 <24 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-12: SW-01 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-01 4/25/1997 37.3 2.2 <10.5 2.4 <9.5 <0.02 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.5 6.2 1165 <0.1 <1.1 <5.5 NS NS <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 8/13/1997 48 <3.3 <3.3 2.5 <2.4 0.1 0.14 NS NS NS <0.8 <0.8 5657 0.1 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS <0.1 0.14 <0.1 SW-01 11/4/1997 128 <2.9 <2.9 2.655 <2.5 0.4921 0.3142 NS NS NS 13.77 5.764 6350 0.01 <1.7 <1.7 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 1/21/1998 114 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 <3.6 0.13 <0.1 NS NS NS 4.3 <2.3 6100 0.02 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 Dup 1/21/1998 112 <3.5 <3.5 <3.6 6.4 0.13 0.15 NS NS NS 3 6.6 6200 0.01 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 5/5/1998 132 <5.1 <5.1 <3.7 9.8 0.22 0.14 NS NS NS 4.2 <1.2 6850 <0.01 <1.8 <1.8 NS NS 0.07 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 7/21/1998 116 <91.2 150 <4.9 <4.9 <1.2 1.7 NS NS NS 35.8 53.5 6600 0.03 <1.9 <1.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 Dup 7/21/1998 118 <51.8 <63.4 <4.9 <4.9 <0.79 <0.93 NS NS NS <22.0 <25.8 6550 0.03 <1.9 <1.9 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 5/25/1999 112 <2.2 <2.2 1.9 5.1 0.59 0.64 NS NS NS 2.6 1.7 6250 0.01 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS 0.06 0.1 0.17 SW-01 Dup 5/25/1999 112 <2.2 <2.2 < 1.8 6.7 0.54 0.64 NS NS NS < 1.0 3.4 6300 0.03 <0.9 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 12/7/1999 108 <4.9 <4.9 <3.7 <3.7 <0.2 <0.2 NS NS NS <1.9 3.7 6250 0.01 <12 <12 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 Dup 12/7/1999 107 4.9 4.9 3.7 3.7 0.2 0.2 NS NS NS 1.9 1.9 6500 0.01 12 12 NS NS 0.05 0.1 0.1 SW-01 6/13/2000 116 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.3737 0.4308 NS NS NS <2.1 <2.1 5450 0.01 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.09 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 Dup 6/13/2000 116 <4.6 <4.6 <8.7 <8.7 0.399 0.5375 NS NS NS <2.1 9.071 6400 0.01 <2.3 <2.3 NS NS 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 12/12/2000 120 <2.4 <2.4 3.813 3.674 <0.2 0.4103 NS NS NS <1.5 2.882 1840 0.01 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 Dup 12/12/2000 116 <2.4 <2.4 6.393 5.842 0.354413 <0.2 NS NS NS 1.622 <1.5 6100 0.01 <1.6 <1.6 NS NS 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 12/5/2001 136 <2.2 <2.2 <1.5 9.1 <0.2 0.9 NS NS NS 1.7 3.8 8400 <0.01 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS 0.057 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 Dup 12/5/2001 128 <2.2 <2.2 8.613 <1.5 1.613 <0.2 NS NS NS 1.513 5.7 8200 <0.01 <0.6 <0.6 NS NS 0.057 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 4/9/2002 140 <1.8 <1.8 <2.7 <2.7 <0.1 <0.1 NS NS NS 1.9 3.9 8100 0.011 <0.8 <0.8 NS NS 0.053 <0.1 <0.1 SW-01 9/10/2003 118 <10 0.18 <10 <10 <5 <5 NS NS NS 26 26 6250 NS 1.8 2.7 NS NS NS 0.065 <0.2 SW-01 4/14/2005 120 <0.51 <1 4.6 4.3 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 100 47.2 6800 NS <0.21 <0.5 NS NS NS <0.086 <0.1 SW-01 12/12/2005 120 <2.1 <2.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 7700 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-01 10/30/2006 110 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 444000 NS 21000 9.8 NS 9300 NS 2.06 NS 1310000 NS NS 0.029 NS SW-01 8/20/2007 115 30 <50 <50 42 <10 <10 NS 406000 19800 <50 <50 6180 NS <25 <25 NS 1250000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-01 5/5/2008 110 <3.01 <3.01 <1.27 2.9 <0.513 <0.513 420000 400000 21000 <1.2 1.1 6900 NS 2.8 2.1 1350000 1350000 NS 0.039 <0.018 SW-01 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 391000 NS 20000 <0.86 NS 6500 NS 2.7 NS 1120000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-01 6/25/2009 119 0.75 NS 1.5 NS <0.08 NS 402000 NS 19700 5.2 NS 5900 NS <0.22 NS 1190000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-01 1/13/2010 114 1.5 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 403000 NS 19100 2.4 NS 6290 NS <0.82 NS 1280000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-01 Dup 1/13/2010 NS 1.3 NS 1.6 NS <0.04 NS 387000 NS NS 2.4 NS NS NS < 0.11 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-01 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.8 2.6 NS NS NS NS 18100 1.5 1.8 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-01 Dup 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.1 2.3 NS NS NS NS NA 1.5 1.9 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-01 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 1.9 NS NS NS NS NS 16800 <0.26 NS NS NS <0.11 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-12: SW-01 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-01 4/25/1997 1.1 3.6 <0.05 NS NS NS <0.1 8.2 0.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS 57200 2450 34200 17.6 38.4 SW-01 8/13/1997 2.7 3.2 <0.1 NS NS NS <0.1 8.3 <0.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 63800 2860 46500 5.4 28.5 SW-01 11/4/1997 7.47 2.276 0.03 NS NS NS <0.01 7.53 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 55000 2380 35700 22.25 13.9 SW-01 1/21/1998 3.2 <2.1 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 8.15 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56400 2730 34200 15.3 9.2 SW-01 Dup 1/21/1998 < 2.1 4.7 0.03 NS NS NS 0.02 8.14 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 57000 2810 33500 14.4 11.8 SW-01 5/5/1998 <1.3 <1.3 0.05 NS NS NS <0.01 8.17 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 60200 2770 35900 5.3 1.7 SW-01 7/21/1998 22 34.3 0.02 NS NS NS 0.01 8.23 0.03 NS NS NS NS NS NS 67800 2770 36300 11.1 10.7 SW-01 Dup 7/21/1998 <13.2 <15.8 0.02 NS NS NS 0.02 8.21 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 62400 2840 35300 10 11.6 SW-01 5/25/1999 <2.1 <1.4 0.03 NS NS NS 0.02 8.3 <0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 44700 2700 35700 25.3 5.1 SW-01 Dup 5/25/1999 < 1.4 2.6 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 8.34 <0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 38100 2500 35900 24.8 6.4 SW-01 12/7/1999 <2.6 <2.6 0.03 NS NS NS <0.01 8.18 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 68000 2630 34800 22.4 15.8 SW-01 Dup 12/7/1999 2.6 2.6 0.03 NS NS NS 0.01 8.21 0.01 NS NS NS NS NS NS 63600 2730 35900 17.6 13.9 SW-01 6/13/2000 <4.8 <4.8 <0.01 NS NS NS 0.01 8.21 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 65700 2770 35600 <1.5 <1.5 SW-01 Dup 6/13/2000 <4.8 <4.8 0.06 NS NS NS <0.01 8.22 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 64300 2650 34600 <1.5 <1.5 SW-01 12/12/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.02 NS NS NS <0.01 8.29 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 56700 2690 36200 <0.8 <0.8 SW-01 Dup 12/12/2000 <1.3 <1.3 0.01 NS NS NS <0.01 8.31 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS 59700 2660 35700 <0.8 <0.8 SW-01 12/5/2001 <2.1 2.7 0.016 NS NS NS <0.01 8.04 0.023 NS NS NS NS NS NS 59680 2740 35700 26.2 23.8 SW-01 Dup 12/5/2001 <2.1 2.7 0.019 NS NS NS <0.01 8.01 0.026 NS NS NS NS NS NS 57640 2760 36500 26.3 28.2 SW-01 4/9/2002 <2.8 <2.8 0.013 NS NS NS <0.01 8.25 0.015 NS NS NS NS NS NS 55520 2420 46100 2 2.3 SW-01 9/10/2003 2.7 4.6 <2.5 <0.05 NS NS <10 8.2 <50 NS NS NS NS NS NS 51600 2580 39600 44 91 SW-01 4/14/2005 2 2 NS NS 0.06 NS 0.009 8.2 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 39000 NS 39000 <4.7 <7.6 SW-01 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 8.2 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 42000 NS 45000 <33.9 <20.6 SW-01 10/30/2006 <1.2 NS NS 0.027 NS 0.0075 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 535000 NS NS 9570000 NS 46000 3000 28000 <6.65 NS SW-01 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0105 NS NS <0.025 7.98 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 5610000 10200000 50200 2720 36800 <50 <50 SW-01 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0056 0.0097 8.14 NS <0.02 476000 433000 NS 11100000 11500000 40000 2700 34000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-01 11/4/2008 1.2 NS NS 0.018 NS <0.0042 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 404000 NS NS 10600000 NS 51000 1700 36000 <33.3 NS SW-01 6/25/2009 0.71 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.2 NS <24 376000 NS 23.7 9560000 NS 56100 2660 36900 17.6 NS SW-01 1/13/2010 1.6 NS 0.038 NS 0.04 NS <10.5 8.4 NS <24 387000 NS 46.4 10300000 NS 68000 2550 36200 19.5 NS SW-01 Dup 1/13/2010 3.4 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 373000 NS NS 9940000 NS NS NS NS 9.1 NS SW-01 10/27/2010 <1.4 <1.4 NS NS NS NS NS 8.17 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 63200 NS 32000 4.0 6.5 SW-01 Dup 10/27/2010 <0.56 <0.65 NS NS NS NS NS 8.17 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA NS NA 8.9 10 SW-01 4/20/2011 0.51 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.08 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 56800 NS 35600 <7.1 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-13: SW-02 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-02 4/14/2005 120 <0.56 <0.46 4.6 4.6 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 91.2 55.9 6800 NS <0.08 <0.66 NS NS NS <0.09 <0.69 SW-02 Dup 4/14/2005 120 < 0.4 < 0.32 4.6 4.9 <0.08 <0.08 NS NS NS 69.9 48.4 6800 NS < 0.25 < 0.38 NS NS NS < 0.089 < 0.097 SW-02 12/12/2005 120 <3.8 <2.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.47 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 6400 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-02 Dup 12/12/2005 120 < 2.9 < 4.3 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 6200 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-02 8/29/2006 120 <0.24 NS 4.3 NS <0.016 NS 425000 NS 19000 7.2 NS 7000 NS <0.22 NS 1400000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-02 10/30/2006 120 <3.01 NS <2.41 NS <0.513 NS 448000 NS 19000 10 NS 8700 NS <1.78 NS 1310000 NS NS <0.065 NS SW-02 2/13/2007 110 <30 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 407000 NS 21000 <1.3 NS 6600 NS <5 NS 1250000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-02 8/20/2007 116 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 435000 19900 <50 <50 6580 NS <25 <25 NS 1330000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-02 1/10/2008 114 36 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 364000 19100 <50 NS 5500 NS <25 NS NS 1110000 NS <0.2 NS SW-02 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 1.5 1.9 <0.513 <0.513 414000 411000 22000 <0.97 0.85 6800 NS 2.2 2.2 1320000 1350000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-02 7/23/2008 120 <30.1 NS <1.4 NS <0.513 NS 388000 NS 21000 <0.76 NS 6900 NS 1.9 NS 1200000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-02 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS 2.4 NS <2.57 NS 388000 NS 2000 <1.1 NS 6500 NS 2.8 NS 1200000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-02 2/17/2009 100 <15.1 NS 2.4 NS <0.513 NS 426000 NS 9800 0.69 NS 6600 NS <1.78 NS 1390000 NS NS <0.016 NS SW-02 6/25/2009 122 1.1 NS 1.7 NS <0.08 NS 450000 NS 19000 2.1 NS 6770 NS <0.22 NS 1370000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-02 10/6/2009 110 4.5 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 983000 NS 17700 0.94 NS 14500 NS <0.11 NS 2920000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-02 1/13/2010 114 2 NS 1.6 NS <0.04 NS 369000 NS 19300 1.4 NS 5880 NS 0.19 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-02 4/20/2010 121 6.5 NS 2.5 NS <0.08 NS 394000 NS 19600 0.57 NS 5840 NS <0.11 NS 1180000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-02 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.3 2.1 NS NS NS NS 18500 0.96 1.2 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-02 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 1.8 NS NS NS NS NS 16800 <1.3 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-13: SW-02 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-02 4/14/2005 <1.7 2.1 NS NS 0.05 NS 0.005 8.2 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 38000 NS 32000 <3.6 <3 SW-02 Dup 4/14/2005 1.8 2.1 NS NS 0.05 NS 0.006 8.2 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 38000 NS 34000 < 5.6 < 4.5 SW-02 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 8.3 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 45000 NS 34000 <12.3 <28.2 SW-02 Dup 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.006 8.3 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 42000 NS 39000 < 19.6 < 47.2 SW-02 8/29/2006 <0.87 NS NS 0.091 NS <0.005 0.0077 8.4 NS 0.026 406000 NS NS 1180000 NS 43000 2900 41000 5.2 NS SW-02 10/30/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.0056 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 543000 NS NS 9670000 NS 46000 2700 27000 <6.65 NS SW-02 2/13/2007 <1.2 NS NS <0.4 NS <0.005 0.028 8.2 NS <0.02 660000 NS NS 9890000 NS 44000 2600 29000 <6.65 NS SW-02 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0162 NS NS <0.025 7.94 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 3600000 10300000 49200 2750 36200 <50 <50 SW-02 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS <0.05 NS NS <0.025 7.92 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 8920000 NS 48700 2590 33600 <50 NS SW-02 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0022 0.0089 8.08 NS <0.02 514000 496000 NS 12800000 19800000 39000 2700 35000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-02 7/23/2008 1.2 NS NS 0.029 NS <0.0058 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 382000 NS NS 9110000 NS 33000 2600 37000 8.3 NS SW-02 11/4/2008 1.2 NS NS 0.03 NS <0.0014 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 437000 NS NS 10400000 NS 51000 1400 37000 <33.3 NS SW-02 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0012 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 593000 NS NS 10600000 NS 51000 1300 37000 <6.65 NS SW-02 6/25/2009 0.8 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.07 NS <24 442000 NS 23.7 8320000 NS 56200 2560 35600 5.2 NS SW-02 10/6/2009 1.1 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <5.25 8.02 NS <24 935000 NS 44.8 10400000 NS 6600 2240 37300 6.8 NS SW-02 1/13/2010 1.5 NS 0.036 NS 0.041 NS <10.5 8.3 NS <24 356000 NS 52.4 9670000 NS 75700 2550 34500 13.8 NS SW-02 4/20/2010 0.67 NS NS NS 0.035 <0.02 <21 8.2 NS <48 378000 NS 33 10400000 NS 50400 2590 39700 2.8 NS SW-02 10/27/2010 <0.32 <0.32 NS NS NS NS NS 8.09 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64900 NS 30500 5.8 36.7 SW-02 4/20/2011 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.17 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 58400 NS 36900 <24 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-14: SW-03 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-03 12/12/2005 130 <2.1 <3.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.58 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 7900 NS <2.4 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-03 10/30/2006 120 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 447000 NS 19000 10.8 NS 9500 NS <1.78 NS 1310000 NS NS <0.046 NS SW-03 8/20/2007 113 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 408000 20400 <50 <50 6160 NS <25 <25 NS 1250000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-03 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 1.9 10.2 <0.513 <0.513 415000 408000 21000 <1.2 1.2 6200 NS 2.6 3.9 1340000 1370000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-03 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS 1.9 NS <2.57 NS 392000 NS 20000 <1.5 NS 6800 NS 3.5 NS 1170000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-03 Dup 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 391000 NS 21000 < 1.1 NS 6800 NS 3.9 NS 1130000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-03 6/25/2009 122 0.51 NS 1.5 NS <0.08 NS 377000 NS 19600 2 NS 5550 NS <0.22 NS 1120000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-03 1/13/2010 114 1.5 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 400000 NS 19000 3.3 NS 6030 NS 0.28 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-03 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.5 2.1 NS NS NS NS 18500 1.2 1 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-03 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 1.9 NS NS NS NS NS 17100 <1.3 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-14: SW-03 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-03 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 8.3 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 42000 NS 39000 <37.1 <22.6 SW-03 10/30/2006 <1.2 NS NS 0.028 NS 0.0064 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 527000 NS NS 9700000 NS 46000 3900 22000 <6.65 NS SW-03 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0098 NS NS <0.025 8.01 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 10100000 10200000 49200 2780 35600 45 <50 SW-03 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0041 0.0064 8.15 NS <0.02 515000 437000 NS 10700000 12900000 37000 2700 32000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-03 11/4/2008 1.2 NS NS 0.02 NS <0.0041 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 413000 NS NS 11200000 NS 50000 1700 39000 <33.3 NS SW-03 Dup 11/4/2008 1.2 NS NS <0.016 NS < 0.0043 0.02 7.3 NS <0.02 431000 NS NS 10300000 NS 50000 1700 35000 <33.3 NS SW-03 6/25/2009 0.6 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.16 NS <24 360000 NS 23.7 9640000 NS 54200 2630 36600 4.7 NS SW-03 1/13/2010 1.8 NS 0.028 NS 0.039 NS <10.5 8.3 NS 27 367000 NS 46.1 9860000 NS 67600 2550 35700 21.7 NS SW-03 10/27/2010 <0.32 <0.32 NS NS NS NS NS 8.18 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64800 NS 39500 14.2 10.2 SW-03 4/20/2011 0.89 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 55300 NS 36400 <24 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-15: SW-04 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-04 12/12/2005 130 <4.4 <2.1 <5.7 <3.2 <0.3 <0.31 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 7900 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-04 8/30/2006 120 <0.35 NS 5.4 NS <0.096 NS 437000 NS 20000 95.3 NS 7600 NS <0.28 NS 1490000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-04 10/31/2006 120 3.04 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 462000 NS 22000 6.8 NS 9700 NS 3.39 NS 1320000 NS NS <0.019 NS SW-04 2/13/2007 120 <3.01 NS 1.62 NS 1.72 NS 415000 NS 18000 <0.16 NS 6100 NS <1.78 NS 1280000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-04 8/20/2007 115 42 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 433000 19900 <50 <50 6550 NS <25 <25 NS 1330000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-04 1/10/2008 115 26 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 379000 19200 <50 NS 5640 NS <25 NS NS 1140000 NS <0.2 NS SW-04 5/5/2008 110 <3.01 <3.01 2.8 <1.27 <0.513 <0.513 414000 407000 21000 <1.2 0.93 6500 NS 3.5 3.5 1370000 1350000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-04 7/23/2008 120 <30.1 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 397000 NS 21000 <0.73 NS 6900 NS 1.8 NS 1230000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-04 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS 1.9 NS <2.57 NS 431000 NS 21000 <1.3 NS 6400 NS 3.4 NS 1100000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-04 2/17/2009 110 <15.1 NS 2.9 NS <0.513 NS 414000 NS 11000 0.76 NS 6500 NS <1.78 NS 1320000 NS NS <0.016 NS SW-04 6/25/2009 124 1.2 NS 1.7 NS <0.08 NS 430000 NS 19400 1.3 NS 6590 NS <0.22 NS 1340000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-04 10/6/2009 102 3.1 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 394000 NS 15700 1.5 NS 5750 NS <0.11 NS 1160000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-04 1/13/2010 114 1.6 NS 1.6 NS <0.04 NS 410000 NS 19000 2.2 NS 6190 NS 0.34 NS 1250000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-04 4/20/2010 120 6.5 NS 2.5 NS 0.15 NS 414000 NS 20000 0.67 NS 6220 NS <0.11 NS 1260000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-04 Dup 4/20/2010 NS 5.8 NS 1.9 NS <0.08 NS 385000 NS NS 0.82 NS NS NS <0.11 NS 1170000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-04 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.3 2.2 NS NS NS NS 18600 0.69 1 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-04 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 2.2 NS NS NS NS NS 16800 <0.52 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-15: SW-04 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-04 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.006 8.2 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 44000 NS 45000 <49.7 <29.5 SW-04 8/30/2006 2.6 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 0.01 8.1 NS 0.023 425000 NS NS 12400000 NS 42000 3000 40000 3.9 NS SW-04 10/31/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 530000 NS NS 9710000 NS 42000 2600 26000 <6.65 NS SW-04 2/13/2007 1.49 NS NS <0.4 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 669000 NS NS 5410000 NS 43000 3100 29000 <6.65 NS SW-04 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0113 NS NS <0.025 8.06 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 10100000 10300000 49000 2750 37000 <50 <50 SW-04 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS 0.014 NS NS <0.025 7.97 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 9190000 NS 47400 2610 31000 <50 NS SW-04 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0023 0.35 7.97 NS <0.02 469000 551000 NS 11600000 12400000 41000 2700 33000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-04 7/23/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.028 NS <0.0054 <0.02 8.06 NS <0.02 397000 NS NS 9420000 NS 31000 2600 36000 8.2 NS SW-04 11/4/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.061 NS <0.0034 0.02 7.3 NS <0.02 413000 NS NS 9730000 NS 51000 1100 37000 <33.3 NS SW-04 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0012 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 589000 NS NS 10100000 NS 52000 1200 35000 <6.65 NS SW-04 6/25/2009 1 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.14 NS <24 428000 NS 23.8 8590000 NS 54300 2620 36400 <4.6 NS SW-04 10/6/2009 1.2 NS <0.01 NS 0.072 NS <5.25 8.1 NS <24 374000 NS 41.3 10500000 NS 6140 2020 34200 11.8 NS SW-04 1/13/2010 4.10 NS 0.036 NS 0.037 NS <10.5 8.2 NS <24 379000 NS 48.2 10100000 NS 70400 2540 34800 25.5 NS SW-04 4/20/2010 0.53 NS NS NS <0.06 <0.02 <21 8.1 NS <48 369000 NS 33.2 10400000 NS 50600 2710 55000 4 NS SW-04 Dup 4/20/2010 0.44 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 372000 NS NS 10100000 NS NS NS NS 4.7 NS SW-04 10/27/2010 <1.1 <1.3 NS NS NS NS NS 8.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 62700 NS 34400 7.5 4.1 SW-04 4/20/2011 0.58 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 34100 NS 35700 <5.5 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-16: SW-05 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-05 12/12/2005 130 <4.8 <2.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 5.2 7800 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-05 10/31/2006 110 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 427000 NS 19000 9 NS 13000 NS <1.78 NS 1230000 NS NS <0.036 NS SW-05 Dup 10/31/2006 110 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 417000 NS 19000 9.8 NS 7700 NS <1.78 NS 1200000 NS NS < 0.018 NS SW-05 8/20/2007 116 26 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 419000 20400 <50 <50 6570 NS <25 <25 NS 1280000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-05 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 2.7 <1.27 <0.513 <0.513 416000 417000 20000 <0.71 0.8 6800 NS 3.9 2.3 1340000 1400000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-05 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS 1.4 NS <2.57 NS 421000 NS 21000 <1.3 NS 6500 NS 6.1 NS 1200000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-05 6/25/2009 126 0.96 NS 1.5 NS <0.08 NS 361000 NS 19100 1 NS 5350 NS <0.22 NS 1080000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-05 1/13/2010 117 1.7 NS 1.6 NS <0.04 NS 395000 NS 18900 2.40 NS 6130 NS 3.10 NS 1250000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-05 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.0 2.4 NS NS NS NS 17600 1.3 1.2 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-05 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 2.2 NS NS NS NS NS 16100 <0.52 NS NS NS <0.42 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-16: SW-05 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-05 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.008 7.7 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 39000 NS 32000 <20.5 <44.4 SW-05 10/31/2006 <1.2 NS NS 0.041 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 505000 NS NS 8980000 NS 41000 2400 26000 <6.65 NS SW-05 Dup 10/31/2006 <1.2 NS NS < 0.05 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 499000 NS NS 8790000 NS 40000 2500 25000 <6.65 NS SW-05 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0095 NS NS <0.025 8.03 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 8540000 10200000 49100 2740 35200 <50 <50 SW-05 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0023 0.028 7.9 NS <0.02 511000 464000 NS 11300000 12500000 40000 2700 31000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-05 11/4/2008 <1.2 NS NS 0.02 NS <0.0022 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 407000 NS NS 9970000 NS 49000 1700 33000 <33.3 NS SW-05 6/25/2009 0.62 NS <0.01 NS 0.082 NS <10.5 8.14 NS <24 344000 NS 23.3 9160000 NS 54200 2590 35800 <4.6 NS SW-05 1/13/2010 1.8 NS 0.051 NS 0.04 NS <10.5 8.2 NS <24 377000 NS 46.8 9860000 NS 68500 2520 35100 19.20 NS SW-05 10/27/2010 <1.5 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS 8.05 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 14400 NS 33300 17.50 4.4 SW-05 4/20/2011 1.2 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.04 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 47100 NS 33400 14 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-17: SW-06 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-06 12/12/2005 130 <2.1 <2.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.63 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 9600 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-06 8/30/2006 <8 <0.36 NS 4.6 NS <0.036 NS 448000 NS 19000 40 NS 7000 NS <0.25 NS 1500000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-06 10/30/2006 110 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 417000 NS 17000 12.6 NS 12000 NS <1.78 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-06 2/13/2007 120 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 388000 NS 21000 2.1 NS 6100 NS <1.78 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-06 Dup 2/13/2007 120 <30 NS <1.27 NS 0.74 NS 408000 NS 18000 <1.1 NS 6400 NS <1.78 NS 1270000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-06 8/20/2007 115 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 450000 19800 <50 <50 6760 NS <25 <25 NS 1370000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-06 1/10/2008 115 27 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 370000 19100 <50 NS 5640 NS <25 NS NS 1140000 NS <0.2 NS SW-06 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 2.1 2.7 <0.513 <0.513 413000 428000 21000 <0.95 0.96 6700 NS 2.7 3.1 1290000 1420000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-06 7/23/2008 120 <30.1 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 394000 NS 21000 <0.53 NS 7000 NS <1.78 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-06 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS <1.27 NS <2.57 NS 424000 NS 20000 <0.79 NS 6800 NS 6.8 NS 1040000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-06 2/17/2009 100 <15.1 NS 2.6 NS <0.513 NS 431000 NS 10000 0.72 NS 6600 NS <1.78 NS 1360000 NS NS <0.016 NS SW-06 6/25/2009 122 1.4 NS 1.7 NS <0.08 NS 456000 NS 19600 2 NS 6990 NS <0.22 NS 1420000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-06 10/6/2009 103 2.7 NS 1.4 NS <0.04 NS 399000 NS 15900 1.3 NS 5880 NS <0.11 NS 1190000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-06 1/13/2010 120 1.4 NS 1.8 NS <0.04 NS 374000 NS 19100 <1.6 NS 5980 NS 0.25 NS 1230000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-06 4/20/2010 143 6.6 NS 2.0 NS <0.08 NS 388000 NS 20200 0.52 NS 5750 NS 0.12 NS 1160000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-06 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.3 2.4 NS NS NS NS 18700 0.63 1.5 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-06 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 1.9 NS NS NS NS NS 16800 0.49 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-17: SW-06 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-06 12/12/2005 <1.2 2.9 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.01 8 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 39000 NS 30000 <19.4 <33.6 SW-06 8/30/2006 2.4 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.0055 0.0096 8 NS <0.02 423000 NS NS 5000000 NS 43000 2900 41000 4.1 NS SW-06 10/30/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 511000 NS NS 8970000 NS 39000 2600 25000 <6.65 NS SW-06 2/13/2007 <1.2 NS NS <0.4 NS 0.005 0.028 8 NS 0.024 642000 NS NS 10300000 NS 42000 2700 27000 <6.65 NS SW-06 Dup 2/13/2007 <1.2 NS NS <0.4 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.1 NS 0.023 668,000 NS NS 9,270,000 NS 43000 2900 29000 <6.65 NS SW-06 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0105 NS NS <0.025 8.07 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 4250000 10400000 48800 2740 36800 <50 <50 SW-06 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS <0.05 NS NS <0.025 8.06 NS 0.1 NS NS NS 9190000 NS 48200 2590 22000 <50 NS SW-06 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0022 <0.005 8.05 NS <0.02 453000 439000 NS 11000000 11700000 38000 2700 32000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-06 7/23/2008 1.6 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0047 <0.02 8.26 NS <0.02 395000 NS NS 9060000 NS 28000 2600 37000 11.1 NS SW-06 11/4/2008 <1.2 NS NS <0.016 NS <0.0029 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 422000 NS NS 9970000 NS 49000 1700 34000 <33.3 NS SW-06 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0012 0.19 8.07 NS <0.02 624000 NS NS 11300000 NS 52000 1600 36000 <6.65 NS SW-06 6/25/2009 0.53 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.11 NS <24 449000 NS 23.8 8410000 NS 53800 2640 36000 <4.6 NS SW-06 10/6/2009 10.6 NS <0.01 NS 0.065 NS <5.25 8.12 NS <24 382000 NS 41.3 10400000 NS 6370 2050 33700 31.7 NS SW-06 1/13/2010 3.2 NS 0.035 NS 0.043 NS <10.5 8.3 NS <24 360000 NS 45.7 9780000 NS 67200 2530 34600 13.7 NS SW-06 4/20/2010 0.5 NS NS NS <0.06 <0.02 <21 8.2 NS <48 372000 NS 33 10400000 NS 50300 2750 34700 3.3 NS SW-06 10/27/2010 <0.32 <0.32 NS NS NS NS NS 8.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64800 NS 32500 13.3 16.2 SW-06 4/20/2011 0.79 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.13 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 45400 NS 35400 18.4 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-18: SW-07 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-07 12/12/2005 130 <2.1 <2.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 6200 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-07 10/30/2006 120 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 477000 NS 20000 9.3 NS 9500 NS <1.78 NS 1380000 NS NS <0.044 NS SW-07 8/20/2007 116 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 437000 19900 <50 <50 6560 NS <25 <25 NS 1330000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-07 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 1.5 <1.27 <0.513 <0.513 403000 419000 20000 1.5 0.93 7000 NS 3.3 2.6 1350000 1350000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-07 Dup 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 2.4 <1.6 <0.513 <0.513 417000 415000 19000 2.6 0.92 7000 NS 2.9 4 1340000 1330000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-07 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS 1.7 NS <2.57 NS 409000 NS 19000 <0.87 NS 6900 NS 5.1 NS 1050000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-07 6/25/2009 124 1.2 NS 1.5 NS <0.08 NS 414000 NS 19800 2.8 NS 6100 NS <0.22 NS 1230000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-07 1/13/2010 116 1.5 NS 1.6 NS <0.04 NS 371000 NS 18900 2.4 NS 5650 NS 0.27 NS 1150000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-07 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.2 2.6 NS NS NS NS 18500 1.9 0.97 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-07 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 1.6 NS NS NS NS NS 16900 <1.3 NS NS NS <0.55 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS SW-07 Dup 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 2 NS NS NS NS NS NA <0.52 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-18: SW-07 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-07 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 8.2 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 44000 NS 41000 <31.6 <18.4 SW-07 10/30/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.0088 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 540000 NS NS 10300000 NS 45000 2800 26000 <6.65 NS SW-07 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0115 NS NS <0.025 8.12 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 4300000 10400000 49000 2780 34200 <50 <50 SW-07 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0023 0.0065 7.83 NS <0.02 434000 463000 NS 10700000 18400000 38000 2700 32000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-07 Dup 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0021 0.007 8.1 NS <0.02 478000 509000 NS 11100000 12700000 37000 2700 35000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-07 11/4/2008 <1.2 NS NS <0.016 NS <0.0038 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 427000 NS NS 10500000 NS 50000 1500 35000 <33.3 NS SW-07 6/25/2009 0.8 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.18 NS <24 388000 NS 23.7 9350000 NS 53500 2680 36600 19.1 NS SW-07 1/13/2010 1.4 NS 0.036 NS 0.039 NS <10.5 8.4 NS 60 344000 NS 41.7 9250000 NS 61900 2560 36000 15.1 NS SW-07 10/27/2010 <0.32 <0.32 NS NS NS NS NS 8.11 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 19600 NS 33100 29.5 15.3 SW-07 4/20/2011 <1.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.93 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 58800 NS 92600 <24 NS SW-07 Dup 4/20/2011 0.51 NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.93 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NA NS NA <6.6 NS µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-19: SW-08 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (d) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-08 12/12/2005 130 <2.5 <2.1 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 6300 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-08 8/29/2006 120 <0.22 NS 3.2 NS <0.016 NS 448000 NS 20000 3.6 NS 7400 NS <0.2 NS 1460000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-08 Dup 8/29/2006 110 <0.22 NS 2.9 NS <0.016 NS 422000 NS 20000 6.7 NS 6600 NS < 0.22 NS 1410000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-08 10/30/2006 120 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 450000 NS 19000 8.5 NS 7400 NS <1.78 NS 1280000 NS NS <0.047 NS SW-08 2/13/2007 120 <30 NS 2.49 NS <0.513 NS 316000 NS 22000 <1 NS 6400 NS <5 NS 978000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-08 8/20/2007 117 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 440000 19900 <50 <50 6600 NS <25 <25 NS 1340000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-08 1/10/2008 115 57 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 376000 19200 <50 NS 5600 NS <25 NS NS 1130000 NS <0.2 NS SW-08 Dup 1/10/2008 116 56 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 370000 19100 27 NS 5550 NS <25 NS NS 1120000 NS <0.2 NS SW-08 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 2.3 1.9 <0.513 <0.513 409000 411000 21000 <1 1.2 6700 NS 2.8 3.3 1360000 1380000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-08 7/23/2008 120 <30.1 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 377000 NS 21000 0.57 NS 6800 NS <1.78 NS 1180000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-08 Dup 7/23/2008 120 <30.1 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 391000 NS 21000 <0.79 NS 7000 NS <1.78 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-08 11/4/2008 130 <15.1 NS 1.9 NS <2.57 NS 436000 NS 19000 <1.5 NS 6800 NS 4.5 NS 1150000 NS NS <0.027 NS SW-08 2/17/2009 110 19 NS 2.5 NS <0.513 NS 456000 NS 9500 0.93 NS 6300 NS <1.78 NS 1260000 NS NS <0.016 NS SW-08 6/25/2009 123 0.93 NS 1.7 NS <0.08 NS 425000 NS 19800 <1.4 NS 6410 NS <0.22 NS 1300000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-08 10/6/2009 110 2 NS 1.4 NS <0.04 NS 419000 NS 17600 6.60 NS 6040 NS <0.11 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-08 1/13/2010 120 2.1 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 390000 NS 17700 1.7 NS 6000 NS <0.11 NS 1220000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-08 4/20/2010 119 7.0 NS 1.9 NS 0.089 NS 390000 NS 19100 1.2 NS 5790 NS <0.11 NS 1170000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-08 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2 2.2 NS NS NS NS 18600 1.2 1.7 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-08 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 2 NS NS NS NS NS 16700 <0.52 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-19: SW-08 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-08 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 8.3 NS 0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 60000 NS 32000 <15.7 <62.8 SW-08 8/29/2006 <0.77 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 0.0088 8.3 NS <0.02 420000 NS NS 12200000 NS 44000 2800 41000 3.9 NS SW-08 Dup 8/29/2006 < 0.83 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 0.011 8.3 NS <0.02 406000 NS NS 11600000 NS 43000 2900 40000 4.5 NS SW-08 10/30/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.005 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 519000 NS NS 9380000 NS 46000 3200 26000 <6.65 NS SW-08 2/13/2007 <1.2 NS NS <0.4 NS <0.005 <0.025 8.2 NS 0.31 681000 NS NS 10000000 NS 43000 3200 29000 8.17 NS SW-08 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0113 NS NS <0.025 8.09 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 2880000 9900000 48900 2790 32900 <50 <50 SW-08 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS <0.05 NS NS <0.025 7.8 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 9310000 NS 47200 2590 36200 <50 NS SW-08 Dup 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS <0.05 NS NS <0.025 7.78 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 9180000 NS 46900 2610 35000 <50 NS SW-08 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0024 0.05 7.93 NS <0.02 519000 474000 NS 11600000 11200000 37000 2700 34000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-08 7/23/2008 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0034 <0.02 8.07 NS <0.02 375000 NS NS 9100000 NS 28000 2600 36000 8.4 NS SW-08 Dup 7/23/2008 1.4 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0038 <0.02 8.07 NS <0.02 392000 NS NS 9450000 NS 32000 2800 37000 9.6 NS SW-08 11/4/2008 1.8 NS NS 0.036 NS <0.0043 0.02 7.4 NS <0.02 435000 NS NS 10500000 NS 50000 1500 32000 <33.3 NS SW-08 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0012 <0.02 8.12 NS <0.02 664000 NS NS 10900000 NS 51000 1400 36000 <6.65 NS SW-08 6/25/2009 0.51 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.14 NS <24 420000 NS 23.8 8760000 NS 54000 2670 72400 <4.6 NS SW-08 10/6/2009 0.94 NS <0.01 NS 0.039 NS <5.25 8.09 NS <24 394000 NS 46.1 10300000 NS 6770 2200 38300 32.10 NS SW-08 1/13/2010 0.95 NS 0.036 NS 0.054 NS <10.5 8.2 NS <24 361000 NS 45.1 9780000 NS 66400 2470 34500 13.9 NS SW-08 4/20/2010 1.2 NS NS NS 0.11 <0.02 <21 8.2 NS <48 373000 NS 33.1 10500000 NS 50500 2850 36300 3.7 NS SW-08 10/27/2010 <1.4 <1.5 NS NS NS NS NS 8.09 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64700 NS 33500 13.3 40.1 SW-08 4/20/2011 1.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.02 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 58000 NS 35900 14.3 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2 Table A.1-20: SW-09 Complete Analytical Results for Metals

hydro MBAS Alkalinity Antimony (d) Antimony (t) Arsenic (d) Arsenic (t) Beryllium (d) Beryllium (t) Calcium (d) Calcium (t) Chloride Copper (d) Copper (t) Hardness Phosphate Lead (d) Lead (t) Magnesium (d) Magnesium (t) (surfactants) Mercury (d) Mercury (t) Loc Name Date Samp (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/l (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria NC 3000 NC 36 NC 43 NC NC NC NC 2.9 NC NC NC 5.6 NC NC NC NC 0.025 NC SW-09 12/12/2005 120 <3.1 <5 <3.2 <3.2 <0.3 <0.3 NS NS NS <2.5 <2.5 6300 NS <1.8 <1.8 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-09 8/29/2006 120 <0.22 NS 1.9 NS <0.016 NS 496000 NS 18000 2 NS 7700 NS <0.2 NS 1430000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-09 10/31/2006 120 <3.01 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 412000 NS 18000 13.8 NS 13000 NS <1.78 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-09 2/13/2007 120 <30 NS 1.79 NS <0.513 NS 394000 NS 22000 2 NS 6500 NS <1.78 NS 1230000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-09 8/20/2007 115 <50 <50 <50 <50 <10 <10 NS 425000 20000 <50 <50 6390 NS <25 <25 NS 1290000 NS <0.2 <0.2 SW-09 1/10/2008 114 <29 NS <50 NS <10 NS NS 349000 18800 <50 NS 5340 NS <25 NS NS 1090000 NS <0.2 NS SW-09 5/5/2008 100 <3.01 <3.01 2 2 <0.513 <0.513 414000 421000 21000 <0.74 0.92 6800 NS 3 5.6 1340000 1440000 NS <0.018 <0.018 SW-09 7/23/2008 120 <30.1 NS <1.27 NS <0.513 NS 388000 NS 21000 <0.61 NS 6800 NS 1.8 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.018 NS SW-09 11/4/2008 140 <15.1 NS 1.4 NS <2.57 NS 456000 NS 19000 <1.3 NS 6700 NS 2.5 NS 1080000 NS NS 0.044 NS SW-09 2/17/2009 100 <15.1 NS 2.9 NS <0.513 NS 427000 NS 11000 0.8 NS 6400 NS <1.78 NS 1300000 NS NS <0.016 NS SW-09 6/25/2009 121 1.4 NS 1.7 NS <0.08 NS 418000 NS 19300 1.4 NS 6440 NS <0.22 NS 1310000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-09 10/6/2009 98.7 1.7 NS 1.4 NS <0.04 NS 391000 NS 14900 0.92 NS 5700 NS <0.11 NS 1150000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-09 Dup 10/6/2009 97.3 3.3 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 390000 NS 14900 1.00 NS 5650 NS <0.11 NS 1140000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-09 1/13/2010 118 1.7 NS 1.5 NS <0.04 NS 385000 NS 18900 2.2 NS 5920 NS <0.11 NS 1210000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-09 4/20/2010 119 6.1 NS 1.8 NS 0.065 NS 428000 NS 19100 0.6 NS 6380 NS <0.11 NS 1290000 NS NS <0.025 NS SW-09 10/27/2010 NS NS NS 2.5 2.3 NS NS NS NS 18600 1.7 1.1 NS NS <0.11 <0.22 NS NS NS <0.025 <0.025 SW-09 4/20/2011 NS NS NS 1.9 NS NS NS NS NS 16600 <0.52 NS NS NS <0.22 NS NS NS NS <0.025 NS

Page 1 of 2 Table A.1-20: SW-09 Complete Analytical Results for Metals (cont'd)

Nitrate Nitrate-Nitrite Ortho Phosphate as Specific Nickel (d) Nickel (t) (Nitrogen) Nitrate / as Nitrogen Nitrite as N Phosphate Phosphorus Phosphorus Potassium (d) Potassium (t) Salinity Sodium (d) Sodium (t) Conductance Sulfate TDS Zinc (d) Zinc (t) Loc Name Date Samp (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) Nitrite (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) pH (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µmhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Screening Criteria 8.3 NC NC 0.04 0.04 NC NC 6.8-8.8 NC 130 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 86 NC SW-09 12/12/2005 <1.2 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS 0.009 8.1 NS <0.02 NS NS NS NS NS 40000 NS 41000 <12.6 <7.9 SW-09 8/29/2006 <0.9 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 0.0081 8.1 NS <0.02 404000 NS NS 12000000 NS 44000 3000 40000 4.3 NS SW-09 10/31/2006 <1.2 NS NS <0.05 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.3 NS 0.021 507000 NS NS 8790000 NS 40000 2600 25000 <6.65 NS SW-09 2/13/2007 <1.2 NS NS <0.4 NS <0.005 <0.02 8.2 NS <0.02 634000 NS NS 10300000 NS 43000 2500 28000 <6.65 NS SW-09 8/20/2007 <25 <25 NS 0.0129 NS NS <0.025 8.1 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 9000 10300000 48900 2790 36000 <50 <50 SW-09 1/10/2008 <25 NS NS <0.05 NS NS <0.025 7.78 NS <0.05 NS NS NS 9220000 NS 47100 2570 28000 <50 NS SW-09 5/5/2008 <1.2 <1.2 NS <0.04 NS <0.0023 0.03 8.18 NS <0.02 482000 444000 NS 11400000 11600000 36000 2700 31000 <6.65 <6.65 SW-09 7/23/2008 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0025 <0.02 8.12 NS <0.02 391000 NS NS 8820000 NS 29000 2600 36000 17.7 NS SW-09 11/4/2008 <1.2 NS NS <0.016 NS <0.0066 0.02 7.5 NS <0.02 404000 NS NS 10200000 NS 50000 1600 35000 <33.3 NS SW-09 2/17/2009 <1.2 NS NS <0.04 NS <0.0012 <0.02 8.1 NS <0.02 637000 NS NS 11300000 NS 53000 1400 35000 <6.65 NS SW-09 6/25/2009 0.8 NS <0.01 NS <0.028 NS <10.5 8.14 NS <24 420000 NS 23.8 7860000 NS 52000 2610 35800 <4.6 NS SW-09 10/6/2009 0.73 NS <0.01 NS 0.077 NS <5.25 8.1 NS <24 369000 NS 41.3 10400000 NS 6140 1930 33400 14.7 NS SW-09 Dup 10/6/2009 1.10 NS <0.01 NS 0.079 NS <5.25 8.1 NS 24 371000 NS 39.9 9920000 NS 5960 1920 33700 29.8 NS SW-09 1/13/2010 0.9 NS 0.038 NS 0.042 NS <10.5 8.3 NS <24 358000 NS 42.8 9660000 NS 63400 2520 35400 15.6 NS SW-09 4/20/2010 0.6 NS NS NS 0.064 <0.02 <21 8.4 NS <48 413000 NS 33 10200000 NS 50300 2630 36600 3.8 NS SW-09 10/27/2010 <2.4 <1.9 NS NS NS NS NS 8.12 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 64500 NS 34400 21.2 12.1 SW-09 4/20/2011 0.81 NS NS NS NS NS NS 8.15 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 57500 NS 35500 14.6 NS

< result was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit µg/L = microgram per liter µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter mg/L = milligram per liter NC = no criterion NS = not sampled or not analyzed TDS = total dissolved solids (d) = dissolved result Dup = duplicate sample (t) = total result Bold = exceeds project screening criteria

Page 2 of 2

Attachment C Human Health Risk Assessment Tables

TABLE 0 FORD ISLAND LANDFILL - IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION

Ford Island Landfill Site, Ford Island, Pearl Harbor Naval Complex (PHNC), at Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Site Name/OU: Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii Region: EPA Region 9 EPA ID Number: HI4170090076 State: Hawaii Status: Completing Record of Decision Federal Facility (Y/N): Yes EPA Project Manager: Chris Lichens EPA Risk Assessor: Dan Stralka Prepared by (Organization): AECOM Prepared for (Organization): Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii (NAVFAC Hawaii) Appendix F Health Risk Assessment from Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Ford Island Landfill Document Title: Removal Action, U.S. Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Document Date: June 1995 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Y/N): No Comments: RAGS Part D Table 2.1 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background 1995 EPA 2011 EPA 2011 EPA 1995 ROD Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Industrial PRG Residential RSL Industrial RSL Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

f a Concentration Limits Screening (Oahu 95th%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion Ford Island Landfill Volatile Organics Surface Soil 67-64-1 Acetone 0.021J 0.840J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 5/8 0.84 N/A 8400 61000 630000 8400 n N/A N/A N BSL 78-93-3 2-Butanone 0.010J 0.013J mg/kg SB4-S1-D0.5 2/8 0.0012-0.014 0.013 N/A 34000 28000 200000 34000 n N/A N/A N BSL 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.002J 0.003J mg/kg SB4-S1-D0.5 2/8 0.0012-0.014 0.003 N/A 55000 5300 53000 55000 ns N/A N/A N BSL 108-88-3 Toluene 0.005J 0.068J mg/kg MW1-S1-D0.5 6/8 0.068 N/A 2700 5000 45000 2700 ns N/A N/A N BSL Semivolatile Organics 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.250J 0.560J mg/kg MW1-S1-D0.5 2/8 0.410-0.460 0.56 N/A 2.6 0.15 2.1 2.6 c N/A N/A N BSL 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.560J 0.560J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.410-0.460 0.56 N/A 2.6 0.15 2.1 2.6 c N/A N/A N BSL 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.32J 0.32J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.410-0.460 0.32 N/A 0.26 0.015 0.21 0.26 c N/A N/A N BSL 117-81-7 Bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.65J 0.65J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.410-0.460 0.65 N/A 140 35 120 140 c* N/A N/A N BSL 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 0.12J 0.12J mg/kg SB5-D1-D0.5 1/8 0.410-0.460 0.12 N/A 100000 260 910 100000 c* N/A N/A N BSL 218-01-9 Chrysene 0.40J 0.57J mg/kg MW1-S1-D0.5 2/8 0.410-0.460 0.57 N/A 24 15 210 24 c N/A N/A N BSL 53-70-3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.21J 0.21J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.410-0.460 0.21 N/A 0.26 0.015 0.21 0.26 c N/A N/A N BSL 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.14J 0.32J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 3/8 0.410-0.460 0.32 N/A 27000 2300 22000 27000 n N/A N/A N BSL 129-00-0 Pyrene 0.13J 0.44J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 3/8 0.410-0.460 0.44 N/A 20000 1700 17000 20000 n N/A N/A N BSL Pesticides 6923-22-4 Monocroptophos 0.390J 0.390J mg/kg SB4-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.250-0.280 0.39 N/A n/a N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A N BSL 5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane 0.011J 0.011J mg/kg SB4-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.1-0.110 0.011 N/A 1.5 1.6 6.5 1.5 c* N/A N/A N BSL 5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 0.0097J 0.0097J mg/kg SB4-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.1-0.110 0.0097 N/A 1.5 1.6 6.5 1.5 c* N/A N/A N BSL 94-75-7 2,4-D 0.032J 0.032J mg/kg SB1-S1-D0.5 1/8 0.0012-0.014 0.032 N/A 6800 690 7700 6800 n N/A N/A N BSL 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 0.0039J 1.1 mg/kg SB7-S1-D0.5 6/8 0.020-0.022 1.1 N/A 5.6 1.4 5.1 5.6 c N/A N/A N BSL 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.0087J 0.320J mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 6/8 0.020-0.022 0.32 N/A 5.6 1.7 7 5.6 c* N/A N/A N BSL Metals 7440-36-0 Antimony 3.5 6.2 mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 4/8 3.2-3.5 6.2 7 680 31 410 680 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-38-2 Arsenic 1.1J 56.8 mg/kg SB7-S1-D0.5 8/8 56.8 16 2 0.39 1.6 2 c* N/A N/A Y ASL 7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.74 2.3 mg/kg SB7-S1-D0.5 6/8 0.38J-0.63J 2.3 3 1.1 160 2000 1.1 n N/A N/A Y ASL 7440-43-9 Cadmiumb 0.42 0.86 mg/kg SB2-S1-D0.5 4/8 0.5 0.86 2 850 70 800 850 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-47-3 Chromiumc,d 28.7 171J mg/kg SB7-S1-D0.5 8/8 171 250 1600 120000 1500000 1600 c N/A N/A N BSL 7440-50-8 Copper 56.7 85.3 mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 7/8 0.84-14.2 85.3 110 63000 3100 41000 63000 n N/A N/A N BSL 7439-92-1 Leade 3.6 155 mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 7/8 1.2-1.8 155 29__96 1000 400 800 1000 n N/A N/A N BSL 7439-97-6 Mercury 0.03 0.68 mg/kg SB7-S1-D0.5 7/8 0.02-0.03 0.68 0 510 10 43 510 ns N/A N/A N BSL 7440-02-0 Nickel 24.3 133 mg/kg SB2-S1-D0.5 8/8 133 205 34000 1500 20000 34000 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-22-4 Silver 1.6 11.4 mg/kg MW1-S1-D0.5 5/8 0.94 11.4 1 8500 390 5100 8500 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-28-0 Thallium 0.34J 1.1J mg/kg MW4-S1-D0.5 5/8 1.1 3 120 0.78 10 120 n N/A N/A NBSL 7440-66-6 Zinc 97.6J 302 mg/kg SB5-S1-D0.5 7/8 20.9-40.5 302 166 100000 23000 310000 100000 n N/A N/A N BSL Petroleum Hydrocarbons T505500000 TPHs 77.8 8730 mg/kg MW3-S1-D0.5 5/8 8730 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y DET

Definitions: c = carcinogen J=estimated value ASL = above screening level c* = carcinogenic SL where noncarcinogenic SL < 100times c SL = screening level BSL = below screening level n = noncarcinogen mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram ns = noncarcinogenic SL where concentration may exceed saturated concentration. N/A = not applicable

a Due to the limited number of samples, the 95% Upper Confidence Limit was above the maximum concentration detected. As a result, the maximum concentrations were selected for the RME calculations b diet c total d Screening level values listed for Chromium(III), Insoluble Salts e Background values listed for lead are natural background sources only and combined natural/anthropogenic background sources, respectively. f - obtained from Table F-1 from background concentration range detection limit RAGS Part D Table 2.2 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil leaching to Groundwater flow to surface water

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background 1995 EPA 2011 EPA 2011 EPA 1995 ROD Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Industrial PRG Residential RSL Industrial RSL Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

f a Concentration Limits Screening (Oahu 95th%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion Ford Island Landfill Volatile Organics Subsurface Soil 67-64-1 Acetone 0.007J 0.870J mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 12/21 0.013-0.160 0.87 N/A 8400 61000 630000 8400 n N/A N/A N BSL 78-93-3 2-Butanone 0.001J 0.043J mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 7/21 0.012-0.014 0.043 N/A 34000 28000 200000 34000 n N/A N/A N BSL SB1-S3-D10, 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 0.002J 0.002J mg/kg SB4-S3-D10 2/21 0.006-0.007 0.002 N/A 52 820 3,700 52 ns N/A N/A N BSL 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.001J 0.006J mg/kg SB5-S2-D5 2/21 0.006-0.007 0.006 N/A 25 0.55 2.6 25 c N/A N/A N BSL 108-88-3 Toluene 0.001J 0.075J SB6-S3-D10 13/21 0.075 N/A 2700 5000 45000 2700 ns N/A N/A N BSL 79-01-6 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.052J 0.052J mg/kg SB5-S2-D5 1/21 0.006-0.007 0.052 N/A 17 2.8 14 17 c** N/A N/A N BSL Semivolatile Organics 85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 0.490J 0.490J mg/kg SB6-S2-D6 1/21 0.38-0.46 0.49 N/A 100000 260 910 100000 c* N/A N/A N BSL 132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 0.380J 0.380J mg/kg MW2-S1-D5 1/21 0.38-0.46 0.38 N/A 2700 78 1000 2700 n N/A N/A N BSL 84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 0.140J 0.320J mg/kg SB5-S2-D5 3/21 0.38-0.46 0.32 N/A 68000 6100 62000 68000 n N/A N/A N BSL 206-44-0 Fluoranthene 0.52J 0.760J mg/kg MW2-S1-D5 3/21 0.38-0.46 0.76 N/A 27000 2300 22000 27000 n N/A N/A N BSL 86-73-7 Fluorene 0.130J 0.130J mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 1/21 0.38-0.46 0.13 N/A 300 2300 22000 300 n N/A N/A N BSL 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.170J 0.200J mg/kg MW2-S1-D5 2/21 0.38-0.46 0.2 N/A n/a 310 4100 n/a n N/A N/A N BSL 91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.340J 0.400J mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 2/21 0.38-0.46 0.4 N/A 800 3.6 18 800 c* N/A N/A N BSL 85-01-8 Phenanthrene 0.610J 1.6J mg/kg MW2-S1-D5 2/21 0.38-0.46 1.6 N/A n/a N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A N BSL 129-00-0 Pyrene 0.04J 0.810J mg/kg MW2-S1-D5 4/21 0.38-0.46 0.81 N/A 20000 1700 17000 20000 n N/A N/A N BSL Pesticides/PCBs 6923-22-4 Monocroptophos 0.390J 0.57J mg/kg SB1-S3-D10 3/21 0.23-0.27 0.57 N/A n/a N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A N BSL 75-99-0 Dalapon 0.026J 0.63J mg/kg SB1-S3-D10 2/21 0.005-0.046 0.63 N/A 20000 1800 18000 20000 n N/A N/A N BSL 120-36-5 Dichloroprop 0.015J 0.015J mg/kg SB2-S3-D10 1/21 0.014-0.120 0.015 N/A n/a N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A N BSL 1918-00-9 Dicamba 0.005J 0.005J mg/kg SB5-S2-D5 1/21 0.0027-0.023 0.005 N/A 20000 1800 18000 20000 n N/A N/A N BSL 56-72-4 Coumaphos 0.29J 0.31J mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 2/21 0.23-0.27 0.31 N/A n/a N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A NBSL 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 0.1J 0.61 mg/kg SB6-S1-D3 6/21 0.018-0.021 0.61 N/A 6 1.4 5.1 5.6 c N/A N/A N BSL 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.0033J 0.43 mg/kg SB7-D2-D6.5 6/21 0.018-0.021 0.43 N/A 6 1.7 7 5.6 c* N/A N/A N BSL 5103- 71- 9 alphaalpha-Chlordane Chlordane 0.025J 0.025J mg/kg SB6- S1- D3 1/21 0.092 - 0. 100 0.025 N/A 2 161.6 656.5 151.5 N/A N/A N/A N BSL 5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 0.021J 0.021J mg/kg SB6-S1-D3 1/21 0.092-0.100 0.021 N/A 2 1.6 6.5 1.5 N/A N/A N/A N BSL 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 0.099J 0.76 mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 2/21 0.018-0.021 0.76 N/A 8 2 7.2 7.9 c N/A N/A N BSL 11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 0.72J 16 mg/kg SB6-S3-D10 3/21 0.180-0.210 16 N/A 0 0.22 0.74 0.34 c N/A N/A Y ASL Metals 7440-36-0 Antimony 3.5 466 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 17/21 2.9-3.5 466 7 680 31 410 680 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-38-2 Arsenic 2.8J 241 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 21/21 241 16 2 0.39 1.6 2 c* N/A N/A Y ASL 7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.43 3.4 mg/kg MW3-S3-D10 9/21 0.14-0.53 1.4 3 1 160 2,000 1.1 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-43-9 Cadmiumb 0.46 33.9 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 14/21 0.41-0.49 33.9 2 850 70 800 850 n N/A N/A NBSL 7440-47-3 Chromiumc,d 8.5 283J mg/kg MW1-S3-D10 20/21 283 250 1600 120000 1500000 1600 c N/A N/A N BSL 7440-50-8 Copper 3.5J 8930 mg/kg SB7-S3-D10 15/21 12.4-12.9 8930 110 63000 3100 41000 63000 n N/A N/A Y ASL 7439-92-1 Leade 2.5J 3900 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 20/21 2.2-5.3 3900 29__96 1000 400 800 1000 n N/A N/A N BSL 7439-97-6 Mercury 0.03 3.3 mg/kg SB6-S3-D10 18/21 0.02-0.03 3.3 0 510 10 43 510 ns N/A N/A YASL 7440-02-0 Nickel 6.8 296 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 20/21 296 205 34000 1500 20000 34000 n N/A N/A NBSL 7440-22-4 Silver 0.86 55.2 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 13/21 0.78-0.93 55.2 1 8500 390 5100 8500 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-28-0 Thallium 0.33J 1.2 mg/kg MW3-S2-D5 8/21 1.2 3 120 0.78 10 120 n N/A N/A NBSL 7440-66-6 Zinc 129 11100 mg/kg SB7-S2-D6.5 15/21 10.9-29 11100 166 100000 23000 310000 100000 n N/A N/A N BSL Petroleum Hydrocarbons T505500000 TPHs 114 9350 mg/kg SB6-S3-D10 15/21 50 9350 N/A n/a N/A N/A n/a N/A N/A N/A Y DET

Definitions: c = carcinogen J=estimated value c* = carcinogenic SL where noncarcinogenic SL < 100times c SL = screening level ASL = above screening level n = noncarcinogen mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram BSL = below screening level ns = noncarcinogenic SL where concentration may exceed saturated concentration. c** = carcinogenic SL where noncarcinogenic SL < 10times c N/A = not applicable

a Due to the limited number of samples, the 95% Upper Confidence Limit was above the maximum concentration detected. As a result, the maximum b diet c total d Screening level values listed for Chromium(III), Insoluble Salts e Background values listed for lead are natural background sources only and combined natural/anthropogenic background sources, respectively. f - obtained from Table F-3 from background concentration range detection limit

RAGS D Table 2 KJR.xlsx/Table 2.2 Page 1 of 1 7/3/2011 RAGS Part D Table 2.3 Occurrence, Distribution, and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Future Medium: Groundwater Exposure Medium: Groundwater flow to surface water

Exposure CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background 1995 2011 1995 Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value Screening Level RSL Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

b a Concentration Limits Screening (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion Ford Island Landfill Metals Groundwater 7440-36-0 Antimony 0.013 0.0255 mg/L MW2 3/8 0.0127 0.0255 ND 0.5 0.015 0.5 n N/A N/A N BSL 7440-38-2 Arsenic 0.002 0.0542 mg/L MW2 5/8 0.0542 0.002 0.0000175 0.000045 0.0000175 c N/A N/A Y ASL 7440-50-8 Copper 0.0169 0.0318 mg/L MW2 2/8 0.0036-0.0046 0.0318 ND 0.0029 1.500 0.0029 n N/A N/A Y ASL 7439-92-1 Lead 0.011 0.0728 mg/L MW1 2/8 0.0015-0.0986 0.0728 0.0986 0.0085 0.015 0.0085 c N/A N/A N BSL 7440-66-6 Zinc 0.079 0.079 mg/L MW2 1/8 0.0103-0.0216 0.079 ND 0.086 11.000 0.086 n N/A N/A N BSL TPH TPH 1.1 1.1 mg/L MW1 1/8 0.97-1.0 1.1 ND No data No data No data n N/A N/A N BSL Volatile Organics N/A N/A BSL 78-93-3 2-Butanone 0.001 0.002 mg/L MW1,MW3,MW4 3/8 0.01 0.002 0.002 No data 7.100 No data n N/A N/A N BSL 75-15-5 Carbon Disulfide 0.002 0.008 mg/L MW4 2/8 0.002 0.002-0.008 No data 1.000 No data n N/A N/A N BSL 591-78-6 2-Hexanaone 0.001 0.004 mg/L MW1,MW4 2/8 0.01 0.004 0.004 No data 0.047 No data n N/A N/A N BSL Pesticides Coumaphos 0.0053 0.0053 mg/L MW1 1/8 0.005 0.0053 ND No data No data No data N/A N/A N BSL below 50-29-3 4,4-DDT 0.00005 0.00005 mg/L MW2 1/8 0.0001 0.00005 ND 0.000000008 0.0002 8E-09 c N/A N/A N background Fensulfothion 0.003 0.0077 mg/L MW1 2/8 0.001 0.0077 ND No data No data No data N/A N/A N BSL

Definitions: c = carcinogen J=estimated value c* = carcinogenic SL where noncarcinogenic SL < 100times c ASL = above screening level n = noncarcinogen mg/L = milligrams per liter ns = noncarcinogenic SL where concentration may exceed saturated concentration. BSL = below screening level N/A = not applicable

a Due to the limited number of samples, the 95% Upper Confidence Limit was above the maximum concentration detected. As a result, the maximum concentrations were selected for the RME calculations b - obtained from Table F-5 from background concentration range detection limits RAGS Part D Table 3.1 Exposure Point Concentration Summary Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil

Average Maximum Exposure Chemical Units Concentration 95% UCL Distribution Concentration Exposure Point Concentration Point Average RME (max) Units Statistic Rationale Conc. Conc.

Ford Island Landfill Metals Surface Soil Arsenic mg/kg 13 74 56.8 13 56.8 mg/kg Maximum Detected Lower of 95%UCL or Max Beryllium mg/kg 1.1 3.8 2.3 1.1 2.3 mg/kg Maximum Detected Lower of 95%UCL or Max TPH Diesel #2 mg/kg 1400 100000 8730 1400 8730 mg/kg 95%UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max

Definitions: Conc. = concentration max = maximum detected concentration mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram UCL = upper confidence level RAGS Part D Table 3.2 Exposure Point Concentration Summary Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Subsurface Soil Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil

Maximum Exposure Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Distribution Concentration Exposure Point Concentration Point Mean Average RME (max) Units Statistic Rationale Conc. Conc.

Ford Island Landfill Pesticides/PCBs Subsurface Soil Aroclor 1260 mg/kg 5.9 8.5 16 5.9 8.5 mg/kg 95% UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max Metals Arsenic mg/kg 43 110 241 43 110 mg/kg 95% UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max Copper mg/kg 1500 15000 8930 1500 15000 mg/kg 95% UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max

Mercury mg/kg 0.63 3.3 3.3 0.63 3.3 mg/kg 95% UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max Silver mg/kg 6 15 55 6 15 mg/kg 95% UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max TPH TPH- D mg/kg 940 2000 9350 940 2000 mg/kg 95% UCL Lower of 95%UCL or Max

Definitions: Conc. = concentration max = maximum detected concentration mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram UCL = upper confidence level RAGS Part D Table 3.3 Exposure Point Concentration Summary Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Surface Water Exposure Medium: Fish

Maximum Average Maximum Exposure Chemical Units Soil Concentration Surface Water Surface Water Exposure Point Concentration Point (mg/kg) Koc Kd Concentration Concentration Value Units Statistic Rationale Average RME (L/kg) (L/kg) Csw Csw

Ford Island Landfill Pesticides/PCBs Surface Water Aroclor-1260 mg/L 5.9E+00 1.3E+02 5.3E+05 1.1E+04 1.40E-08 3.10E-07 0.00000031 mg/L Maximum Detected Conservative estimate Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPHs mg/L 9.4E+02 9.4E+03 1.4E+04 2.8E+02 8.50E-05 8.50E-04 0.00085 mg/L Maximum Detected Conservative estimate Metals Arsenic mg/L 4.3E+01 2.4E+02 2.0E+02 5.40E-06 3.10E-05 0.000031 mg/L Maximum Detected Conservative estimate Copper mg/L 1.5E+03 2.3E+04 3.5E+01 1.10E-03 1.70E-02 0.017 mg/L Maximum Detected Conservative estimate Mercury mg/L 6.3E-01 3.3E+00 1.0E+01 1.60E-06 8.40E-06 0.0000084 mg/L Maximum Detected Conservative estimate Silver mg/L 6.0E+00 5.5E+01 4.5E+01 3.40E-06 3.10E-06 0.0000031 mg/L Maximum Detected Conservative estimate

Definitions: Koc = organic carbon water partition coefficient Kd = Soil water partition coefficient, where Kd = Koc*Foc and where Foc is assumed to be 0.02. Csw = Surface water concentration estimated from soil contaminants leaching into groundwater and surface water, where Csw = Cgw / DL and where DL = 1/3.8E-5 = 26,300. Cgw = Estimated shallow groundwater concentration, where Cgw = Cp / 1.5. Cp = Leachate concentration, where Cp = Cs / Kd. (Cs = soil concentration) Effectively, Csw = Cs / (Kd*1.5*26,300) L/kg = liters per kilogram mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram mg/L = milligrams per liter RAGS Part D Table 4.1 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/Reference Intake Equation/Model Name Code Ingestion Visitor Adult Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT FI Fraction Ingested 0.125 - - RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 30 years RA, App F Tables 1995 CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 70 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 10,950 days RA, App F Tables 1995 Child Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT FI Fraction Ingested 0.167 - - RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 6 years RA, App F Tables 1995 CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 15 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days RA, App F Tables 1995 Dermal Visitor Adult Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) = CF Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,000 cm2 RA, App F Tables 1995 where AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 1.00 mg/cm2-event RA, App F Tables 1995 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) = ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d EV Event Frequency 0.125 events/day RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 30 years RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 7.0E+01 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 10,950 days RA, App F Tables 1995 Child Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) = CF Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,000 cm2 RA, App F Tables 1995 where AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 1.00 mg/cm2-event RA, App F Tables 1995 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d EV Event Frequency 0.167 events/day RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 6 years RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 15 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days RA, App F Tables 1995

EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03. EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. EPA 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final.EPA/540/R/99/005. NA = Not Available RAGS Part D Table 4.2 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/Reference Intake Equation/Model Name Code Ingestion Recreational Fisherman Adult Fish at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Surface Water See Table 3.4 mg/L RA, App F Tables 1995 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = BCF Chemical Bioconcentration Factor in Fish chemical-specific L/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x BCF x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT IR-S Ingestion Rate of Fish 1.50E+05 mg/day RA, App F Tables 1995 FI Fraction Ingested 1 - - RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 10 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 30 years RA, App F Tables 1995 CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 70 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 10,950 days RA, App F Tables 1995

EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03. EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. EPA 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final.EPA/540/R/99/005. NA = Not Available RAGS Part D Table 4.3 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations Central Tendency Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/Reference Intake Equation/Model Name Code Ingestion Visitor Adult Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 25 mg/day RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT FI Fraction Ingested 0.0625 - - RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 150 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 9 years RA, App F Tables 1995 CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 70 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 3,285 days RA, App F Tables 1995 Child Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 55 mg/day RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT FI Fraction Ingested 0.083 - - RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 150 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 3 years RA, App F Tables 1995 CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 15 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 1,095 days RA, App F Tables 1995 Dermal Visitor Adult Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) = CF Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,000 cm2 RA, App F Tables 1995 where AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.20 mg/cm2-event RA, App F Tables 1995 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) = ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d EV Event Frequency 0.063 events/day RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 150 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 9 years RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 70 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 3,285 days RA, App F Tables 1995 Child Soil at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Tables 3.1 - 3.2 mg/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) = CF Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 800 cm2 RA, App F Tables 1995 where AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.20 mg/cm2-event RA, App F Tables 1995 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) = ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d EV Event Frequency 0.083 events/day RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 150 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 3 years RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 15 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 1,095 days RA, App F Tables 1995

EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03. EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. EPA 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final.EPA/540/R/99/005. NA = Not Available

061511 RAGS Table 7 CTE 1995 to JJ.xlsxTable 4.3 Page 1 of 1 6/15/2011 RAGS Part D Table 4.4 Values Used For Daily Intake Calculations Central Tendency Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Soil Requires Attention Exposure Medium: Fish/Shellfish

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/Reference Intake Equation/Model Name Code Ingestion Recreational Fisherman Adult Fish at Ford Island Landfill CS Chemical Concentration in Surface Water See Table 3.4 mg/L RA, App F Tables 1995 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = BCF Chemical Bioconcentration Factor in Fish chemical-specific L/kg RA, App F Tables 1995 CS x BCF x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT IR-S Ingestion Rate of Fish 1.00E+05 mg/day RA, App F Tables 1995 FI Fraction Ingested 1 - - RA, App F Tables 1995 EF Exposure Frequency 3 days/year RA, App F Tables 1995 ED Exposure Duration 9 years RA, App F Tables 1995 CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 kg/mg RA, App F Tables 1995 BW Body Weight 70 kg RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days RA, App F Tables 1995 AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 3,285 days RA, App F Tables 1995

EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03. EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. EPA 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final.EPA/540/R/99/005. NA = Not Available

061511 RAGS Table 7 CTE 1995 to JJ.xlsxTable 4.4 Page 1 of 1 6/15/2011 RAGS Part D Table 5.1 Oral/Dermal Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity Data Ford Island Landfill

Absorbed RfD Chemical Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral Absorption for Dermal Primary Combined of Potential Subchronic Efficiency Target Uncertainty/Modifying Source(s) Date(s) for Dermal Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors

PCBs App. F Table F- Aroclor 1260 Chronic NA NA 0.85 NA mg/kg-day NA 19 RA, 1995 1995 Metals App. F Table F- Arsenic Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 0.98 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day Hyperpigmentation, keratosis 3 19 RA, 1995 1995 App. F Table F- Beryllium Chronic 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 0.037 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day No adverse efects 100 19 RA, 1995 1995

App. F Table F- Copper Chronic 3.7E-02 mg/kg-day 1 3.7E-02 mg/kg-day Gastrointestinal effects 19 RA, 1995 1995

App. F Table F- Mercury Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 0.07 2.1E-05 mg/kg-day Kidney effects 1000 19 RA, 1995 1995

App. F Table F- Silver Chronic 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 0.04 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day Argyria (cosmetic effect) 3 19 RA, 1995 1995 TPHs App. F Table F- TPHs Chronic 8.0E-02 mg/kg-day 1 8.0E-02 mg/kg-day Reversible liver fatty cell change 10000 19 RA, 1995 1995

Definitions: IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram-day HI DOH EALs = March 2009 Hawaii DOH Environmental Action Levels RAGS Part D Table 6.1 Oral/Dermal Carcinogenic Toxicity Data Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Fish Skin Absorption Weight-of-Evidence/ Oral Cancer Slope Factor of Potential Efficiency for Dermal Bioconcentration Factor Cancer Guideline for Dermal Factor Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

PCBs Aroclor 1260 7.7E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 0.85 9.1E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.40E+04 0.14 B2 AppF RA 1995 Metals Arsenic 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 0.98 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.40E+01 1.00E-02 A AppF RA 1995 Beryllium 4.3E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 0.037 1.2E+02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.00E-02 B1a AppF RA 1995 Copper NA NA 1 NA (mg/kg-day)-1 2.00E+02 1 D NA NA Mercury NA NA 0.07 NA (mg/kg-day)-1 5.50E+03 1 D NA NA Silver NA NA 0.04 NA (mg/kg-day)-1 3.10E+03 1 D NA NA TPHs -1 TPHs NA NA 1 NA (mg/kg-day) 2.60E+03 1.00E-01 D NA NA

Definitions: EPA NCEA = US EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram-day EPA RSL = US EPA Regional Screening Levels - updated May 24, 2011. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System NJ EPA = New Jersey EPA as listed in EPA RSL. Carcinogen Classification A: Human carcinogen B: Probable human carcinogen (B1: limited human evidence; B2 Sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans) C: Possible human carcinogen D: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity E: Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans NA: Carcinogen classification information not available a Inhalation pathway only. Weight of evidence for ingestion pathway considered "cannot be determined". RAGS Part D Table 6.2 Oral/Dermal Carcinogenic Toxicity Data Central Tendency Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Skin Absorption Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Fish Weight-of-Evidence/ Oral Cancer Slope Factor Factor of Potential Efficiency for Dermal Bioconcentration Cancer Guideline Average for Dermal Factor Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

PCBs Aroclor 1260 7.7E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 0.85 9.1E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.40E+04 0.14 B2 AppF RA 1995 Metals Arsenic 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 0.98 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.40E+01 1.00E-03 A AppF RA 1995 Beryllium 4.3E+00 NA 0.037 1.2E+02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.00E-03 B1a AppF RA 1995 Copper NA NA 1 NA (mg/kg-day)-1 2.00E+02 1 D NA NA Mercury NA NA 0.07 NA (mg/kg-day)-1 5.50E+03 1 D NA NA Silver NA NA 0.04 NA (mg/kg-day)-1 3.10E+03 1 D NA NA TPHs -1 TPHs NA NA 1 NA (mg/kg-day) 2.60E+03 1.00E-02 D NA NA

Definitions: EPA NCEA = US EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram-day EPA RSL = US EPA Regional Screening Levels - updated May 24, 2011. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System NJ EPA = New Jersey EPA as listed in EPA RSL. Carcinogen Classification A: Human carcinogen B: Probable human carcinogen (B1: limited human evidence; B2 Sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans) C: Possible human carcinogen D: Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity E: Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans NA: Carcinogen classification information not available a Inhalation pathway only. Weight of evidence for ingestion pathway considered "cannot be determined".

061511 RAGS Table 7 CTE 1995 to JJ.xlsx Page 1 of 1 6/15/2011 RAGS D Table 7.1 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Fisherman Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Quotient

Groundwater Soil Leaching Discharge to Ingestion of Pesticides/PCBs to Groundwater Surface Water Fish/Shellfish Aroclor-1260 3.1E-07 mg/L 1.9E-07 mg/kg-day 7.7E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.4E-06 4.4E-07 mg/kg-day NA NA NA Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPHs 8.4E-04 mg/L 5.5E-05 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.3E-04 mg/kg-day 8.0E-02 NA 1.6E-03 Metals Arsenic 3.1E-05 mg/L 3.4E-08 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.2E-08 8.0E-08 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 2.7E-04 Copper 1.7E-02 mg/L 8.6E-05 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day 3.7E-02 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 Mercury 8.4E-06 mg/L 1.2E-06 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 2.7E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 9.0E-03 -1 Silver 3.1E-05 mg/L 2.4E-06 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day) NA 5.6E-06 mg/kg-day 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 1.1E-03 Exp. Route Total 1.5E-06 0.02 Exposure Point Total 1.5E-06 0.02 Exposure Medium Total 1.5E-06 0.02 Medium Total 1.5E-06 0.02 Total of Receptor Risks1.5E-06 Total of Receptor Hazards 0.02

RME EPC is calculated from maximum detected soil concentrations as seen in Appendix F Table F-17b. Table 17a shows values from 95% UCL, but endnote 1 states risk will be calc from maximum detected concentrations for conservatism. Results from 17a and 17b do not correlate with Summary Table F-20. RAGS D Table 7.2 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Visitor/Recreational visitor Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Quotient

Surface Soil Surface Soil Ford Island Landfill Ingestion Semivolatile Organics Soil TPHs 8.7E+03 mg/kg 6.4E-04 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.5E-03 mg/kg-day 8.0E-02 NA 1.9E-02 Metals Arsenic 5.7E+01 mg/kg 4.2E-06 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 7.5E-06 9.7E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 3.2E-02 Beryllium 2.3E+00 mg/kg 1.7E-07 mg/kg-day 4.3E+00 NA 7.3E-07 3.9E-07 mg/kg-day 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 7.9E-05 Exp. Route Total 8.2E-06 0.05

Dermal Semivolatile Organics TPHs 8.7E+03 mg/kg 3.2E-03 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 7.5E-03 mg/kg-day 8.0E-02 NA 9.3E-02 Metals Arsenic 5.7E+01 mg/kg 2.1E-06 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.8E-06 4.9E-06 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day 1.7E-02 Beryllium 2.3E+00 mg/kg 8.4E-08 mg/kg-day 1.2E+02 NA 9.8E-06 2.0E-07 mg/kg-day 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day 1.1E-03 Exp. Route Total 1.4E-05 0.1 Exposure Point Total 2.2E-05 0.2 Exposure Medium Total 2.2E-05 0.2 Medium Total 2.2E-05 0.2 Total of Receptor Risks2.2E-05 Total of Receptor Hazards 0.2 RAGS D Table 7.3 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Visitor/Recreational visitor Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Quotient

Surface Soil Surface Soil Ford Island Landfill Ingestion Semivolatile Organics Soil TPHs 8.7E+03 mg/kg 3.4E-04 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.9E-02 mg/kg-day 8.0E-01 NA 2.3E-02 Metals Arsenic 5.7E+01 mg/kg 2.2E-06 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.0E-06 1.2E-04 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 4.0E-01 Beryllium 2.3E+00 mg/kg 9.0E-08 mg/kg-day 4.3E+00 NA 3.9E-07 4.9E-06 mg/kg-day 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 9.8E-04 Exp. Route Total 4.4E-06 0.4

Dermal Semivolatile Organics TPHs 8.7E+03 mg/kg 3.4E-04 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.9E-02 mg/kg-day 8.0E-01 NA 2.3E-02 Metals Arsenic 5.7E+01 mg/kg 2.2E-07 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.1E-07 1.2E-05 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day 4.1E-02 Beryllium 2.3E+00 mg/kg 9.0E-09 mg/kg-day 1.2E+02 NA 1.0E-06 4.9E-07 mg/kg-day 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day 2.7E-03 Exp. Route Total 1.5E-06 0.07 Exposure Point Total 5.9E-06 0.5 Exposure Medium Total 5.9E-06 0.5 Medium Total 5.9E-06 0.5 Total of Receptor Risks5.9E-06 Total of Receptor Hazards 0.5 RAGS D Table 7.4 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards Central Tendency Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Fisherman Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of CTE EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Quotient Surface Soil Surface Soil Ford Island Landfill Ingestion Semivolatile Organics Groundwater Soil Leaching Discharge to Ingestion of Pesticides/PCBs to Groundwater Surface Water Fish/Shellfish Aroclor-1260 1.4E-08 mg/L 5.1E-10 mg/kg-day 7.7E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 3.9E-09 3.9E-09 mg/kg-day NA NA NA Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPHs 8.5E-05 mg/L 3.3E-07 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 2.6E-06 mg/kg-day 8.0E-02 NA 3.2E-05 Metals Arsenic 5.4E-06 mg/L 3.6E-10 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.5E-10 2.8E-09 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 9.3E-06 Copper 1.1E-03 mg/L 3.3E-07 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 2.6E-06 mg/kg-day 3.7E-02 mg/kg-day 7.0E-05 Mercury 1.6E-06 mg/L 1.3E-08 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.0E-07 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 3.4E-04 -1 Silver 3.4E-06 mg/L 1.6E-08 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day) NA 1.2E-07 mg/kg-day 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.5E-05 Exp. Route Total 4.6E-09 4.8E-04 Exposure Point Total 4.6E-09 4.8E-04 Exposure Medium Total 4.6E-09 4.8E-04 Medium Total 4.6E-09 4.8E-04 Total of Receptor Risks4.6E-09 Total of Receptor Hazards 4.8E-04 RAGS D Table 7.5 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards Central Tendency Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Visitor/Recreational visitor Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of CTE EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Quotient

Surface Soil Surface Soil Ford Island Landfill Ingestion Semivolatile Organics Soil TPHs 1.4E+03 mg/kg 1.7E-06 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.3E-05 mg/kg-day 8.0E-02 NA 1.6E-04 Metals Arsenic 1.3E+01 mg/kg 1.5E-08 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.8E-08 1.2E-07 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 4.0E-04 Beryllium 1.1E+00 mg/kg 1.3E-09 mg/kg-day 4.3E+00 NA 5.6E-09 1.0E-08 mg/kg-day 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.0E-06 Exp. Route Total 3.3E-08 5.6E-04

Dermal Semivolatile Organics TPHs 1.4E+03 mg/kg 2.6E-07 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 2.1E-06 mg/kg-day 8.0E-02 NA 2.6E-05 Metals Arsenic 1.3E+01 mg/kg 2.5E-10 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.5E-10 1.9E-09 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day 6.5E-06 Beryllium 1.1E+00 mg/kg 2.1E-11 mg/kg-day 1.2E+02 NA 2.4E-09 1.6E-10 mg/kg-day 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day 8.7E-07 Exp. Route Total 2.9E-09 3.3E-05 Exposure Point Total 3.6E-08 5.9E-04 Exposure Medium Total 3.6E-08 5.9E-04 Medium Total 3.6E-08 5.9E-04 Total of Receptor Risks3.6E-08 Total of Receptor Hazards 5.9E-04 RAGS D Table 7.6 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards Central Tendency Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Visitor/Recreational visitor Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of CTE EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Quotient

Surface Soil Surface Soil Ford Island Landfill Ingestion Semivolatile Organics Soil TPHs 1.4E+03 mg/kg 1.6E-06 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.8E-04 mg/kg-day 8.0E-01 NA 2.2E-04 Metals Arsenic 1.3E+01 mg/kg 1.5E-08 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 2.7E-08 1.6E-06 mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day 5.4E-03 Beryllium 1.1E+00 mg/kg 1.3E-09 mg/kg-day 4.3E+00 NA 5.4E-09 1.4E-07 mg/kg-day 5.0E-03 mg/kg-day 2.8E-05 Exp. Route Total 3.2E-08 0.006

Dermal Semivolatile Organics TPHs 1.4E+03 mg/kg 4.7E-08 mg/kg-day NA (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 5.1E-06 mg/kg-day 8.0E-01 NA 6.4E-06 Metals Arsenic 1.3E+01 mg/kg 4.3E-11 mg/kg-day 1.8E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 8.0E-11 4.7E-09 mg/kg-day 2.9E-04 mg/kg-day 1.6E-05 Beryllium 1.1E+00 mg/kg 3.7E-12 mg/kg-day 1.2E+02 NA 4.3E-10 4.0E-10 mg/kg-day 1.9E-04 mg/kg-day 2.2E-06 Exp. Route Total 5.1E-10 0.00002 Exposure Point Total 3.3E-08 0.006 Exposure Medium Total 3.3E-08 0.006 Medium Total 3.3E-08 0.006 Total of Receptor Risks3.3E-08 Total of Receptor Hazards 0.006 RAGS D Table 9.1 Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure Ford Island Landfill

Scenario Timeframe: Current / Future Receptor Population: Visitor/ Recreational Users and Recreational Fisherman Receptor Age: Adult/Child

a a Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Point of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External CTE RME Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal CTE RME (Radiation) Route Total Route Total Target Organ(s) Route Total Route Total Surface Soil Surface Soil Ford Island Landfill

See See IngestionChild Visitor/ Recreational Exposure NA NA NA 3E-08 4E-06 NA Exposure NA NA 0.0057 0.43 User Route Total Route Total

See See Dermal Contact Child Visitor/ NA NA Exposure NA 5E-10 1E-06 NA NA NA Exposure 0.000025 0.067 Recreational User Route Total Route Total

SUBTOTAL NA 3E-08 6E-06 NA NA 0.0057 0.5

See See Ingestion Adult Visitor/ Recreational Exposure NA NA NA 3E-08 8E-06 NA Exposure NA NA 0.00056 0.05 User Route Total Route Total

See See Dermal Contact Adult Visitor/ NA NA Exposure NA 3E-09 1E-05 NA NA NA Exposure 0.000033 0.11 Recreational User Route Total Route Total

SUBTOTAL NA NA 4E-08 2E-05 NA NA 0.0006 0.16

See See Ingestion Recreational Fisherman Exposure NA NA NA 5E-09 2E-06 NA Exposure NA NA 0.00048 0.02 Route Total Route Total

SUBTOTAL 5E-09 2E-06 NA 0.00048 0.02

Note: aCompared with the 1995 appendix F Summary Table F-20, the above table displays a large variance in fish ingestion and a few minor variances in other parameters. While the fish ingestion values in the above table match the values calculated in the 1995 Table F-17b, they do not correlate with the values in the F-20 summary table (2E-9, 7E-7, 2E-4, and 8E-3). Mild variance in the above values compared with the 1995 Appendix F Summary Table F-20 may result from values beyond the significant digits displayed in the 1995 tables. For example, while a table may display 3.4, it may actually use 3.44 to calculate intake, risk, and hazard; thus making a summation of these values slightly different than the truncated version of the shown resultant. Mild variance between this summary table and the 1995 Table F-20 are detailed below. The RME dermal child hazard is slightly different at 6.8E-2 instead of the above 6.7E-2 value. The summary child RME risk is slightly different at 5E-6 instead of the above 6E-6 value. The summary adult CTE risk is slightly different at 3E-8 instead of the above 4E-8 value.

Attachment D Selected Remedy Cost Estimate

Estimate Documentation Report

System: RACER Version: 10.2.0 Database Location: C:\Documents and Settings\andrew.schleppi\Desktop\Ford Island\AECOM Honolulu Office Estimates.mdb

Folder: Folder Name: Fiscal Year 2011 Estimates

Site:

Site ID: 92244 Site Name: Landfill FS in Hawaii Site Category: None

Location State / Country: HAWAII City: HONOLULU

Location Modifier Default User 1.690 1.690

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2009 Report Option: Fiscal

Description Landfill Feasibility Study Cost Estimate Location: Honolulu, HI (Ford Island, Pearl Harbor)

Three (3) alternatives will be evaluated: 1) No Action 2) Land Use Controls 3) Excavation and Disposal Allowing for Unrestricted Reuse

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 1 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Alternative Documentation:

Alternative ID: 0002 Alternative Name: Land Use Controls Alternative Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Metals Secondary: None

Phase Names Pre-Study: Study: Design: Removal/Interim Action: Remedial Action: Operations & Maintenance: Long Term Monitoring: Site Closeout:

Documentation Description: Alternative #2 - Land Use Controls This alternative will include landfill inspections, hazardous waste signing, and long-term groundwater monitoring activities semi-annually. The estimated long-term monitoring duration is 30 years.

Support Team: Jeff Johnson AECOM 841 Bishop Street, Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone Number: (808) 523-8874 References: Reference Documents: analytical cost.pdf; OM Final Grading Figure.pdf Bldg 284 Cost.pdf; Sea Eng and IDW Disp Costs.pdf HC04 fill volume.pdf; Well logs FILF LTMP.pdf IDWDisp_FeeSched.doc

Estimator Information Estimator Name: Andrew Schleppi, CCC Estimator Title: Cost Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM Business Address: 5575 DTC Parkway Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 2 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Telephone Number: 303-771-3103 Email Address: [email protected] Estimate Prepared Date: 08/27/2009

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Mike West Reviewer Title: Senior Cost Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM Business Address: 5575 DTC Parkway Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone Number: 303-771-3103 Email Address: [email protected] Date Reviewed: 08/27/2009

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Estimated Costs:

Phase Names Direct Cost Marked-up Cost Land Use Controls $1,208,265 $2,155,882

Total Cost: $1,208,265 $2,155,882 Escalation: $494,261 $885,436 Total Alternative Cost: $1,702,525 $3,041,318

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 3 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Phase Documentation:

Phase Type: Long Term Monitoring Phase Name: Land Use Controls Description: This phase of work will esitmate the landfill inspections, hazardous waste signing, long-term groundwater testing, and 5-year review reports for a duration of 30 years.

Start Date: October, 2010 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Phase Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. MONITORING Yes 100 0 Five-Year Review Yes 100 0 LANDFILL INSPECTION Yes 100 0 HAZARDOUS WASTE SIGNING Yes 100 0

Total Marked-up Cost: $2,155,882

Technologies:

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 4 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Technology Name: Monitoring (# 1) User Name: MONITORING Description Default Value UOM System Definition Required Parameters Model Name MONITORING n/a Groundwater Yes n/a Surface Soil No n/a Surface Water Yes n/a Subsurface Soil No n/a Sediment No n/a Soil Gas No n/a Air No n/a Site Distance (One-way) 10 MI Safety Level D n/a Groundwater Required Parameters Average Sample Depth 10 FT Samples per Event (First Year) 9 n/a Samples per Event (Out Years) 9 n/a Number of Events (First Year) 2 n/a Number of Events (Out Years) 2 n/a Number of Years (Out Years) 29 n/a Secondary Parameters Primary Analytical Template System Water - Metals Hawaii Landfill Water n/a Analytical Template Secondary Analytical Template None None n/a Turnaround Time Standard (21 Days) Standard (21 Days) n/a Data Package/QC Stage 1 Stage 1 n/a Sampling Method Existing Wells - Low Flow Existing Wells - Low Flow n/a Pump Pump Number of Wells/Day 8 9 EA Contain Purge Water Yes No n/a Surface Water Required Parameters Average Sample Depth 1 FT Samples per Event (First Year) 9 n/a

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 5 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Technology Name: Monitoring (# 1) User Name: MONITORING Description Default Value UOM Surface Water Required Parameters Samples per Event (Out Years) 9 n/a Number of Events (First Year) 2 n/a Number of Events (Out Years) 2 n/a Number of Years (Out Years) 29 n/a Secondary Parameters Primary Analytical Template System Water - Metals Hawaii Landfill Water n/a Analytical Template Secondary Analytical Template None None n/a Turnaround Time Standard (21 Days) Standard (21 Days) n/a Data Package/QC Stage 1 Stage 1 n/a Number of Samples/Day 8 9 EA QA/QC Secondary Parameters Split Samples 1: 10 1: 0 EA Field Duplicate Samples 1: 10 1: 9 EA Rinse Blanks (per Round) 1 0 EA Trip Blanks (per Day) 0 0 EA Matrix Spikes/Matrix Spike Duplicates 1: 20 1: 9 EA Data Management Secondary Parameters Monitoring Plan Standard None n/a Lab Data Review Stage 1 Stage 1 n/a Submit Data Electronically Yes Yes n/a Monitoring Reports Abbreviated Abbreviated n/a

Comments: Assumptions: Analytical cost were obtained from Appendix D, Fee Schedule User Defined shipping cost was added to the General Monitoring element. Monitoring plan task was not utilized in this technology. The 1 page letter report is captured in the Landfill Inspection technology. IDW disposal charges and boat rental fees were added to the technology.

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 6 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Technology Name: Five-Year Review (# 1)

Description Default Value UOM System Definition Required Parameters Site Complexity Low n/a Document Review Yes n/a Interviews No n/a Site Inspection No n/a Report Yes n/a Travel No n/a Rebound Study No n/a Start Date March-2016 n/a No. Reviews 6 EA Document Review Required Parameters 5-Year Review Check List Yes n/a Record of Decision Yes n/a Remedial Action Design & Construction Yes n/a Close-Out Report No n/a Operations & Maintenance Manuals & Reports No n/a Consent Decree or Settlement Records Yes n/a Groundwater Monitoring & Reports Yes n/a Remedial Action Required Yes n/a Previous 5-Year Review Reports Yes n/a Report Required Parameters Introduction Yes n/a Remedial Objectives Yes n/a ARARs Review Yes n/a Summary of Site Visit No n/a Areas of Non Compliance Yes n/a Technology Recommendations No n/a Statement of Protectiveness Yes n/a Next Review Yes n/a Implementation Requirements Yes n/a

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 7 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Comments: Assumptions: Deselected tasks not applicable to the Landfill project.

Technology Name: Administrative Land Use Controls (# 1) User Name: LANDFILL INSPECTION Description Default Value UOM System Definition Required Parameters Rename Model LANDFILL INSPECTION n/a Planning Documents No n/a Implementation No n/a Monitoring & Enforcement Yes n/a Monitoring & Enforcement: Start Date 2011 n/a Modification/Termination No n/a Type of Site Active Government n/a Installation Monitoring & Enforcement Required Parameters Duration of Monitoring/Enforcement 30 Years Notice Letters No n/a Guard Service/Security No n/a Reports & Certifications Yes n/a Reports & Certifications: Frequency Annually n/a Site Visits/Inspections Yes n/a Site Visits/Inspections: Number 2 EA Site Visits/Inspections: Safety Level D n/a Site Visits/Inspections: Duration 1 Days Site Visits/Inspections: Number of People 2 EA Site Visits/Inspections: Frequency Annually n/a Site Visits/Inspections: Airfare 0 $ Per Ticket Site Visits/Inspections: Mileage 15 MI

Comments: This technology assumes that 2 Staff Engineers will inspect the landfill cap 2 times a year. 8 hours will be spent writing a letter report 2 times a year. Minor project management time was included along with ODCs.

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 8 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Estimate Documentation Report

Technology Name: User Defined Estimate (# 1) User Name: HAZARDOUS WASTE SIGNING Description Default Value UOM System Definition Required Parameters Model Name HAZARDOUS WASTE n/a SIGNING WBS Type HTRW n/a Selected WBS 331.03.05 n/a Safety Level D n/a

Comments: This technology includes costs for the purchase and installation of hazardous waste signing around the perimeter of the landfill. Four (4) signs will be installed.

Print Date: 8/28/2009 2:27:55 PM Page: 9 of 9 This report for official U.S. Government use only. Phase Cost Over Time Report (with Markups)

Folder: Fiscal Year 2011 Estimates Site Name: Landfill FS in Hawaii Location: HONOLULU, HAWAII Site ID: 92244 Alternative Name: Land Use Controls Alternative ID: 0002 Primary Media/Waste: Soil Secondary Media/Waste: N/A Primary Contaminant: Metals Secondary Contaminant: None Estimator Reviewer Name: Andrew Schleppi, CCC Mike West Title: Cost Engineer Senior Cost Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM AECOM 5575 DTC Parkway Suite 200 Business Address: Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: 303-771-3103 303-771-3103 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Prepared Date: 8/27/2009 8/27/2009 Phase Name: Land Use Controls Start Date: 10/2010 Phase Type: Long Term Monitoring Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Markup Template: System Defaults Approach: None Technology Name Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MONITORING $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 Five-Year Review LANDFILL INSPECTION $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 HAZARDOUS WASTE SIGNING $1,918 Sub-Total $70,244 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 Escalation Factor 1.0404 1.0612 1.0824 1.1041 1.1262 Total $73,081 $72,507 $73,955 $75,438 $76,948

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/24/2010 Time: 11:30 AM Page 1 of 4 Phase Cost Over Time Report (with Markups)

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

$55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $17,367 $17,367 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574

$85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 1.1487 1.1717 1.1951 1.2190 1.2434 1.2682 1.2936 1.3195 1.3459 $98,435 $80,057 $81,656 $83,289 $84,956 $108,675 $88,386 $90,155 $91,959

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/24/2010 Time: 11:30 AM Page 2 of 4 Phase Cost Over Time Report (with Markups)

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033

$55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $17,367 $17,367 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574

$68,325 $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 1.3728 1.4002 1.4282 1.4568 1.4859 1.5157 1.5460 1.5769 1.6084 $93,797 $119,986 $97,582 $99,536 $101,525 $103,561 $132,480 $107,742 $109,895

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/24/2010 Time: 11:30 AM Page 3 of 4 Phase Cost Over Time Report (with Markups)

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Row 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 Total

$55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $1,672,541 $17,367 $17,367 $104,201 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $377,221 $1,918 $68,325 $68,325 $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $17,367 $2,155,882 1.6406 1.6734 1.7069 1.7410 1.7758 1.8114 1.8476 1.8845 $112,095 $114,336 $146,268 $118,955 $121,332 $123,765 $126,238 $32,728 $3,041,318

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/24/2010 Time: 11:30 AM Page 4 of 4 Ford Island Landfill Site HC04 Alternative 2 Land Use Controls Site Name: Ford Island Landfill (Escalated) Site ID: HC04 Alternative 2: LUCs Location: Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu, Hawaii Report Option: Fiscal Estimator: Keith Robertson

Name: Reviewer: Mike West Title: Senior Cost Engineer Agency/Org./Office: ERA | AECOM 5575 DTC Parkway Suite 200 Business Address: Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: 303-224-6777 Email: [email protected] Prepared Date: 3/24/2010

Phase Type Phase Name FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Long Term Monitoring Site HC04 Alt2, GW& SW Monitoring FY2010-2040 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 Long Term Monitoring Site HC04 Alt2, 5-Year Reviews 0 0 0 0 0 Long Term Monitoring Site HC04 Alt 2, Landfill Inspection $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 Long Term Monitoring Site HC04, Alt 2, Hazardous Waste Signing $1,918 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total with Markups $70,243 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 Escalation Factor 1.0404 1.0612 1.0824 1.1041 1.1262 Total $73,081 $72,507 $73,955 $75,438 $76,948 Year 01234 Present Value Discount Rate (2.7%) 1.000 0.974 0.948 0.923 0.899 Present Worth Value $73,081 $70,601 $70,118 $69,643 $69,170

Note: A 2.7 percent discount rate was used to calculate present value costs based upon the rates published in Appendix C of the Circular A-94 Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (United States Office of Management and Budget, 2009)

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/25/2010 Time: 9:03 AM This report is for official U.S. Government use only. Page 1 of 4 Ford Island Landfill Site HC04 Alternative 2 Land Use Controls Site Name: Ford Island Landfill (Escalated) Site ID: HC04 Alternative 2: LUCs Location: Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu Report Option: Fiscal

Name: Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Business Address: Phone: Email: Prepared Date:

Phase Type FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Long Term Monitoring $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 Long Term Monitoring $17,367 0 0 0 0 $17,367 0 0 0 0 Long Term Monitoring $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 Long Term Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total with Markups $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 Escalation Factor 1.1487 1.1717 1.1951 1.2190 1.2434 1.2682 1.2936 1.3195 1.3459 1.3728 Total $98,435 $80,057 $81,656 $83,289 $84,956 $108,675 $88,386 $90,155 $91,959 $93,797 Year 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Present Value Discount Rate (2.7%) 0.875 0.852 0.830 0.808 0.787 0.766 0.746 0.726 0.707 0.689 Present Worth Value $86,158 $68,230 $67,763 $67,301 $66,843 $83,258 $65,934 $65,486 $65,040 $64,596

Note: A 2.7 percent discount rate was used to calculate present value costs based upon the rates published in Appendix C of the Circular A-94 Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (United States Office of Management and Budget, 2009)

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/25/2010 Time: 9:03 AM This report is for official U.S. Government use only. Page 2 of 4 Ford Island Landfill Site HC04 Alternative 2 Land Use Controls Site Name: Ford Island Landfill (Escalated) Site ID: HC04 Alternative 2: LUCs Location: Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu Report Option: Fiscal

Name: Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Business Address: Phone: Email: Prepared Date:

Phase Type FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 FY2036 Long Term Monitoring $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 Long Term Monitoring $17,367 0 0 0 0 $17,367 0000$17,367 Long Term Monitoring $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 Long Term Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total with Markups $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $85,692 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $85,692 Escalation Factor 1.4002 1.4282 1.4568 1.4859 1.5157 1.5460 1.5769 1.6084 1.6406 1.6734 1.7069 Total $119,986 $97,582 $99,536 $101,525 $103,561 $132,480 $107,742 $109,895 $112,095 $114,336 $146,268 Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Present Value Discount Rate (2.7%) 0.671 0.653 0.636 0.619 0.603 0.587 0.572 0.556 0.542 0.528 0.514 Present Worth Value $80,459 $63,715 $63,283 $62,850 $62,425 $77,757 $61,575 $61,154 $60,739 $60,324 $75,143

Note: A 2.7 percent discount rate was used to calculate present value costs based upon the rates published in Appendix C of the Circular A-94 Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (United States Office of Management and Budget, 2009)

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/25/2010 Time: 9:03 AM This report is for official U.S. Government use only. Page 3 of 4 Ford Island Landfill Site HC04 Alternative 2 Land Use Controls Site Name: Ford Island Landfill (Escalated) Site ID: HC04 Alternative 2: LUCs Location: Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Oahu Report Option: Fiscal

Name: Title: Agency/Org./Office:

Business Address: Phone: Email: Prepared Date:

Phase Type FY2037 FY2038 FY2039 FY2040 FY2041 Row Total Long Term Monitoring $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $55,751 $0 $1,672,541 Long Term Monitoring 0000$17,367 $104,201 Long Term Monitoring $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $12,574 $0 $377,221 Long Term Monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,918 Sub-total with Markups $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $68,325 $17,367 $2,155,882 Escalation Factor 1.7410 1.7758 1.8114 1.8476 1.8845 Total $118,955 $121,332 $123,765 $126,238 $32,728 $3,041,318 Year 26 27 28 29 30 Present Value Discount Rate (2.7%) 0.500 0.487 0.474 0.462 0.450 Present Worth Value $59,504 $59,098 $58,698 $58,297 $14,716 $2,032,961

Note: A 2.7 percent discount rate was used to calculate present value costs based upon the rates published in Appendix C of the Circular A-94 Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (United States Office of Management and Budget, 2009)

Cost Database Date: 2009 Cost Type: Modified System Date: 3/25/2010 Time: 9:03 AM This report is for official U.S. Government use only. Page 4 of 4 Present Value Equation Formula Analysis Calculator

Alternative 2: Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Solving for present value or worth

t = n xt t PVtotal= Σ (1+i) t = 1

Inputs: n = number of years (30) i = discount rate (2.7%) x = total annual cost, escalated

Solution: future value (F) = $3,041,318 interest rate (i) = 2.7% (0.027) number of years (n) = 30 present value or worth (PV) = $2,032,961

Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

System:

RACER Version: 10.2.0 Database Location: C:\Documents and Settings\testguest\Desktop\AECOM Honolulu Office Estimates.mdb

Folder:

Folder Name: Fiscal Year 2011 Estimates

Site:

Site ID: 92244 Site Name: Landfill FS in Hawaii Site Category: None

Location State / Country: HAWAII City: HONOLULU

Location Modifier Default User 1.690 1.690

Options Database: Modified System Cost Database Date: 2009 Report Option: Fiscal

Description Landfill Feasibility Study Cost Estimate Location: Honolulu, HI (Ford Island, Pearl Harbor)

Page: 1 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Three (3) alternatives will be evaluated: 1) No Action 2) Land Use Controls 3) Excavation and Disposal Allowing for Unrestricted Reuse

Page: 2 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Alternative:

Alternative ID: 0002 Alternative Name: Land Use Controls Alternative Type: None Media/Waste Type Primary: Soil Secondary: N/A

Contaminant Primary: Metals Secondary: None

Phase Names Pre-Study: Study: Design: Removal/Interim Action: Remedial Action: Operations & Maintenance: Long Term Monitoring: Site Closeout:

Documentation Description: Alternative #2 - Land Use Controls This alternative will include landfill inspections, hazardous waste signing, and long-term groundwater monitoring activities semi-annually. The estimated long-term monitoring duration is 30 years.

Support Team: Jeff Johnson AECOM 841 Bishop Street, Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone Number: (808) 523-8874

Page: 3 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups) References: Reference Documents: analytical cost.pdf; OM Final Grading Figure.pdf Bldg 284 Cost.pdf; Sea Eng and IDW Disp Costs.pdf HC04 fill volume.pdf; Well logs FILF LTMP.pdf IDWDisp_FeeSched.doc

Estimator Information Estimator Name: Andrew Schleppi, CCC Estimator Title: Cost Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM Business Address: 5575 DTC Parkway Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone Number: 303-771-3103 Email Address: [email protected] Estimate Prepared Date: 08/27/2009

Estimator Signature: Date:

Reviewer Information Reviewer Name: Mike West Reviewer Title: Senior Cost Engineer Agency/Org./Office: AECOM Business Address: 5575 DTC Parkway Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone Number: 303-771-3103 Email Address: [email protected] Date Reviewed: 08/27/2009

Reviewer Signature: Date:

Page: 4 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Phase:

Phase Type: Long Term Monitoring Phase Name: Land Use Controls Description: This phase of work will esitmate the landfill inspections, hazardous waste signing, long-term groundwater testing, and 5-year review reports for a duration of 30 years.

Start Date: October, 2010 Labor Rate Group: System Labor Rate Analysis Rate Group: System Analysis Rate Phase Markups: System Defaults Technology Markups Markup % Prime % Sub. MONITORING Yes 100 0 Five-Year Review Yes 100 0 LANDFILL INSPECTION Yes 100 0 HAZARDOUS WASTE SIGNING Yes 100 0

Page: 5 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Technology: MONITORING

Element: Groundwater

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33020401 Disposable Materials per 22.00 EA 21.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 $474.51 Sample 33020402 Decontamination Materials per 22.00 EA 19.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 $435.27 Sample 33020561 Lysimeter accessories, nylon 205.00 LF 1.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 $280.34 tubing, 1/4" OD 33021509 Monitor well sampling 2.00 WK 0.00 0.00 0.00 524.73 $1,049.45 equipment, rental, water quality testing parameter device rental 33029501 A&P Pollutants Lab, Selected 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.68 $2,610.99 Dissolved Metals, water analysis 33029502 A&P Pollutants Lab, Dissolved 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.15 $1,015.38 Mercury, water analysis 33029503 A&P Pollutants Lab, Salinity, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.19 $290.11 water analysis 33029504 A&P Pollutants Lab, Total & 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.75 $1,160.44 Disolved Organic Carbon, water analysis 33029505 A&P Pollutants Lab, TDS, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.37 $580.22 water analysis 33029506 A&P Pollutants Lab, Hardness, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.74 $522.20 water analysis 33029507 A&P Pollutants Lab, pH, water 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.19 $290.11 analysis

Page: 6 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Element: Groundwater

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33029508 A&P Pollutants Lab, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.97 $725.27 Nitrate-Nitrite, water analysis 33029509 A&P Pollutants Lab, Chloride, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.75 $1,160.44 Sulfate, Ortho, water analysis 33029510 A&P Pollutants Lab, Total 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.97 $725.27 Phosphosphorous water analysis 33029511 A&P Pollutants Lab, Alkalinity, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.37 $580.22 water analysis 33029512 A&P Pollutants Lab, Specific 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.19 $290.11 Conductance, water analysis 33220102 Project Manager 3.00 HR 0.00 281.41 0.00 0.00 $844.24 33220112 Field Technician 40.00 HR 0.00 119.85 0.00 0.00 $4,793.84 33230614 Peristaltic Pump, Weekly 2.00 WK 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.34 $364.67 Rental

Total Element Cost $18,193.09

Element: Surface Water

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33020401 Disposable Materials per 22.00 EA 21.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 $474.51 Sample 33020402 Decontamination Materials per 22.00 EA 19.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 $435.27 Sample 33020520 Hip Waders 1.00 EA 215.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 $215.13

Page: 7 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Element: Surface Water

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33021509 Monitor well sampling 1.00 WK 0.00 0.00 0.00 524.73 $524.73 equipment, rental, water quality testing parameter device rental 33029501 A&P Pollutants Lab, Selected 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.68 $2,610.99 Dissolved Metals, water analysis 33029502 A&P Pollutants Lab, Dissolved 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.15 $1,015.38 Mercury, water analysis 33029503 A&P Pollutants Lab, Salinity, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.19 $290.11 water analysis 33029504 A&P Pollutants Lab, Total & 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.75 $1,160.44 Disolved Organic Carbon, water analysis 33029505 A&P Pollutants Lab, TDS, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.37 $580.22 water analysis 33029506 A&P Pollutants Lab, Hardness, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.74 $522.20 water analysis 33029507 A&P Pollutants Lab, pH, water 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.19 $290.11 analysis 33029508 A&P Pollutants Lab, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.97 $725.27 Nitrate-Nitrite, water analysis 33029509 A&P Pollutants Lab, Chloride, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.75 $1,160.44 Sulfate, Ortho, water analysis 33029510 A&P Pollutants Lab, Total 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.97 $725.27 Phosphosphorous water analysis 33029511 A&P Pollutants Lab, Alkalinity, 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.37 $580.22 water analysis Page: 8 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups) 33029512 A&P Pollutants Lab, Specific 22.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.19 $290.11 Conductance, water analysis 33220102 Project Manager 3.00 HR 0.00 281.41 0.00 0.00 $844.24 33220112 Field Technician 40.00 HR 0.00 119.85 0.00 0.00 $4,793.84

Total Element Cost $17,238.48

Element: Data Management

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33220102 Project Manager 8.00 HR 0.00 281.41 0.00 0.00 $2,251.31 33220108 Project Scientist 34.00 HR 0.00 243.56 0.00 0.00 $8,280.92 33220110 QA/QC Officer 4.00 HR 0.00 226.08 0.00 0.00 $904.33 33220112 Field Technician 4.00 HR 0.00 119.85 0.00 0.00 $479.38 33220114 Word Processing/Clerical 4.00 HR 0.00 117.27 0.00 0.00 $469.08 33220115 Draftsman/CADD 4.00 HR 0.00 144.88 0.00 0.00 $579.52 33240101 Other Direct Costs 1.00 LS 174.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 $174.63

Total Element Cost $13,139.17

Element: General Monitoring

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33010104 Sample collection, vehicle 40.00 MI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 $23.40 mileage charge, car or van 33029513 Expedited Shipping of 2.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.00 $800.00 Samples 33220112 Field Technician 18.00 HR 0.00 119.85 0.00 0.00 $2,157.23

Page: 9 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Element: General Monitoring

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 95010101 Sampling Boat Rental, per 2.00 DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,900.00 $3,800.00 day, includes captain, fuel, mob/demob 95010102 IDW Disposal Costs for 2.00 LS 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 $400.00 Groundwater Sampling

Total Element Cost $7,180.63

Total 1st Year Technology Cost $55,751.38

Page: 10 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Technology: Five-Year Review

Element: Document Review

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33220102 Project Manager 8.00 HR 0.00 281.41 0.00 0.00 $2,251.31 33220105 Project Engineer 9.00 HR 0.00 230.79 0.00 0.00 $2,077.09 33220108 Project Scientist 7.00 HR 0.00 243.56 0.00 0.00 $1,704.89 33220109 Staff Scientist 13.00 HR 0.00 158.21 0.00 0.00 $2,056.70

Total Element Cost $8,090.00

Element: Report

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33220102 Project Manager 4.00 HR 0.00 281.41 0.00 0.00 $1,125.66 33220105 Project Engineer 10.00 HR 0.00 230.79 0.00 0.00 $2,307.88 33220108 Project Scientist 11.00 HR 0.00 243.56 0.00 0.00 $2,679.12 33220109 Staff Scientist 20.00 HR 0.00 158.21 0.00 0.00 $3,164.16

Total Element Cost $9,276.81

Total 1st Year Technology Cost $17,366.82

Page: 11 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Technology: LANDFILL INSPECTION

Element: Monitoring & Enforcement

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Sub Bid Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Cost Override Applied 33010104 Sample collection, vehicle 30.00 MI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 $17.55 mileage charge, car or van 33220102 Project Manager 8.00 HR 0.00 281.41 0.00 0.00 $2,251.31 33220106 Staff Engineer 48.00 HR 0.00 181.51 0.00 0.00 $8,712.25 33220114 Word Processing/Clerical 6.00 HR 0.00 117.27 0.00 0.00 $703.62 33220119 Health and Safety Officer 4.00 HR 0.00 184.87 0.00 0.00 $739.46 33240101 Other Direct Costs 1.00 LS 149.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 $149.85

Total Element Cost $12,574.04

Total 1st Year Technology Cost $12,574.04

Page: 12 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM Phase Technology Cost Detail Report (with Markups)

Technology: HAZARDOUS WASTE SIGNING

Unit of Material Labor Equipment Extended Cost Markups Assembly Description Quantity Measure Unit Cost Unit Cost Unit Cost Sub Bid Cost Override Applied Unit Cost 18040501 Hazardous Waste Signing 4.00 EA 0.00 0.00 0.00 479.52 $1,918.08 Total Element Cost $1,918.08

Total 1st Year Technology Cost $1,918.08

Total Phase Cost $87,610.32

Page: 13 of 13 Print Date: 1/4/2010 3:22:24 PM

Attachment E Responsiveness Summary

ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Attachment E

Table E-1: Responses to Public Comments

Comment No. Question/Comment Questions and Comments Received During the Proposed Plan Meeting (14 September 2010) 1 Ms. Poola Villarimo (General Public) asked how deep is the soil contaminated and whether it is just contaminated in the subsurface. Ms. Jan Kotoshirodo (US Navy, NAVFAC Hawaii) indicated that the protective cap that overlies the contaminated soil is about 18 inches thick. Therefore, contaminated material underlies the cap and extends down to groundwater. The landfill basically is an area that consists of a lot of fill material, so essentially it is an area where the shoreline was extended. 2 Ms. Villarimo asked what would be the percentage of erosion. She clarified her question by asking what are the chances of erosion occurring? She noted that it probably will not erode, but requested confirmation on the probability is it could erode. Ms. Kotoshirodo indicated that as far as the shoreline area, we have not seen erosion since the cap was constructed in 1997. She indicated that no visible erosion has been observed based on the way the rip-rap (i.e., large pieces of rock) was constructed. So far, no erosion issues have been observed. 3 Ms. Myoung Hee Noh asked how deep it is to groundwater. Mr. Jeff Johnson (AECOM, Inc.) indicated that is approximately six to eight feet to groundwater, but the depth depends on the location. He indicated that right next to the water (harbor) it is less. Ms. Kotoshirodo indicated that it can be as little as 2 feet and as much as 9 feet. She noted that the water table surface has a concave shape. Mr. Johnson also noted that the depth to groundwater varies with the topography, but generally it is about 6 to 8 feet. 4 Ms. Noh asked what is the estimated volume of landfill material? Mr. Johnson noted that the landfill is about 4 acres, and Ms. Kotoshirodo clarified that it is about 4 1/2 acres. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Kotoshirodo indicated that they cannot remember the volume of debris contained within the landfill. 5 Ms. Noh asked if the current plan is to leave the debris as it currently is and have land use controls. Ms. Kotoshirodo confirmed that the plan is to leave the debris in place. 6 Mr. Gary Susag (City and County, Department of Emergency Management) indicated that the fact sheet mentioned engineered fill, and asked what is the engineered fill comprised of. Is it dirt? Ms. Kotoshirodo indicated that it is basically gravel and soil layers that have been compacted.

E-1

Attachment F Federal Facility Land Use Control ROD Checklist

ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Attachment F

EPA Region 9 Federal Facility Land Use Control ROD Checklist for Navy LUC RODs

Cross-Check Against Ford Island Landfill Record of Decision

Location Where Addressed in the Former No. Checklist Item PCJ Site ROD 1 Map/Figure showing boundaries of the land use controls. Figure 3 2 Document risk exposure assumptions and reasonably anticipated land Section 2.6, Current and Potential Future uses, as well as any known prohibited uses which might not be obvious Site and Resource Uses, page 2-16; and based on the reasonably anticipated land uses. (For example, where Section 2.7.1 Conceptual Site Model, “unrestricted industrial” use is anticipated, list prohibited uses such as page 2-17. on-site company day-care centers, recreation areas, etc.). 3 Describe the risks necessitating the LUCs. Section 2.7.1.1, Human Health Risk Evaluation, page 2-17; and Section 2.7.1.2 Ecological Risk Evaluation, page 2-24. 4 State the LUC performance objectives. We have had comments on Section 2.11.2.1, Land Use Control these because several of the objectives have not been clear. The Performance Objectives, page 2-41. following are some examples of what we have been looking for: • Prohibiting digging or disturbing of site soil. • Prohibiting excavation and removal of site soil to an offsite location. • Prohibiting the development and use of the property for residential housing, elementary or secondary schools, and child care facilities. • Ensuring protective covers are maintained. • Ensuring metals have not impacted the underlying shallow groundwater at concentrations that could adversely impact adjacent Pearl Harbor. 5 Generally describe the LUC (restriction), the logic for its selection and Section 2.11.1, Rationale for Selected any related deed restrictions/notifications. Remedy, page 2-41, Section 2.11.2.1, Land Use Control Performance Objectives, page 2-41. 6 Duration language: Section 2.11.2.1, Land Use Control “Land Use Controls will be maintained until the concentration of Performance Objectives, 3rd paragraph, hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater are at such page 2-41. levels to allow for unrestricted use and exposure." 7 Include language that the Navy is responsible for implementing, Section 2.11.2.1, Land Use Control maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing the land use controls. This may Performance Objectives, 3rd paragraph, be modified to include another party should the site-specific page 2-42. circumstances warrant it. 8 Where someone else will or the Navy plans that someone else will Section 2.11.2.1 Land Use Control ultimately be implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing land Performance Objectives, 3rd paragraph, use controls, the following language should be included: page 2-42; and Section 3.2, Technical “Although the Navy may later transfer [has transferred] these and Legal Issues, 2nd paragraph, procedural responsibilities to another party by contract, property page 3-1, the following text has been transfer agreement, or through other means, the Navy shall retain used in place of the standard language: ultimate responsibility for remedy integrity.” “Although the Navy may later transfer these responsibilities to another party by contract, property transfer agreement, or through other means, and the Navy may enforce such contracts or other agreements against transferees or other parties, the Navy shall retain ultimate responsibility for remedy integrity.”

F-1 ROD, Ford Island Landfill, September 2011 JBPHH, Ford Island, Oahu, HI Attachment F

Location Where Addressed in the Former No. Checklist Item PCJ Site ROD 9 Refer to the remedial design (RD) or remedial action work plan (RAWP) Section 2.11.2.1, Land Use Control for the implementation actions. Because this is a new idea (i.e., including Performance Objectives, 3rd paragraph the LUC implementation actions in either or both of these two primary page 2-41, the following text has been documents), to ensure that the requirement is clear and enforceable, we used in place of the standard language: developed the following language where it makes sense: “In compliance with Section 8.3 of the “A LUC Work Plan will be prepared as the land use component of FFA for the PHNC, within 21 days of the Remedial Design. Within 90 days of ROD signature, the Navy ROD signature, the Navy shall prepare shall prepare and submit to EPA for review and approval a LUC and submit to EPA for review and Work Plan that shall contain implementation and maintenance approval, proposed deadlines for actions, including periodic inspections.” completion of all subsequent primary documents, including the draft RAWP. Agreements to the schedule of the subsequent primary documents shall follow the stipulations cited in the FFA.”

F-2