Agenda packet — Watsonville City Council, April 26, 2022 (part 4 of 7)

CTL Job No: Project No. 2t038 By: RU
Client: Date: 02/19/21
Project Name: Remarks:

Boring: SB-3-d21 SB-4-d16 SB-4-d20 SB-4-d27
Sample:

Depth, ft: 21 16 20 27
Visual
Description:

Actual Gs 2.71 2.71 2.75 2.70
Assumed Gs
Moisture, % 21.5 5.0 6.4 20.0
Wet Unit wt, pcf 127.5 98.5 102.1 114.6
Dry Unit wt, pcf 104.9 93.8 96.0 95.5
Dry Bulk Dens.ρb, (g/cc) 1.68 1.50 1.54 1.53
Saturation, % 94.9 16.9 22.4 70.4
Total Porosity, % 38.1 44.6 44.0 43.3
Volumetric Water Cont,Өw,% 36.1 7.5 9.9 30.5
Volumetric Air Cont., Өa,% 2.0 37.1 34.2 12.8
Void Ratio 0.61 0.80 0.79 0.76
Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Weber, Hayes & Associates
407-024b
510 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA.

Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation, porosities, and void ratio should be considered approximate.

Dark
Brown
CLAY
Dark
Yellowish
Brown
Poorly
Graded
SAND w/
Silt
Dark
Yellowish
Brown
Poorly
Graded
SAND
Dark
Yellowish
Brown Sandy
SILT

70.0 80.0

90.0 100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Density, pcf
Moisture Content, %
Moisture-Density
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Series 4
Series 5
Series 6
Series 7
Series 8
Zero Air-voids Curves, Specific Gravity

2.6 2.7

2.8 The Zero Air-Voids curves
represent the dry density at
100% saturation for each value
of specific gravity
Moisture-Density-Porosity Report
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc. (ASTM D7263b)
Exhibit B

Page 215 of 468 ends

Date: 2/19/21
By: RU
Project No.:

SB-3-d21 SB-4-d16 SB-4-d20 SB-4-d27
21 16 20 27

2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97

2.86 2.87 2.86 2.87

2.711 2.708 2.745 2.697

2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
906.59 764.84 779.71 846.02
Tare, g: 268.22 268.22 268.22 268.19
638.37 496.62 511.49 577.83 0 0 0 0
145.76 203.54 135.19 194.37
122.96 197.23 128.04 170.81

16.96 71.21 16.76 52.77
CTL Job No.:

Client:

Project Name: 510 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA.

Wet Wt. Of Soil & Tare, g:

Tare, g:

Visual Classification:

Weber, Hayes & Associates
Height, in.:

Determined Sp. Grav.:

Density Data
2t038
Dry Wt of Soil & Tare, g:

Total Wt of Soil& Tare, g:

Total Wet Wt of Soil, g:

Moisture Content Data
Tare No.:

Moisture-Density Lab Worksheet
Dark Brown
CLAY
Dark
Yellowish
Brown
Poorly
Graded
SAND w/
Silt
Dark
Yellowish
Brown
Poorly
Graded
SAND
Dark
Yellowish
Brown
Sandy SILT
407-024b
Boring:

Assumed Sp. Grav.:

Diameter, in.:

Sample:

Depth, ft.:

Exhibit B

Page 216 of 468 ends

The following information is intended to provide some more detailed information about each of the parameters presented in the accompanying report. For additional information on this subject we recommend a general soil mechanics text book.

SATURATION - The degree of saturation (S) is defined as the ratio of the volume of water in a sample to the volume of voids (pore space). It can be expressed either as a percentage or as a decimal. A saturation of zero would indicate an oven-dry state. All of the voids are filled with air. A saturation of 100% would indicate that all of the voids in the sample are filled with water and there is no air in the soil. It is theoretically impossible to have saturation values greater than 100%. If a specific gravity test is not run on a sample then an assumed specific gravity value is used to calculate an estimated saturation.

SPECIFIC GRAVITY - The specific gravity is equivalent to the particle density. It is defined as the ratio of the density of the soil solids to the density of water at 20°C. It is used to calculate the phase relationships of soils, such as void ratio and degree of saturation. If a specific gravity test was not run on a sample then an assumed specific gravity value is used to calculate an estimated saturation.

WET UNIT WEIGHT - The wet unit weight is equivalent to the total unit weight or the wet bulk density and is typically reported in units of pounds per cubic foot (pcf) although it can also be reported in units of grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3). It is defined as the total wet weight of the sample (wt. of soil plus wt. of water) divided by the total volume (volume of solids plus the volume of voids).

MOISTURE CONTENT - The moisture content as reported here is based on a gravimetric measurement and not a volumetric measurement. The moisture content is defined as the weight of water in a specimen (g) divided by the oven-dry weight of the specimen (g) and expressed as a percentage.

DRY UNIT WEIGHT - The dry unit weight is equivalent to the dry bulk density and is typically reported in units of pounds per cubic foot (pcf) although it can also be reported in units of grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3). It is defined as the total dry weight of the sample divided by the total volume (volume of solids plus the volume of voids).

VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT - Volumetric Water Content (θw) is the same as Water-filled Porosity. It is defined simply as the percent of the total volume of the sample that is occupied by water.

SAMPLE DISTURBANCE - Some soil parameters are significantly affected by the density and arragement of the soil particles. These parameters include density, porosity(total and effective), volumetric air and water contents, hydraulic conductivity, air permeability, strength, void ratio etc. For these analyses the goal is to test samples that are as representative of the in-situ soil conditions as possible. The way in which samples are collected determines the degree of disturbance the sample experiences. Typically, the larger the sample diameter the less disturbed the sample is and the more representative it is of the in-situ condition. Cooper Testing Labs recommends a minimum sample diameter of 2 inches for any testing that calls for undisturbed specimens such as those listed above. Although we recommend against using direct push sampling to obtain undisturbed samples we realize that there are time when there are no other options. In this case we recommend limiting the push length to a maximum of 12 inches when "undisturbed" samples are desired. This will help to minimize the sample disturbance.

INITIAL and FINAL SAMPLE STATES - For some tests such as the hydraulic conductivity or triaxial shear tests the sample is saturated as part of the test procedure. The reports for these types of tests will provide results for sample parameters in both the "Initial" and "Final" sample conditions.

These parameters include wet and dry densities, moisture contents, porosities etc. The "Initial" state is the as-received state. If the sample was undisturbed then the intitial sample parameters will reflect the condition of the in-situ condition of the soil. The "Final" state is the at-test state. In this state, water may have been added to the sample to saturate it. The sample may have also been consolidated as part of the test (hydraulic conductivity, air permeability and triaxial/direct shear strength testing only). This would cause an increase in sample density and related values from the as-received state. If the sample was consolidated the report would indicate this as well as the consolidation stress applied.

TOTAL POROSITY - The total porosity is a measure of how porous the sample is or how much of the bulk sample volume is pore space. It is defined as the ratio of the volume of voids (pore space) to the total volume (volume of solids plus the volume of voids). It can be expressed either as a percentage or as a decimal.

Interestingly, clays typically have a higher porosity than sands although the size of the voids tends to be much smaller in clays resulting in the typically very low hydraulic conductivity values for clays relative to sands VOID RATIO - The void ratio is related to the porosity as a measure of how much void space is in the sample. It is defined as the ratio of the volume of void space in a sample to the total volume (volume of solids plus the volume of voids).

TOTAL POROSITY vs. EFFECTIVE POROSITY - While the total porosity is defined as the volume of voids/ the bulk volume of the sample(volume of voids plus volume of solids) not all of the void space contributes in a significant way to the flow of water. Some of the voids are isolated, are too small or are filled with water which is adsorbed to the clay minerals or other grains. Effective porosity is basically defined as the volume of voids that contribute in a significant way to the flow of water divided by the bulk volume of the soil. The effective porosity can approach the total porosity in the case of clean coarse sands and can approach zero in the case of clays but it is always less than the total porosity.

VOLUMETRIC AIR CONTENT - Volumetric Air Content (θa) is the same as Air-filled Porosity. It is defined simply as the percent of the total volume of the sample that is occupied by air.

Exhibit B

Page 217 of 468 ends

CTL Job#: Project Name: Date: 02/24/21
Client: Project No.: Run By: MD
Checked DC
Boring: SB-1-d11 SB-1-d16 SB-1-d22 SB-2-d10 SB-2-d15 SB-2-d21 SB-3-d10 SB-3-d15 Sample:

Depth, ft.: 11 16 22 10 15 21 10 15
Pan No.:

Soil Description
(visual)
Pycnometer ID: P02 P03 P02 P03 P04 P05 P02 P03
Mass of Clean, Dry
Pycnometer (g): 158.06 158.92 158.06 158.92 158.78 155.02 158.06 158.92 Mass of Pycnometer,
Soil, and Water (g): 723.85 728.18 719.78 721.42 721.42 716.34 722.94 720.48 Temperature of Slurry (°C): 19.2 19.2 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.2 20.2 Tare ID:

Mass of Tare (g): 166.30 169.74 161.59 163.54 161.83 167.03 165.41 297.81 Mass of Dry Soil and Tare (g): 271.59 281.11 261.91 265.25 263.62 266.10 270.08 397.02 Mass of Dry Soil (g): 105.29 111.37 100.32 101.71 101.79 99.07 104.67 99.21 Mass of Pycnometer
and Water at Test Temp
(g):
656.52 657.42 656.35 657.25 657.01 653.47 656.41 657.31 Specific Gravity @ Test Temp: 2.774 2.743 2.719 2.709 2.723 2.737 2.744 2.753 Specific Gravity @ 20 °C: 2.774 2.743 2.719 2.709 2.723 2.736 2.744 2.753 510 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA. 95076
2t038
Dark Grayish
Brown CLAY
Very Dark
Brown CLAY
Very Dark
Grayish Brown
CLAY
Dark Grayish
Brown CLAY
Very Dark
Grayish Brown
CLAY
407-024a
Weber,Hayes & Associates
Olive Gray
CLAY
Dark Yellowish
Brown Sandy
CLAY
Dark Yellowish
Brown Silty
SAND
Specific Gravity by Pycnometer
ASTM D 854
Exhibit B

Page 218 of 468 ends

CTL Job#: Project Name: Date: 02/25/21
Client: Project No.: Run By: MD
Checked DC
Boring: SB-3-d21 SB-4-d16 SB-4-d20 SB-4-d27
Sample:

Depth, ft.: 21 16 20 27
Pan No.:

Soil Description
(visual)
Pycnometer ID: P04 P05 P02 P03
Mass of Clean, Dry
Pycnometer (g): 158.78 155.02 158.06 158.92
Mass of Pycnometer,
Soil, and Water (g): 718.76 720.65 719.30 720.26
Temperature of Slurry (°C): 20.2 20.2 21.1 21.1
Tare ID:

Mass of Tare (g): 165.05 163.83 165.54 161.62
Mass of Dry Soil and Tare (g): 262.80 270.25 264.60 261.81 Mass of Dry Soil (g): 97.75 106.42 99.06 100.19
Mass of Pycnometer
and Water at Test Temp
(g):
657.07 653.53 656.32 657.22
Specific Gravity @ Test Temp: 2.711 2.708 2.746 2.697
Specific Gravity @ 20 °C: 2.711 2.708 2.745 2.697
510 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA. 95076
2t038
Dark Yellowish
Brown Sandy
SILT
407-024b
Weber, Hayes & Associates
Dark Brown
CLAY
Dark Yellowish
Brown Poorly
Graded SAND
w/ Silt
Dark Yellowish
Brown Poorly
Graded SAND
Specific Gravity by Pycnometer
ASTM D 854
Exhibit B

Page 219 of 468 ends

CTL Job No: Project No.: 2t038 IC Ions to test for: Both Client: Date: 2/17/2021
Project Name: By: PJ
Boring: SB-3-d10 SB-3-d15 SB-3-d21 SB-4-d16 SB-4-d20 SB-27-d27 Sample:

Depth, ft: 10 15 21 16 20 27
Soil Description: Very Dark
Grayish Brown
CLAY
Dark Grayish
Brown CLAY
Dark Brown
CLAY
Dark Yellowish
Brown Poorly
Graded SAND
w/ Silt
Dark Yellowish
Brown Poorly
Graded SAND
Dark Yellowish
Brown Sandy
SILT
Extraction Flask No.

Wt. of wet soil (g)
Vol of water (ml) 300 300 300 300 300 300
Pan No.

Pan wt. (g)
Total wet wt. (g)
Total dry wt (g)
Beaker No.

ORP, EH (NHE) (Rmv)
ORP Test Temp, OC
Sulfide
Small Dial Reading
Large Dial Reading
Temp. oC
Bowl No.

Small Dial Reading
Large Dial Reading
Temp. oC
pH measurement #1 7.26 7.27 7.38 7.53 7.27 7.54
pH measurement #2 7.25 7.32 7.41 7.61 7.34 7.51
pH measurement #3 7.25 7.43 7.39 7.61 7.41 7.48
IC Ions to test for: Both Both Both Both Both Both
Vial No.

Meas. conc(mg Cl-/L)
Meas. conc(mg SO4
-2/L)
Comments:

Corrosivity Tests
ASTM RESISTIVITY - 100% Saturation

SULFATE
407-024
Weber, Hayes & Associates
510 Ohlone Parkway

CHLORIDE

CHLORIDE AND SULFATE TESTING

EXTRACTION
% H2O of Extracted Sample:

ORP / SULFIDE TESTS
pH TEST
ASTM RESISTIVITY - As Received
Exhibit B

Page 220 of 468 ends

CTL Job No: Project No.: 2t038 IC Ions to test for: Both Client: Date: 2/17/2021
Project Name: By: PJ
Boring: SB-1-d11 SB-1- d16 SB-1-d22 SB-2-d10 SB-2-d15 SB-2-d21 Sample:

Depth, ft: 11 16 22 10 15 21
Soil Description: Olive Gray
CLAY
Dark Brown
Sandy CLAY
Dark Yellowish
Brown Silty
SAND
Very Dark
Brown CLAY
Very Dark
Grayish Brown
CLAY
Dark Grayish
Brown CLAY
Extraction Flask No.

Wt. of wet soil (g)
Vol of water (ml) 300 300 300 300 300 300
Pan No.

Pan wt. (g)
Total wet wt. (g)
Total dry wt (g)
Beaker No.

ORP, EH (NHE) (Rmv)
ORP Test Temp, OC
Sulfide
Small Dial Reading
Large Dial Reading
Temp. oC
Bowl No.

Small Dial Reading
Large Dial Reading
Temp. oC
pH measurement #1 7.35 7.31 7.67 6.96 7.37 7.20
pH measurement #2 7.29 7.32 7.53 6.90 7.08 7.20
pH measurement #3 7.25 7.30 7.53 6.91 7.01 7.19
IC Ions to test for: Both Both Both Both Both Both
Vial No.

Meas. conc(mg Cl-/L)
Meas. conc(mg SO4
-2/L)
Comments:

Corrosivity Tests
ASTM RESISTIVITY - 100% Saturation

SULFATE
407-024
Weber, Hayes & Associates
510 Ohlone Parkway

CHLORIDE

CHLORIDE AND SULFATE TESTING

EXTRACTION
% H2O of Extracted Sample:

ORP / SULFIDE TESTS
pH TEST
ASTM RESISTIVITY - As Received
Exhibit B

Page 221 of 468 ends

CTL Job No: Project No.: 2t038 IC Ions to test for: Both Client: Date: 2/17/2021
Project Name: By: PJ
Boring:

Sample:

Depth, ft:

Soil Description:

Extraction Flask No.

Wt. of wet soil (g)
Vol of water (ml) 300 300 300 300 300 300
Pan No.

Pan wt. (g)
Total wet wt. (g)
Total dry wt (g)
Beaker No.

ORP, EH (NHE) (Rmv)
ORP Test Temp, OC
Sulfide
Small Dial Reading
Large Dial Reading
Temp. oC
Bowl No.

Small Dial Reading
Large Dial Reading
Temp. oC
pH measurement #1
pH measurement #2
pH measurement #3
IC Ions to test for: Both Both Both Both Both Both
Vial No.

Meas. conc(mg Cl-/L)
Meas. conc(mg SO4
-2/L)
Comments:

Corrosivity Tests
ASTM RESISTIVITY - 100% Saturation

SULFATE
407-024
Weber, Hayes & Associates
510 Ohlone Parkway

CHLORIDE

CHLORIDE AND SULFATE TESTING

EXTRACTION
% H2O of Extracted Sample:

ORP / SULFIDE TESTS
pH TEST
ASTM RESISTIVITY - As Received
Exhibit B

Page 222 of 468 ends

CTL # Date: PJ
Client: Project:

Remarks:

Chloride pH Sulfide Moisture
As Rec. Min Sat. mg/kg mg/kg % Qualitative At Test
Dry Wt. Dry Wt. Dry Wt. EH (mv) At Test by Lead %
Boring Sample, No. Depth, ft. ASTM G57 Cal 643 ASTM G57 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 ASTM G51 ASTM G200 Temp °C Acetate Paper ASTM D2216 SB-1-d11 - 11 - - - - - - 7.3 - - - - Olive Gray CLAY
SB-1- d16 - 16 - - - - - - 7.3 - - - - Dark Brown Sandy CLAY SB-1-d22 - 22 - - - - - - 7.6 - - - - Dark Yellowish Brown Silty SAND SB-2-d10 - 10 - - - - - - 6.9 - - - - Very Dark Brown CLAY SB-2-d15 - 15 - - - - - - 7.2 - - - - Very Dark Grayish Brown CLAY SB-2-d21 - 21 - - - - - - 7.2 - - - - Dark Grayish Brown CLAY SB-3-d10 - 10 - - - - - - 7.3 - - - - Very Dark Grayish Brown CLAY SB-3-d15 - 15 - - - - - - 7.3 - - - - Dark Grayish Brown CLAY SB-3-d21 - 21 - - - - - - 7.4 - - - - Dark Brown CLAY
SB-4-d16 - 16 - - - - - - 7.6 - - - -
Dark Yellowish Brown Poorly
Graded SAND w/ Silt
SB-4-d20 - 20 - - - - - - 7.3 - - - -
Dark Yellowish Brown Poorly
Graded SAND
SB-27-d27 - 27 - - - - - - 7.5 - - - - Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy SILT Corrosivity Tests Summary
(Redox)
PJ
2t038
Resistivity @ 15.5 °C (Ohm-cm)
Proj. No:
2/19/2021 Checked:

Weber, Hayes & Associates
Soil Visual Description
407-024
510 Ohlone Parkway
Sample Location or ID Sulfate ORP
Tested By:

Exhibit B

Page 223 of 468 ends

Exhibit B

Page 224 of 468 ends

Page 522 of 885 ends

Appendix C-2:
2018, April 19
Thomas Harder & Company
Response to Additional Technical Comments issued by SC‐HSA's 3rd‐Party Toxicologist (agency emailed comments dated December 5th).

Exhibit B

Page 225 of 468 ends

Appendix C-2
.

Response to Follow-up Technical Comments issued by SC‐HSA's 3rd‐Party Toxicologist (agency comment letter dated December 5, 2017)
.

Source: Thomas Harder & Company, April 19, 2018

Page 523 of 885 ends

Thomas Harder & Co.
1260 N. Hancock St., Suite 109
Anaheim, California 92807
(714) 779-3875
April 19, 2018
Mr. Pat Hoban, PG
Weber, Hayes & Associates
120 Westgate Drive
Watsonville, California 95076
Re: Response to Huntley review of TH&Co Response to Comments for:

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) dated September 13, 2017
Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR) dated July 13, 2017 Former Clusters Storage Yard
511 Ohlone Parkway
Watsonville, California
Dear Mr. Hoban:

As you are aware, Thomas Harder & Company (TH&Co) provided responses to comments (RTCs) provided by Huntley Environmental (Huntley) to the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR) for the Former Clusters Storage Yard located at 511 Ohlone Parkway in Watsonville, California. The TH&Co response to comment report is dated October 26, 2017. Huntley responded to this report via electronic mail (email) with three comments. As requested, this letter response addresses Comment 1 of the Huntley email which is as follows:

Huntley Comment 1: I found no errors or concerns with the calculation of cumulative cancer risks and noncancer hazards (sum of hazard quotients [HQs]) as was done for TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene. I also agree with TH&Co that including lead in cumulative risk/hazard calculations would not be appropriate. I note that TH&Co indicated in the RTCs that comparison of lead concentrations to applicable ESLs were presented in Tables 3a and 3b, however, these tables were not provided in the RTCs.
[1]
Nevertheless, the lead data provided in “Enclosure A
Table 2 from RAP”, as included in the RTCs, were sufficient for my review. Cumulative risk and 1 Table 3a and Table 3b are included herein along with Table 1a, Table 1b, Table 2a, and Table 2b as provided in our October RTC report for the sake of completeness.

Exhibit B

Page 226 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 19-April-18 2 hazard calculations for arsenic, chromium VI, and nickel were not done as these three constituents were deferred to a supplemental site-specific background evaluation presented as Attachment 1 to the RTCs. It may be helpful to calculate cumulative risks and hazards using 95%UCL concentrations rather than individual sample concentrations. It appears that if 95%UCLs were used as the exposure point concentrations, then it is possible that individual COPC and cumulative HQs and risks for all COPCs (other than lead) may be within acceptable ranges. If risk estimates were further refined using 95%UCLs, it would still be important to evaluate potential hot spots, particularly for TPH-motor oil and lead. As indicated in my previous comments it will be important to clearly describe the basis for remediating soil to a depth of 2 ft in the revised RAP.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 1
For purposes of discussion, Comment 1 is subdivided as two separate comments below. 95% UCL and hot spot comment
The COPCs evaluated in our October RTC report were:
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-d);
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil (TPH-mo);
• Naphthalene; and
• Lead.

Inspection of these the sample-specific risk tables (Table 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b) reveals that TPH-d, TPH-mo, and lead exceed risk benchmark levels for some samples. The 95% UCLs (rounded to the nearest mg/kg) for these three COPCs using the method detection limits (MDLs) for ‘non-detect’ (ND) sample results[2] and including all results for non-log-transformed datasets are as follows (see Attachment 2 for ProUCL[3] output):
• TPH-d: 98 mg/kg;
• TPH-mo: 5143 mg/kg; and
• Lead: 220 mg/kg.

Given the most stringent (residential) risk benchmark levels for these COPCs (230, 11000, and 80 mg/kg, respectively), lead is the only COPC with a 95% UCL that exceeds its risk benchmark as correctly stated in the Huntley comment. That is, use of a 95% UCL would eliminate risk concerns associated with TPH-d and TPH-mo.

2 A revised version of Table 4 from the RAP in which the “ND” designations” have been replaced with the MDLs is included as Attachment 1. 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015 (Ashtok, A.S. and A.K. Singh). ProUCL Version 5.1.002 Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets With and Without Nondetect Observations.

EPA/600/R-07/041. October.

Exhibit B

Page 227 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 19-April-18 3 To address the Huntley comment that hot spots be evaluated, particularly for TPH-mo and lead, the 95% UCLs associated with sequential elimination of the highest concentration samples are plotted as shown on the figures below.

The TPH-mo chart (Figure 1) shows that for the entire dataset (i.e., the case in which no hot spots are removed), the 95% UCL (5143 mg/kg) does not exceed either ESL as noted above. If the two highest TPH-mo concentrations are removed – both of which exceed the residential ESL – the resulting dataset has a maximum concentration of 5500 mg/kg and the 95% UCL decreases from 5143 to 648 mg/kg. Additional hot spot removals result in comparatively negligible decreases in the 95% UCL.
1 10
100
1000
10000
100000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Concentration (mg/kg)
Figure 1: TPH-mo ESLs, Concentrations,
and Associated 95% UCLs
TPH-mo ESL (Construction Worker) ESL (Residential)
95% UCL (all data) 95% UCL (max=5500 mg/kg) 95% UCL (max=3500 mg/kg) 95% UCL (max=2000 mg/kg) 95% UCL (max=980 mg/kg)
Exhibit B

Page 228 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 19-April-18 4 The lead chart (Figure 2) shows that for the entire dataset (i.e., the case in which no hot spots are removed), the 95% UCL (220 mg/kg) exceeds both ESLs as noted above. If the two highest lead concentrations are removed – 3200 and 5400 mg/kg – the resulting dataset has a maximum concentration of 1100 mg/kg and the 95% UCL decreases from 220 to 69 mg/kg, which is below both ESLs. Additional hot spot removals result in comparatively negligible decreases in the 95% UCL.

Remediation depth comment
The fact that the risk benchmark exceedances are limited to the upper 2 feet except for TPH-mo at 8 feet at T-16(t) at 97000 mg/kg and lead at 6 feet at T-11(t) at 3200 mg/kg provides the basis for the removal depth of 2 feet. As noted in our response to Huntley Comment 8 in our October RTC report, over-excavation and subsequent confirmation sampling will be conducted at those locations at which ESL exceedances were not vertically defined.
1 10
100
1000
10000
0 50 100 150 200
Concentration (mg/kg)
Figure 2: Lead ESLs, Concentrations,
and Associated 95% UCLs
Lead ESL (Construction Worker) ESL (Residential)
95% UCL (all data) 95% UCL (max=1100 mg/kg) 95% UCL (max=480 mg/kg) 95% UCL (max=250 mg/kg) 95% UCL (max=150 mg/kg)
Exhibit B

Page 229 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 19-April-18 5 CLOSING
The analysis presented here indicates that some limited hot spot removal for lead may be warranted. If you have any questions, please contact me at the phone numbers or electronic mail address listed below.

Sincerely,
Jim Van de Water, P.G., C.HG.

Principal Hydrogeologist
949 795-0855 (cell)
949 779-3875 (office)
[email protected]
Exhibit B

Page 230 of 468 ends

3DW+REDQ
)URP
6FRWW&DUVRQ6FRWW&DUVRQ#VDQWDFUX]FRXQW\XV!
6HQW
7XHVGD\'HFHPEHU
307R
3DW+REDQ&F

6WHYH+XQWOH\

5LVN
-LP9DQGH:DWHU
6XEMHFW
5(
2+/21(3$5.:$<:$76219,//(57&$WWDFKPHQWV
2KORQH3NZ\+XQWOH\,QLWLDO&RPPHQWVWR57&SGIHello Pat, As you know, I have not had a chance to review the Thomas Harder & Co. response dated October 26, 2017, to the Huntley comments dated September 29, 2017. However, I asked Steve Huntley to provide some initial feedback on the response (attached email dated December 5, 2017) to see if it appears to be on the right track and to assist you with preparing the requested redline/strikeout versions of the SPTR and RAP. I hope you will find Mr. Huntley’s comments helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott E. Carson, PG, CEG
Professional Geologist County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Environmental Health Division Site Mitigation Program 701 Ocean Street, Suite 312 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Voice 831-454-2758, Fax 831-454-3128, Email [email protected] Main http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/, EHS Home http://www.scceh.com/Site Mitigation Home http://www.scceh.com/Home/Programs/SiteMitigation.aspxThis message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message, and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited. &ƌŽŵ͗ Pat Hoban [mailto:[email protected]] ^ĞŶƚ͗ Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:08 PM dŽ͗ 'Steve Huntley' <[email protected]>; Scott Carson <[email protected]>; '(Risk) Jim Van de Water' <[email protected]> ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ RE: 511 OHLONE PARKWAY, WATSONVILLE (Conference Call (Thursday October 19th, at 10 am) Hi Scott and Steve, ATTACHED are Jim’s responses as we discussed in our conference call. I’m currently incorporating them in a track changes WORD doc that should be uploaded tomorrow. Please email or call if you have any input on the responses. 1 6FRWW&DUVRQ)URP
6WHYH+XQWOH\VKXQWOH\#KXQWOH\HQYLURQPHQWDOFRP!
6HQW
7XHVGD\'HFHPEHU
307R
6FRWW&DUVRQ6XEMHFW
5H
2KORQH3NZ\:DWVRQYLOOH+XQWOH\UHYLHZRI7+ &R5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV Hi Scott, Following are my initial comments on the TH&Co response to comments (RTCs).

1. 1. I found no errors or concerns with the calculation of cumulative cancer risks and noncancer hazards (sum of hazard quotients [HQs]) as was done for TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene. I also agree with TH&Co that including lead in cumulative risk/hazard calculations would not be appropriate. I note that TH&Co indicated in the RTCs that comparison of lead concentrations to applicable ESLs were presented in Tables 3a and 3b, however, these tables were not provided in the RTCs. Nevertheless, the lead data provided in “Enclosure A Table 2 from RAP”, as included in the RTCs, were sufficient for my review. Cumulative risk and hazard calculations for arsenic, chromium VI, and nickel were not done as these three constituents were deferred to a supplemental site-specific background evaluation presented as Attachment 1 to the RTCs. It may be helpful to calculate cumulative risks and hazards using 95%UCL concentrations rather than individual sample concentrations. It appears that if 95%UCLs were used as the exposure point concentrations, then it is possible that individual COPC and cumulative HQs and risks for all COPCs (other than lead) may be within acceptable ranges. If risk estimates were further refined using 95%UCLs, it would still be important to evaluate potential hot spots, particularly for TPH-motor oil and lead. As indicated in my previous comments it will be important to clearly describe the basis for remediating soil to a depth of 2 ft in the revised RAP.

2. 2. TH&Co indicated that several minor errors identified in the Huntley Comments would be corrected in the revised RAP. I am in agreement.

3. 3. I concur with the results of the supplemental background evaluation presented in Attachment 1 of the RTCs, as follows:
a. For the TH&Co evaluation of arsenic background, I concur with the statistical analyses and conclusion that there does not appear to have been an arsenic release at the site, and therefore, arsenic would not be classified as a COPC. The arsenic data appear to represent a single population ((e.g., background) as supported by the very low coefficient of variation (CV), absence of outliers, and graphical presentation of the data. b. For the same reasons stated above for arsenic, I also concur with the TH&Co evaluation of chromium VI background that the data appear to represent a single population and that there does not appear to have been a chromium VI release at the site. c. For the same reasons stated above for arsenic and chromium VI, I also concur with the TH&Co evaluation of nickel background that the data appear to represent a single population and that there does not appear to have been a nickel release at the site.

In summary, I concur that the site data do not support selecting arsenic, chromium VI, or nickel as COPCs since all three appear to be consistent with background conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Steve -- 6WHYH+XQWOH\HUNTLEY ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Consulting, Assessment, and Strategic Solutions(775) 720-5330 www.huntleyenvironmental.com Exhibit B

Page 231 of 468 ends

Agency final comments on Risk Assessment
TABLES
Exhibit B

Page 232 of 468 ends

Follow-up Response to Comments (April 2018)
Table 1a, Table 1b, Table 2a, and Table 2b are
provided in the October Response to Comments
--
The following Tables 3a & 3b are
Comparisons of Lead Concentrations to
Residential & Construction Worker ESL Values Page 530 of 885 TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)
B-1(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -
B-2(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -

0.5 12 80 No -

1.5 140 80 Yes 1.5

2.5 -- 80 - -
4 -- 80 - -
B-4(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -
B-5(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -
B-6(t) 0.75 -- 80 - -
B-7(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -

0.5 23 80 No -

1.5 -- 80 - -

2.5 -- 80 - -
4 -- 80 - -

0.5 40 80 No -

1.5 -- 80 - -

2.5 -- 80 - -
4 -- 80 - -
T-1(t) T4 4 -- 80 - -
T-2(t) T6 3.5 20 80 No -
T-3(t) T9 2 29 80 No -
T-4(t) T10 1 6.8 80 No -
T-5(t) T11 1.5 -- 80 - -
T-6(t) T12 1 76 80 No -
T-7(t) T6 1 8.6 80 No -
T-8(t) T12 2 22 80 No -
T-9(t) T15 2 55 80 No -
T-10(t) Area 3 T1 3 -- 80 - -
T-11(t) T1 6 3,200 80 Yes 6
T-12(t) T3 2 1,100 80 Yes 2
T-13(t) T5 3 -- 80 - -
T-14(t) T10 4 16 80 No -
T-15(t) T1 2 130 80 Yes 2
T-16(t) T1* 8 310 80 Yes 8
T-17(t) T1 2 120 80 Yes 2
T-18(t) Debris -- 50 80 No -

0.5 63 80 No -
2 13 80 No -

0.5 110 80 Yes 0.5
2 9.9 80 No -

0.5 250 80 Yes 0.5
2 17 80 No -

0.5 52 80 No -
2 14 80 No -
B-11(w) SB-2
B-12(w) SB-3
B-13(w) SB-4
Area 2
Area 5
B-10(w) SB-1
Area 6
Area 8
TB-5
TB-6
TB-7
Area 1
B-9(t) TB-9
TB-1
TB-2
B-3(t) TB-3

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-8(t) TB-8
TB-4

Page 1 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 233 of 468 ends

Page 531 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 23 80 No -
2 6.9 80 No -

0.5 6.9 80 No -
2 5.5 80 No -
3 5.2 80 No -
1 5.4 80 No -
3 5.9 80 No -
2 9.4 80 No -
3 5.1 80 No -
1 44 80 No -
3 9.8 80 No -
3 13 80 No -
5 9 80 No -
7 33 80 No -
3 21 80 No -
5 25 80 No -
7 8.9 80 No -
3 11 80 No -
5 9.3 80 No -
7 17 80 No -
3 17 80 No -
5 6.5 80 No -
7 7.6 80 No -
2 1 80 No -
4 10 80 No -
1 6.9 80 No -
3 6.8 80 No -
7 7.7 80 No -
11 7.9 80 No -
B-51(L) 2 8.2 80 No -
2 8 80 No -
4 10 80 No -
6 77 80 No -
2 6.8 80 No -
4 6.5 80 No -
6 3.9 80 No -

0.5 7 80 No -
2 6.4 80 No -

0.5 24 80 No -
2 6 80 No -
3 9.1 80 No -
2 5.1 80 No -
4 5.1 80 No -
B-53(L) G+G-2
B-54(L) G+G-3
B-55(L) G+G-4
B-56(L) G+G-5
B-52(L) G+G-1
B-49(L) CZ-1
B-50(L) CZ-2
B-44(L) GZ-2
B-45(L) BC-1
B-46(L) BC-2
CZ-3
B-41(L) R-2
B-47(L) BC-3
B-48(L) BC-4
B-14(w) SB-5
B-42(L) R-3
B-43(L) GZ-1

Page 2 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 234 of 468 ends

Page 532 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
2 7.2 80 No -
4 5.3 80 No -

0.5 32 80 No -
2 17 80 No -
B-69a(w) 0.5 37 80 No -
B-69b(w) 0.5 33 80 No -
B-69c(w) 0.5 69 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 14 80 No -

0.5 100 80 Yes 0.5
2 16 80 No -
B-73a(w) 0.5 33 80 No -
B-73b(w) 0.5 120 80 Yes 0.5
B-73c(w) 0.5 85 80 Yes 0.5

0.5 16 80 No -
2 20 80 No -

0.5 16 80 No -
2 17 80 No -

0.5 41 80 No -
2 31 80 No -

0.5 34 80 No -
2 100 80 Yes 2
B-77a(w) 2 280 80 Yes 2
B-77b(w) 2 36 80 No -
B-77c(w) 2 19 80 No -

0.5 26 80 No -
2 38 80 No -

0.5 29 80 No -
2 28 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 21 80 No -

0.5 130 80 Yes 0.5
2 19 80 No -

0.5 46 80 No -
2 -- 80 - -

0.5 110 80 Yes 0.5
2 -- 80 - -

0.5 15 80 No -
2 -- 80 - -

0.5 47 80 No -
2 20 80 No -
B-75(w) Clusters# - 2a,2b,2c
B-57(L) G+G-6
B-73(w) Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2c
Gonzalez 2a
Gonzalez 2b
Gonzalez 2c
B-74(w) Clusters# - 1a,1b,1c
B-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5c
G&G 5a
G&G 5b
G&G 5c
B-72(w) Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1c
B-79(w) Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1c
B-80(w) Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c
B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3c
B-76(w) Clusters# - 3a,3b,3c
B-77(w) Chaz #- 1a,1b,1c
Chaz 1a
Chaz 1b
Chaz 1c
B-78(w) Chaz # - 2a,2b,2c
B-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4c
B-81a(w) Gerrys 3a
B-81b(w) Gerrys 3b
B-81c(w) Gerrys 3c

Page 3 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 235 of 468 ends

Page 533 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-82a(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-82b(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-82c(w) 2 -- 80 - -

0.5 60 80 No -
2 22 80 No -
B-85a(w) 0.5 48 80 No -
B-85b(w) 0.5 16 80 No -
B-85c(w) 0.5 17 80 No -

0.5 15 80 No -
2 18 80 No -

0.5 28 80 No -
2 18 80 No -

0.5 44 80 No -
2 48 80 No -

0.5 32 80 No -
2 7.5 80 No -

0.5 13 80 No -
2 11 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 9.5 80 No -

0.5 38 80 No -
2 8 80 No -

0.5 15 80 No -
2 8.6 80 No -

0.5 24 80 No -
2 12 80 No -

0.5 25 80 No -
2 15 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 8.3 80 No -

0.5 12 80 No -
2 13 80 No -

0.5 8.1 80 No -
2 9.6 80 No -
B-25(w) 2 9.1 80 No -
B-26(w) 2 9.4 80 No -
B-27(w) 2 9 80 No -
B-28(w) 2 5.9 80 No -
B-29(w) 2 7.5 80 No -
B-30(w) 2 8.8 80 No -
B-31(w) 2 23 80 No -
B-32(w) 2 14 80 No -
1 9.9 80 No -
3 6.2 80 No -
Gerrys 4a
Gerrys 4b
Gerrys 4c
B-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1c
CL-1
B-89(w) Bay City # - 2a,2b,2c
JV 1a
JV 1b
JV 1c
B-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1c
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1c
DP-4
DP-5
DP-6
DP-7
DP-8
DP-9
B-33(L)
B-23(w) SB-14
B-24(w) SB-15
DP-1
DP-2
B-21(w) SB-12
B-22(w) SB-13
B-19(w) SB-10
B-20(w) SB-11
SB-7
B-17(w) SB-8
B-18(w) SB-9
B-15(w) SB-6
B-16(w)

Page 4 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 236 of 468 ends

Page 534 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
2 9.8 80 No -
3 7.7 80 No -
2 5.7 80 No -
3 5.9 80 No -
B-36(L) 4 7.1 80 No -
1 9.1 80 No -
3 7 80 No -
1 8.6 80 No -
3 7.1 80 No -
5 12 80 No -
7 14 80 No -
B-39(L) 5 15 80 No -

0.5 8.6 80 No -
2 7.8 80 No -
2 8.2 80 No -

3.5 11 80 No -
2 42 80 No -
3 5.2 80 No -
2 14 80 No -
3 14 80 No -

0.5 11 80 No -
2 11 80 No -
3 13 80 No -
2 9 80 No -
3 7.4 80 No -
2 16 80 No -
4 15 80 No -
6 6.2 80 No -
2 6.1 80 No -
4 24 80 No -
6 10 80 No -
SS-1(L) -- 14 80 No -
SS-2(L) -- 28 80 No -
SS-3(L) -- 110 80 Yes --
SS-4(L) -- 15 80 No -
SS-5(L) -- 11 80 No -

0.5 49 80 No -
2 70 80 No -
B-65a(w) 2 25 80 No -
B-65b(w) 2 89 80 Yes 2
B-65c(w) G&G 1c 2 50 80 No -
SS-5
B-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1c
G&G 1a
G&G 1b
B-64(L) G-6
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
B-62(L) G-4
B-63(L) G-5
B-59(L) G-1
B-61(L) G-3
B-58(L) G+G-7
SS-1
CL-8
B-40(L) R-1
B-60(L) G-2
CL-4
B-37(L) CL-5
B-38(L) CL-6
B-34(L) CL-2
B-35(L) CL-3

Page 5 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 237 of 468 ends

Page 535 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 40 80 No -
2 43 80 No -

0.5 28 80 No -
2 20 80 No -
B-67a(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-67b(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-67c(w) 2 -- 80 - -

0.5 5400 80 Yes 0.5
2 66 80 No -

0.5 100 80 Yes 0.5
2 260 80 Yes 2

0.5 170 80 Yes 0.5
2 150 80 Yes 2

0.5 480 80 Yes 0.5
2 25 80 No - B-68c(w) G&G 4c
G&G 3a
G&G 3b
G&G 3c
B-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4c
B-68a(w) G&G 4a
B-68b(w) G&G 4b
B-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3c

Page 6 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 238 of 468 ends

Page 536 of 885 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)
B-1(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -
B-2(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -

0.5 12 160 No -

1.5 140 160 No -

2.5 -- 160 - -
4 -- 160 - -
B-4(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -
B-5(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -
B-6(t) 0.75 -- 160 - -
B-7(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -

0.5 23 160 No -

1.5 -- 160 - -

2.5 -- 160 - -
4 -- 160 - -

0.5 40 160 No -

1.5 -- 160 - -

2.5 -- 160 - -
4 -- 160 - -
T-1(t) T4 4 -- 160 - -
T-2(t) T6 3.5 20 160 No -
T-3(t) T9 2 29 160 No -
T-4(t) T10 1 6.8 160 No -
T-5(t) T11 1.5 -- 160 - -
T-6(t) T12 1 76 160 No -
T-7(t) T6 1 8.6 160 No -
T-8(t) T12 2 22 160 No -
T-9(t) T15 2 55 160 No -
T-10(t) Area 3 T1 3 -- 160 - -
T-11(t) T1 6 3,200 160 Yes 6
T-12(t) T3 2 1,100 160 Yes 2
T-13(t) T5 3 -- 160 - -
T-14(t) T10 4 16 160 No -
T-15(t) T1 2 130 160 No -
T-16(t) T1* 8 310 160 Yes 8
T-17(t) T1 2 120 160 No -
T-18(t) Debris -- 50 160 No -

0.5 63 160 No -
2 13 160 No -

0.5 110 160 No -
2 9.9 160 No -

0.5 250 160 Yes 0.5
2 17 160 No -

0.5 52 160 No -
2 14 160 No -

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
TB-1
TB-2
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-4
Area 1
Area 2
Area 5
Area 6
Area 8
B-10(w) SB-1
TB-5
TB-6
TB-7
B-8(t) TB-8
B-9(t) TB-9
B-11(w) SB-2
B-12(w) SB-3
B-13(w) SB-4

Page 1 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 239 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 23 160 No -
2 6.9 160 No -

0.5 6.9 160 No -
2 5.5 160 No -
3 5.2 160 No -
1 5.4 160 No -
3 5.9 160 No -
2 9.4 160 No -
3 5.1 160 No -
1 44 160 No -
3 9.8 160 No -
3 13 160 No -
5 9 160 No -
7 33 160 No -
3 21 160 No -
5 25 160 No -
7 8.9 160 No -
3 11 160 No -
5 9.3 160 No -
7 17 160 No -
3 17 160 No -
5 6.5 160 No -
7 7.6 160 No -
2 1 160 No -
4 10 160 No -
1 6.9 160 No -
3 6.8 160 No -
7 7.7 160 No -
11 7.9 160 No -
B-51(L) 2 8.2 160 No -
2 8 160 No -
4 10 160 No -
6 77 160 No -
2 6.8 160 No -
4 6.5 160 No -
6 3.9 160 No -

0.5 7 160 No -
2 6.4 160 No -

0.5 24 160 No -
2 6 160 No -
3 9.1 160 No -
2 5.1 160 No -
4 5.1 160 No -
B-14(w) SB-5
B-41(L) R-2
B-42(L) R-3
B-46(L) BC-2
B-47(L) BC-3
B-48(L) BC-4
B-43(L) GZ-1
B-44(L) GZ-2
B-45(L) BC-1
B-53(L) G+G-2
B-54(L) G+G-3
B-55(L) G+G-4
B-49(L) CZ-1
B-50(L) CZ-2
CZ-3
B-52(L) G+G-1
B-56(L) G+G-5

Page 2 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 240 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
2 7.2 160 No -
4 5.3 160 No -

0.5 32 160 No -
2 17 160 No -
B-69a(w) 0.5 37 160 No -
B-69b(w) 0.5 33 160 No -
B-69c(w) 0.5 69 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 14 160 No -

0.5 100 160 No -
2 16 160 No -
B-73a(w) 0.5 33 160 No -
B-73b(w) 0.5 120 160 No -
B-73c(w) 0.5 85 160 No -

0.5 16 160 No -
2 20 160 No -

0.5 16 160 No -
2 17 160 No -

0.5 41 160 No -
2 31 160 No -

0.5 34 160 No -
2 100 160 No -
B-77a(w) 2 280 160 Yes 2
B-77b(w) 2 36 160 No -
B-77c(w) 2 19 160 No -

0.5 26 160 No -
2 38 160 No -

0.5 29 160 No -
2 28 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 21 160 No -

0.5 130 160 No -
2 19 160 No -

0.5 46 160 No -
2 -- 160 - -

0.5 110 160 No -
2 -- 160 - -

0.5 15 160 No -
2 -- 160 - -

0.5 47 160 No -
2 20 160 No -
G&G 5a
G&G 5b
G&G 5c
B-72(w) Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1c
B-73(w) Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2c
B-57(L) G+G-6
B-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5c
B-76(w) Clusters# - 3a,3b,3c
B-77(w) Chaz #- 1a,1b,1c
Chaz 1a
Chaz 1b
Gonzalez 2a
Gonzalez 2b
Gonzalez 2c
B-74(w) Clusters# - 1a,1b,1c
B-75(w) Clusters# - 2a,2b,2c
B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3c
B-81a(w) Gerrys 3a
B-81b(w) Gerrys 3b
Chaz 1c
B-78(w) Chaz # - 2a,2b,2c
B-79(w) Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1c
B-80(w) Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c
B-81c(w) Gerrys 3c
B-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4c

Page 3 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 241 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-82a(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-82b(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-82c(w) 2 -- 160 - -

0.5 60 160 No -
2 22 160 No -
B-85a(w) 0.5 48 160 No -
B-85b(w) 0.5 16 160 No -
B-85c(w) 0.5 17 160 No -

0.5 15 160 No -
2 18 160 No -

0.5 28 160 No -
2 18 160 No -

0.5 44 160 No -
2 48 160 No -

0.5 32 160 No -
2 7.5 160 No -

0.5 13 160 No -
2 11 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 9.5 160 No -

0.5 38 160 No -
2 8 160 No -

0.5 15 160 No -
2 8.6 160 No -

0.5 24 160 No -
2 12 160 No -

0.5 25 160 No -
2 15 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 8.3 160 No -

0.5 12 160 No -
2 13 160 No -

0.5 8.1 160 No -
2 9.6 160 No -
B-25(w) 2 9.1 160 No -
B-26(w) 2 9.4 160 No -
B-27(w) 2 9 160 No -
B-28(w) 2 5.9 160 No -
B-29(w) 2 7.5 160 No -
B-30(w) 2 8.8 160 No -
B-31(w) 2 23 160 No -
B-32(w) 2 14 160 No -
1 9.9 160 No -
3 6.2 160 No -
Gerrys 4c
B-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1c
JV 1a
JV 1b
JV 1c
Gerrys 4a
Gerrys 4b
B-15(w) SB-6
B-16(w) SB-7
B-17(w) SB-8
B-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1c
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1c
B-89(w) Bay City # - 2a,2b,2c
B-21(w) SB-12
B-22(w) SB-13
B-23(w) SB-14
B-18(w) SB-9
B-19(w) SB-10
B-20(w) SB-11
DP-6
DP-7
DP-8
DP-9
B-33(L) CL-1
B-24(w) SB-15
DP-1
DP-2
DP-4
DP-5

Page 4 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 242 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
2 9.8 160 No -
3 7.7 160 No -
2 5.7 160 No -
3 5.9 160 No -
B-36(L) 4 7.1 160 No -
1 9.1 160 No -
3 7 160 No -
1 8.6 160 No -
3 7.1 160 No -
5 12 160 No -
7 14 160 No -
B-39(L) 5 15 160 No -

0.5 8.6 160 No -
2 7.8 160 No -
2 8.2 160 No -

3.5 11 160 No -
2 42 160 No -
3 5.2 160 No -
2 14 160 No -
3 14 160 No -

0.5 11 160 No -
2 11 160 No -
3 13 160 No -
2 9 160 No -
3 7.4 160 No -
2 16 160 No -
4 15 160 No -
6 6.2 160 No -
2 6.1 160 No -
4 24 160 No -
6 10 160 No -
SS-1(L) -- 14 160 No -
SS-2(L) -- 28 160 No -
SS-3(L) -- 110 160 No -
SS-4(L) -- 15 160 No -
SS-5(L) -- 11 160 No -

0.5 49 160 No -
2 70 160 No -
B-65a(w) 2 25 160 No -
B-65b(w) 2 89 160 No -
B-65c(w) 2 50 160 No -
B-38(L) CL-6
CL-8
B-40(L) R-1
B-58(L) G+G-7
B-34(L) CL-2
B-35(L) CL-3
CL-4
B-37(L) CL-5
B-62(L) G-4
B-63(L) G-5
B-64(L) G-6
B-59(L) G-1
B-60(L) G-2
B-61(L) G-3
G&G 1a
G&G 1b
G&G 1c
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
B-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1c

Page 5 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 243 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 40 160 No -
2 43 160 No -

0.5 28 160 No -
2 20 160 No -
B-67a(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-67b(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-67c(w) 2 -- 160 - -

0.5 5400 160 Yes 0.5
2 66 160 No -

0.5 100 160 No -
2 260 160 Yes 2

0.5 170 160 Yes 0.5
2 150 160 No -

0.5 480 160 Yes 0.5
2 25 160 No -
B-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3c
B-68b(w) G&G 4b
B-68c(w) G&G 4c
G&G 3a
G&G 3b
G&G 3c
B-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4c
B-68a(w) G&G 4a

Page 6 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 244 of 468 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Revised Table 4 of the RAP
Exhibit B

Page 245 of 468 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL TPH as Gasoline Naphthalene All other VOCs

0.5 < 30 3,500 < 120 < 0.0050 (ND) (0.31 by 8270C) ‐‐ Napthalene = 0.31 Indeno (1,2,3‐c,d) pyrene = 0.21 All Others = Trace Detections (3)1.5 < 12 1,800 220 0.036 (1.5 by 8270c) ‐‐ Napthalene = 1.5 All Others = Trace Detections (3) Co‐located Lead Exceedance B‐8(t) 0.5 < 120 32,000 < 500 0.013 (0.22 by 8270c) ‐‐ Napthalene = 0.22 All Others = Trace Detections (3)B‐9(t) 0.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Napthalene = 0.067
Benzo(a)pyrene = 0.12
Benzo(a)anthracene = 0.39
All Others = Trace Detections (3)
T‐2(t) T6 3.5 < 1.2 85^ ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) Freon 11 =.0019 Trace Detections (3)T‐3(t) T9 2 94 240^ ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐4(t) T10 1 < 1.2 32 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐6(t) T12 1 < 1.2 250^ ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐7(t) T6 1 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐8(t) T12 2 < 2.4 400 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐9(t) T15 2 < 2.4 510 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3) T‐11(t) T1 6 < 6 680 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐12(t) T3 2 < 2.4 800 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Napthalene = 0.043 All Others = Trace Detections (3) Co‐located Lead Exceedance T‐14(t) T10 4 < 1.2 18^ ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐15(t) T1 2 < 24 2,000 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐16(t) T1* 8 < 950 97,000 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Napthalene = 0.28 All Others = Trace Detections (3) Co‐located Lead Exceedance T‐17(t) T1 2 < 2.3 51^ ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Trace Detections (3)T‐18(t) Debris ‐‐ < 24 1,600 ‐‐ < 0.0050 (ND) ND Napthalene = 0.067 All Others = Trace Detections (3) Co‐located Lead & Arsenic Exceedance 230 5,100 100 0.033 (leaching) 3.3 (human health) Freon 11 = Not Established

3.8 /Not established Freon 11 = 23,000 / 1,200
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
by EPA Method 8260B Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (SVOCs)
by EPA 8270
Napthalene = 0.033 (leaching) & 3.3 (human health) Benzo(a)pyrene = 0.016Benzo(a)anthracene = 1.6 Napthalene = 0.067 / Not establishedBenzo(a)pyrene = 0.11 / Not established Benzo(a)anthracene = 1.1 / Not established
Sample Information
Sample
Date
October 2016
(sampled by Trinity Source Group)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
TB‐3
TB‐8
TB‐9
Area 1Area 2
Comments
(& Co‐Located Exceedences)
Table 4
Additional Soil Sample Test Results: Volatile Organic Compounds & Fuel Fingerprint 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg) Area 5Area 6
B‐3(t)
Fuel Fingerprint
by EPA Method 6010B
Laboratory Analytical Results
Area 8
Environmental Screening Levels (1) Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC‐Modified SLs Not Established

Page 1 of 6 ends

Exhibit B

Page 246 of 468 ends

Page 544 of 885 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL TPH as Gasoline Naphthalene All other VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
by EPA Method 8260B Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (SVOCs)
by EPA 8270
Sample Information
Sample
Date

0.5 180*J 2,400 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 22 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 670* 5,500 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ Co‐located Lead Exceedance
2 4.8*J 39 ‐‐ < 0.0050 ND ‐‐

0.5 8.3*J 80 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 29 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 3.5*J 45 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 6.2*J 38 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 60*^ 820^ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 8.9*J 63 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 15* 170 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 6.5*J 63 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 53*^ 750^ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 4.9*J 51 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 110*J 1,300 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 10* 98 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 7.1*J 48 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 12* 150 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 21 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 33^J 380^ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 18* 78 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 7.1*J 64 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 19*J ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 150*J 1,600 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
230 5,100 100
B‐10(w) SB‐1B‐11(w) SB‐2
June 2016
(Sampled by Weber Hayes and Associates) SB‐9 B‐19(w) SB‐10 SB‐13
B‐23(w) SB‐14B‐18(w)
SB‐6SB‐3SB‐4
B‐15(w)B‐16(w)
SB‐5
B‐20(w) SB‐11
SB‐12
SB‐7SB‐8
B‐21(w)B‐22(w)B‐17(w)B‐12(w)B‐13(w)B‐14(w)
Environmental Screening Levels (1) Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC‐Modified SLs Not Established

Page 2 of 6 ends

Exhibit B

Page 247 of 468 ends

Page 545 of 885 ends

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Comments
(& Co‐Located Exceedences)
Table 4
Additional Soil Sample Test Results: Volatile Organic Compounds & Fuel Fingerprint 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg) Fuel Fingerprint
by EPA Method 6010B
Laboratory Analytical Results
Ju
ne
200.5 10* 140 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1.2 28 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
B‐25(w) 2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐B‐26(w) 2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐B‐27(w) 2 5.2^J 14^J ‐‐ 0.023 sec‐Butylbenzene = 0.0017J
n‐Propylbenzene = 0.0038J
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene = 0.025
1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene = 0.065
‐‐
4 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ < 0.0050
sec‐Butylbenzene = 0.0017J
n‐Propylbenzene = 0.0038J
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene = 0.025
1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene = 0.065
‐‐
B‐28(w) 2 < 1.2 < 6.5 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐B‐29(w) 2 5.6^J 23^ ‐‐ < 0.0050 ND ‐‐B‐30(w) 2 7.3^J 42^ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐B‐31(w) 2 5.8^J 33^ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐B‐32(w) 2 43^ 180^ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2 < 1 < 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐4 < 1 < 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐6 160 1,200 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐2 1.7 < 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐3 < 1 < 50 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 68* 310 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 < 1 < 13 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐

0.5 25* 170 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 110* 360 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
B‐66a(w) 2 19* 78 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 11* 33 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐4 3.6* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
B‐66c(w) 2 21* 86 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
230 5,100 100 0.033 (leaching) 3.3 (human health)
sec‐Butylbenzene = NE
n‐Propylbenzene = NE
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene = NE1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene = NE
Varies

3.8 /Not established
sec‐Butylbenzene = 7,800 / NE
n‐Propylbenzene = 58/NE
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene = 58 /NE
1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene = 780 /210
Varies
B‐66(w) G&G (2a,2b,2c)
G&G  2a
B‐66b(w) G&G 2b
G&G  2c
Environmental Screening Levels (1)   Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC‐Modified SLs
August 2004
(Sampled by
Lowney
Associates) B‐55(L)
DP‐6DP‐7DP‐8
B‐24(w) SB‐15
DP‐1DP‐2
Not Established
December  2003
(Sampled by Weber Hayes
and Associates)
B‐65(w) G&G# ‐ 1a,1b,1c
DP‐4DP‐5
G + G ‐4
DP‐9
B‐52(L) G + G ‐1

Page 3 of 6 ends

Exhibit B

Page 248 of 468 ends

Page 546 of 885 ends

0.5 60* 700 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 < 1 < 13 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐

0.5 620* 3,300 8.6* ‐‐
Toluene= 0.085
Ethylbenzene= 0.12
Xylene= 0.82
‐‐ Co‐located with Lead Exceedance
2 < 1 < 13 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐

0.5 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 110* 510 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 130* 980 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐4 1.5* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
20 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐40 1.1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 6.1* 30 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 1.6* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 8.8* 58 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 1.6* < 13 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐

0.5 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 6.4* 31 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 3.2* 16 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 5.6* 57 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 4.0* 39 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
31* 250 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 4.5* 35 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 15* 130 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 5.3* 48 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
230 5,100 100 0.033 (leaching) 3.3 (human health) Toluene= 2.9 (leaching)/970 (human health) Ethylbenzene= 1.4 (leaching)/5.1 (human health) Xylene=.= 2.3 (leaching)/5.6 (human health) Varies

3.8 /Not established
Toluene = 4,900 / 1,100
n‐Ethylbenzene =  5.8/not established
Xylenes  = 580 /not established
Varies
Chaz
(#2a,2b,2c)
B‐67(w) G&G (#3a,3b,3c)
Gonzalez
(# 1a, 1b, 1c)
Clusters
(# 2a,2b,2c)
Gonzalez
(#2a, 2b, 2c)
B‐74(w) Clusters (#1a,1b,1c)
B‐68(w) G&G (#4a,4b,4c)B‐69(w) G&G (#5a,5b,5c)B‐76(w) Clusters (#3a,3b,3c) December  2003
(Sampled by Weber Hayes and Associates) B‐72(w) B‐73(w) B‐75(w)B‐78(w)B‐70(w) G&G (Discrete #1)B‐71(w) EB‐1
Environmental Screening Levels (1)   Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC‐Modified SLs Not Established
B‐77(w) Chaz (#1a,1b,1c)

Page 4 of 6 ends

Exhibit B

Page 249 of 468 ends

Page 547 of 885 ends

0.5 45* 200 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 12* 57 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐

0.5 < 1 < 13 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 62* 200 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
B‐80a(w) 2 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 190* 600 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐4 2.0* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
B‐80c(w) 2 3.2* 16 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 170* 670 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 33* 130 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 < 1 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 1.7* < 13 < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 110 390 8.9 ‐‐
Toluene= 0.51
Ethylbenzene= 0.19
Xylene= 0.99
‐‐
4 4.5* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 8.6* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 2.1* < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 12* 56 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 34* 140 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 14* 22* < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐
2 500* 1,400* < 2.5 ‐‐ ND ‐‐4 1.5*6 < 13 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 6.3* 33 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 1.5* 15 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐

0.5 8.9* 54 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
2 9.4* 64 ‐‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
230 5,100 100 0.033 (leaching) 3.3 (human health) Toluene= 2.9 (leaching)/970 (human health) Ethylbenzene= 1.4 (leaching)/5.1 (human health) Xylene=.= 2.3 (leaching)/5.6 (human health) Varies

3.8 /Not established
Toluene = 4,900 / 1,100
n‐Ethylbenzene =  5.8/not established
Xylenes  = 580 /not established
Varies
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (1)
(Residential Land Use)
US EPA RLs / DTSC‐Modified SLs (2)
(Residential Land Use)
December  2003
(Sampled by Weber Hayes and Associates)
Gerrys   2c
B‐81(w)B‐88(w) Bay City (#1a,1b,1c)
B‐89(w) Bay City (2a,2b,2c)
B‐85(w) JV (1a,1b,1c)
B‐86(w) Residence (1a,1b,1c)B‐87(w) Residence (#1, discrete) Gerrys
(#3a,3b,3c)
B‐82(w)
Not Established
Gerrys
(#4a,4b,4c)
B‐83(w) Gerrys (Discrete)
B‐80b(w) Gerrys  2b
B‐79(w) Gerrys (1a,1b,1c)B‐80(w) Gerrys (#2a,2b,2c)
Gerrys 2a

Page 5 of 6 ends

Exhibit B

Page 250 of 468 ends

Page 548 of 885 ends

Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs): From the Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Region) guideline document: Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites With Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Final version, 2016). The ESLs are agency‐stablished threshold concentrations intended to provide quantitative risk‐based guidance on whether further assessment or remediation of contamination is warranted based on risk pathways (protection of human heath, groundwater and/or ecological <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/ESL/ESL%20Workbook_ESLs_Interim%20Final_22Feb16_Rev3_PDF.pdf > Trace concentrations of semi‐volatile compounds detected, but all well below agency threshold. See Appendix A for sampling results. Semi‐Volatile compounds detected( at treace levels) included : (Anthracene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b)flouranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(g,h,l,)perylene, Chrysene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3‐cd)pyrene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene) Laboratory reports that the detection value is between MDL and PQL, and should be considered an The same analyte is found in the associated blank.

CA DTSC Modified Soil Screening Levels (DTSC‐SLs): These are human health, risk‐based values established by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO), Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Table 1 , Jan‐2016. <http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA‐Note‐3‐January‐2018.pdf >. Note that for those chemicals not posted on the Note 3 website, DTSC‐HERO endorses the soil thesholds established on the USEPAs Regional Screening Levels (USEPA‐RSLs) website: (http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/, updated May 2018). Both thresholds are listed for transparancy, but generally speaking, California uses a more conservative toxicity evaluation for a select number of urban chemicals. This assessment uses the lowest (most conservative theshold as a cleanup goal).

Page 6 of 6 ends

Exhibit B

Page 251 of 468 ends

Page 549 of 885 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
ProUCL Output
Exhibit B

Page 252 of 468 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50

A B C D E F G H I J K L
119 67
0 1 45.52
950 5.8
130.4 11.95

2.865 4.948

0.385
0 0.366

0.0816

65.34 70.98

66.24 9.386

0.852

0.222

0.091

0.364 0.36
125.1 126.4

86.57 85.72

45.52 75.85

65.38 0.048 65.16

59.68 59.88
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected)
K-S Test Statistic Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Maximum Median
SD Std. Error of Mean
Coefficient of Variation Skewness
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Missing Observations
Minimum Mean
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
TPH-d
From File WorkSheet.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
UCL Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.14/18/2018 1:36:42 PM Exhibit B

Page 253 of 468 ends

51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86

A B C D E F G H I J K L

0.886

3.320E-13

0.135

0.0816
0 1.981

6.856 1.795

60.52 61.42

73.33 89.87
122.3

65.18 65.34

65.26 76.39

70.56 67.16

73.23 81.38 97.62
120.2 164.5

97.62 Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Maximum of Logged Data SD of logged Data
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data Mean of logged Data
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk P Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test Lognormal GOF Test
Exhibit B

Page 254 of 468 ends

87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

A B C D E F G H I J K L
119 69
0 6.5 1414
97000 50
9333 855.5

6.6 9.562

0.158
0 0.44

0.0816
2832 3623
2957

16.46 0.896

0.258

0.093

0.244 0.243
5800 5813

58.03 57.9
1414 2867

41.4 0.048 41.23
1977 1985

0.902

9.886E-11

0.14 0.0816

1.872 4.329

11.48 1.916
Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data Mean of logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data SD of logged Data
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level 95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Assuming Gamma Distribution
Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
5% K-S Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE)
A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
5% A-D Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
Gamma GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test
SD Std. Error of Mean
Coefficient of Variation Skewness
Normal GOF Test
Number of Missing Observations
Minimum Mean
Maximum Median
TPH-mo
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Exhibit B

Page 255 of 468 ends

138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162

A B C D E F G H I J K L
841.2 832.2
1003 1239
1704
2821 2832
2792 15124
9323 3042
4315
3981 5143
6757 9927
5143
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).

However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.

Suggested UCL to Use
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL. 95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Exhibit B

Page 256 of 468 ends

163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213

A B C D E F G H I J K L
201 102
0 1 82.04
5400 16
447.9 31.59

5.459 10.22

0.168
0 0.428

0.0629
134.2 158.3
138

27.11 0.831

0.262

0.0676

0.456 0.453
179.8 181.2
183.4 182

82.04 121.9
151.8

0.0488 151.6

98.36 98.49

0.897
0 0.128

0.0629
0 2.995

8.594 1.162
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of Logged Data Mean of logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data SD of logged Data
Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test 5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test 5% Shapiro Wilk P Value Data Not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) nu hat (MLE) nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Mean (bias corrected) MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
k hat (MLE) k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta hat (MLE) Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
5% A-D Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level K-S Test Statistic Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
5% K-S Critical Value Data Not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978)
Gamma GOF Test
A-D Test Statistic Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL 95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Student's-t UCL 95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995)
5% Shapiro Wilk P Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Lilliefors Test Statistic Lilliefors GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level Coefficient of Variation Skewness
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Minimum Mean
Maximum Median
SD Std. Error of Mean
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations Number of Distinct Observations Number of Missing Observations
Pb
Exhibit B

Page 257 of 468 ends

214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236

A B C D E F G H I J K L

47.36 51.29

56.83 64.53

79.65 134 134.2
133.7 336.7
318 135.7
174.5
176.8 219.7
279.3 396.4
219.7
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician. 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.

Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.

These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006). 90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL

97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL Suggested UCL to Use
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data do not follow a Discernible Distribution (0.05)
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL 95% Jackknife UCL
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Exhibit B

Page 258 of 468 ends

8 of 16 Soil Summary
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any Land Use/
Any Depth Soil
Expsoure:

Construction
Worker
Drinking
Water
Nondrinking
Water
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any
Land Use:

Deep Soil
Exposure
(CW)
Acenaphthene 83-32-9 3.6E+03 4.5E+04 1.0E+04 1.6E+01 1.9E+01 1.3E+02 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 1.6E+01 Leaching Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 -- -- -- 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 5.9E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.3E+01 Leaching Acetone 67-64-1 5.9E+04 6.3E+05 2.6E+05 5.0E-01 5.0E-01 1.0E+05 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 5.0E-01 Leaching Aldrin 309-00-2 3.6E-02 1.6E-01 1.0E+00 5.0E+00 5.0E+00 5.0E+00 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 3.6E-02 Dir Exp Anthracene 120-12-7 1.8E+04 2.3E+05 5.0E+04 2.8E+00 2.8E+00 6.1E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.8E+00 Leaching Antimony 7440-36-0 3.1E+01 4.7E+02 1.4E+02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.1E+01 Dir Exp Arsenic 7440-38-2 6.7E-02 3.1E-01 9.8E-01 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.7E-02 Dir Exp Barium 7440-39-3 1.5E+04 2.2E+05 3.0E+03 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.0E+03 Dir Exp Benzene 71-43-2 2.3E-01 1.0E+00 2.4E+01 4.4E-02 4.9E-02 8.7E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.4E-02 Leaching Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 1.6E-01 2.9E+00 1.6E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.6E-01 Dir Exp Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 1.6E-01 2.9E+00 1.6E+01 4.6E+01 6.4E+02 4.6E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.6E-01 Dir Exp Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.6E+00 2.9E+01 1.5E+02 2.6E+00 3.7E+01 2.6E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.6E+00 Dir Exp Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 -- -- -- 2.7E+01 2.7E+01 2.5E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.5E+00 Gross Contam Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 1.6E-02 2.9E-01 1.6E+00 1.3E+02 1.3E+02 1.3E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.6E-02 Dir Exp Beryllium 7440-41-7 1.5E+02 2.2E+03 4.2E+01 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.2E+01 Dir Exp 1,1-Biphenyl 92-52-4 6.4E+01 2.7E+02 2.4E+02 6.5E-01 6.5E+00 3.5E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 6.5E-01 Leaching Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 111-44-4 1.2E-01 5.3E-01 6.8E+00 8.0E-05 7.8E-01 9.6E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 8.0E-05 Leaching Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 108-60-1 3.6E+00 1.6E+01 2.2E+02 3.9E-03 6.6E-01 7.9E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.9E-03 Leaching Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 3.9E+01 1.6E+02 9.5E+02 7.8E+02 7.8E+02 7.8E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.9E+01 Dir Exp Boron 7440-42-8 1.6E+04 2.3E+05 4.5E+04 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.6E+04 Dir Exp Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 5.2E-01 2.3E+00 4.7E+01 1.5E+00 2.1E+01 3.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 5.2E-01 Dir Exp Bromoform (Tribromomethane) 75-25-2 6.3E+01 3.0E+02 2.2E+03 1.7E+00 2.4E+01 2.4E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.7E+00 Leaching Bromomethane 74-83-9 8.0E+00 3.6E+01 3.4E+01 3.0E-01 1.5E+00 3.1E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.0E-01 Leaching Cadmium (soil) 7440-43-9 3.9E+01 5.8E+02 4.3E+01 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.9E+01 Dir Exp Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 1.2E-01 5.4E-01 1.3E+01 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 1.1E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.8E-02 Leaching Chlordane 57-74-9 4.8E-01 2.2E+00 1.4E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 4.8E-01 Dir Exp p-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 3.5E+00 1.6E+01 1.2E+02 3.9E-03 5.3E-02 1.3E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.9E-03 Leaching Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 2.5E+02 1.2E+03 1.1E+03 1.5E+00 1.5E+00 6.8E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.5E+00 Leaching Chloroethane 75-00-3 1.3E+04 5.3E+04 5.3E+04 1.1E+00 1.1E+01 1.6E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.1E+00 Leaching Chloroform 67-66-3 3.0E-01 1.3E+00 3.2E+01 6.8E-02 6.8E-02 2.9E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 6.8E-02 Leaching Chloromethane 74-87-3 1.0E+02 4.3E+02 4.3E+02 2.9E+01 6.8E+01 4.1E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 2.9E+01 Leaching Feb. 2016 (Rev. 3)
Chemicals CAS No.

Page 259 of 468 ends

9 of 16 Soil Summary
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any Land Use/
Any Depth Soil
Expsoure:

Construction
Worker
Drinking
Water
Nondrinking
Water
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any
Land Use:

Deep Soil
Exposure
(CW)
Feb. 2016 (Rev. 3)
Chemicals CAS No.

Odor Nuisance Levels
(Table S-4)
Summary of Soil ESLs (mg/kg)
Direct Exposure Human Health
Risk Levels (Table S-1)
Leaching to
Groundwater Levels
(Table S-2)
Soil
Tier 1
ESL
Basis
Gross
Contamination
Levels
(Table S-3)
2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 3.9E+02 5.8E+03 1.8E+03 1.2E-02 1.2E-01 5.5E+04 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.2E-02 Leaching Chromium (total) 7440-47-3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Chromium III 16065-83-1 1.2E+05 1.8E+06 5.3E+05 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.2E+05 Dir Exp Chromium VI 18540-29-9 3.0E-01 6.2E+00 2.8E+00 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.0E-01 Dir Exp Chrysene 218-01-9 1.5E+01 2.6E+02 1.5E+03 3.8E+00 2.3E+01 3.8E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.8E+00 Gross Contam Cobalt 7440-48-4 2.3E+01 3.5E+02 2.8E+01 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.3E+01 Dir Exp Copper 7440-50-8 3.1E+03 4.7E+04 1.4E+04 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.1E+03 Dir Exp Cyanide 57-12-5 5.3E+00 2.4E+01 2.1E+01 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 2.0E+05 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 3.6E-03 Leaching Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 1.6E-02 2.9E-01 1.6E+00 9.9E+00 1.4E+02 9.9E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.6E-02 Dir Exp Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 8.3E+00 3.9E+01 2.9E+02 3.8E+00 9.1E+01 1.3E+04 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 3.8E+00 Leaching 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8 5.3E-03 7.2E-02 1.3E+00 4.5E-03 2.2E+00 1.1E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.5E-03 Leaching 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 3.6E-02 1.6E-01 3.2E+00 3.3E-04 5.7E-03 9.2E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.3E-04 Leaching 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 2.0E+03 1.1E+04 8.5E+03 1.6E+00 1.6E+00 6.0E+02 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 1.6E+00 Leaching 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 -- -- -- 7.4E+00 7.4E+00 6.0E+02 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 7.4E+00 Leaching 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 3.0E+00 1.3E+01 3.1E+02 5.9E-01 1.4E+00 2.8E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 5.9E-01 Leaching 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 5.8E-01 2.7E+00 2.0E+01 1.2E-02 6.6E+01 3.0E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.2E-02 Leaching Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (D72-54-8 2.7E+00 1.2E+01 8.1E+01 7.5E+02 7.5E+02 7.5E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.7E+00 Dir Exp Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (D72-55-9 1.9E+00 8.5E+00 5.7E+01 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 1.1E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.9E+00 Dir Exp Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ( 50-29-3 1.9E+00 8.5E+00 5.7E+01 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 4.3E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.9E+00 Dir Exp 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 3.8E+00 1.7E+01 3.9E+02 2.0E-01 8.1E-01 1.7E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.0E-01 Leaching 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 3.7E-01 1.6E+00 3.7E+01 4.5E-03 5.4E-02 1.8E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 4.5E-03 Leaching 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 9.4E+01 4.0E+02 3.9E+02 5.5E-01 4.3E+00 1.5E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 5.5E-01 Leaching cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 1.9E+01 9.0E+01 8.2E+01 1.9E-01 3.5E+00 1.2E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.9E-01 Leaching trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 1.6E+02 7.3E+02 6.8E+02 6.7E-01 3.9E+01 3.1E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 6.7E-01 Leaching 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 2.3E+02 3.5E+03 1.1E+03 3.0E-01 3.0E+00 1.6E+05 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.0E-01 Leaching 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 8.8E-01 3.9E+00 5.8E+01 1.2E-01 1.9E-01 1.1E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.2E-01 Leaching 1,3-Dichloropropene 542-75-6 2.8E-01 1.2E+00 2.9E+01 5.9E-02 4.4E-01 1.4E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 5.9E-02 Leaching Dieldrin 60-57-1 3.8E-02 1.7E-01 1.1E+00 1.7E-04 2.3E-03 8.3E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.7E-04 Leaching Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2 5.1E+04 6.6E+05 1.5E+05 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 8.4E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.5E-02 Leaching Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3 -- -- -- 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 4.7E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.5E-02 Leaching 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 1.6E+03 2.3E+04 7.1E+03 6.7E-01 7.4E-01 2.7E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 6.7E-01 Leaching Exhibit B

Page 260 of 468 ends

10 of 16 Soil Summary
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any Land Use/
Any Depth Soil
Expsoure:

Construction
Worker
Drinking
Water
Nondrinking
Water
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any
Land Use:

Deep Soil
Exposure
(CW)
Feb. 2016 (Rev. 3)
Chemicals CAS No.

Odor Nuisance Levels
(Table S-4)
Summary of Soil ESLs (mg/kg)
Direct Exposure Human Health
Risk Levels (Table S-1)
Leaching to
Groundwater Levels
(Table S-2)
Soil
Tier 1
ESL
Basis
Gross
Contamination
Levels
(Table S-3)
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 1.6E+02 2.3E+03 7.1E+02 1.1E-01 2.1E-01 1.1E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.1E-01 Leaching 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 2.2E+00 1.1E+01 7.9E+01 1.8E-03 8.6E-01 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.8E-03 Leaching 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 7.0E+00 3.3E+01 2.5E+02 2.3E-04 3.0E+01 1.2E+05 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.3E-04 Leaching Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 1746-01-6 4.9E-06 2.2E-05 1.5E-04 1.1E+06 1.1E+06 1.1E+06 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 4.9E-06 Dir Exp Endosulfan 115-29-7 4.2E+02 5.8E+03 1.5E+03 4.6E-03 4.6E-03 2.9E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.6E-03 Leaching Endrin 72-20-8 2.1E+01 2.9E+02 7.4E+01 6.5E-04 6.5E-04 2.7E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 6.5E-04 Leaching Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 5.1E+00 2.2E+01 4.8E+02 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 4.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.4E+00 Leaching Fluoranthene 206-44-0 2.4E+03 3.0E+04 6.7E+03 6.0E+01 6.0E+01 6.0E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 6.0E+01 Gross Contam Fluorene 86-73-7 2.4E+03 3.0E+04 6.7E+03 8.9E+00 8.9E+00 1.6E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 8.9E+00 Leaching Heptachlor 76-44-8 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 3.8E+00 7.7E-04 1.3E-02 7.4E+00 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 7.7E-04 Leaching Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 6.7E-02 3.0E-01 1.9E+00 4.2E-04 1.4E-02 4.8E+01 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 4.2E-04 Leaching Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 3.4E-01 1.5E+00 9.5E+00 7.9E+02 7.9E+02 7.9E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.4E-01 Dir Exp Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 8.9E+00 4.2E+01 3.1E+02 6.8E-01 1.6E+01 3.5E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 6.8E-01 Leaching γ-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindan58-89-9 5.5E-01 2.5E+00 1.6E+01 9.8E-03 9.8E-03 1.6E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 9.8E-03 Leaching Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.4E+01 5.7E+01 1.3E+02 1.1E+00 4.1E+01 6.0E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.1E+00 Leaching Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 193-39-5 1.6E-01 2.9E+00 1.6E+01 9.1E+00 7.0E+01 5.1E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.6E-01 Dir Exp Lead 7439-92-1 8.0E+01 3.2E+02 1.6E+02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.0E+01 Dir Exp Mercury (elemental) 7439-97-6 1.3E+01 1.9E+02 4.4E+01 -- -- -- 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.3E+01 Dir Exp Methoxychlor 72-43-5 3.5E+02 4.8E+03 1.2E+03 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.9E+01 Gross Contam Methylene chloride 75-09-2 1.9E+00 2.5E+01 5.0E+02 7.7E-02 7.3E-01 2.4E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 7.7E-02 Leaching Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 3.1E+04 2.5E+05 1.4E+05 5.1E+00 1.3E+01 3.4E+04 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 5.1E+00 Leaching Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1 5.8E+03 7.1E+04 2.6E+04 2.8E+00 3.9E+00 1.7E+04 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 2.8E+00 Leaching Methyl mercury 22967-92-6 6.3E+00 8.2E+01 1.9E+01 -- -- -- 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 6.3E+00 Dir Exp 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 2.4E+02 3.0E+03 6.7E+02 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 1.1E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.5E-01 Leaching Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE 1634-04-4 4.2E+01 1.8E+02 3.7E+03 2.3E-02 8.4E-01 2.1E+04 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 2.3E-02 Leaching Molybdenum 7439-98-7 3.9E+02 5.8E+03 1.8E+03 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.9E+02 Dir Exp Naphthalene 91-20-3 3.3E+00 1.4E+01 3.5E+02 3.3E-02 3.9E+00 2.2E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 3.3E-02 Leaching Nickel 7440-02-0 8.2E+02 1.1E+04 8.6E+01 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.6E+01 Dir Exp Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 1.0E+00 4.0E+00 2.0E+01 2.7E+06 2.7E+06 2.7E+06 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+00 Dir Exp Perchlorate 7790-98-9 5.5E+01 8.2E+02 2.5E+02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.5E+01 Dir Exp Phenanthrene 85-01-8 -- -- -- 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 6.9E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.1E+01 Leaching Exhibit B

Page 261 of 468 ends

11 of 16 Soil Summary
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any Land Use/
Any Depth Soil
Expsoure:

Construction
Worker
Drinking
Water
Nondrinking
Water
Res:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Com/Ind:

Shallow Soil
Exposure
Any
Land Use:

Deep Soil
Exposure
(CW)
Feb. 2016 (Rev. 3)
Chemicals CAS No.

Odor Nuisance Levels
(Table S-4)
Summary of Soil ESLs (mg/kg)
Direct Exposure Human Health
Risk Levels (Table S-1)
Leaching to
Groundwater Levels
(Table S-2)
Soil
Tier 1
ESL
Basis
Gross
Contamination
Levels
(Table S-3)
Phenol 108-95-2 2.3E+04 3.5E+05 9.8E+04 7.6E-02 8.8E+00 5.2E+04 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 7.6E-02 Leaching Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)1336-36-3 2.5E-01 1.0E+00 5.6E+00 6.3E+00 6.3E+00 6.3E+00 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.5E-01 Dir Exp Pyrene 129-00-0 1.8E+03 2.3E+04 5.0E+03 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 8.5E+01 Gross Contam Selenium 7782-49-2 3.9E+02 5.8E+03 1.7E+03 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.9E+02 Dir Exp Silver 7440-22-4 3.9E+02 5.8E+03 1.8E+03 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.9E+02 Dir Exp Styrene 100-42-5 6.6E+03 4.0E+04 2.9E+04 1.5E+00 1.6E+01 1.5E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.5E+00 Leaching tert-Butyl alcohol 75-65-0 -- -- -- 7.5E-02 1.1E+02 3.2E+05 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 7.5E-02 Leaching 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6 4.2E+00 1.8E+01 3.4E+02 1.0E-02 1.6E+01 2.0E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E-02 Leaching 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 5.3E-01 2.3E+00 4.4E+01 1.8E-02 7.4E+00 2.0E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.8E-02 Leaching Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 6.0E-01 2.7E+00 3.3E+01 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 2.3E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.2E-01 Leaching Thallium 7440-28-0 7.8E-01 1.2E+01 3.5E+00 -- -- -- -- -- -- 7.8E-01 Dir Exp Toluene 108-88-3 9.7E+02 4.6E+03 4.1E+03 2.9E+00 9.3E+00 6.5E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.9E+00 Leaching Toxaphene 8001-35-2 5.1E-01 2.2E+00 1.4E+01 4.2E-04 4.2E-04 9.3E+01 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.2E-04 Leaching TPH gasoline -- 7.4E+02 3.9E+03 2.8E+03 7.7E+02 3.4E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+02 Nuis/Odor TPH Stoddard solvent -- 1.6E+02 8.2E+02 6.3E+02 1.0E+03 6.5E+03 2.3E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+02 Nuis/Odor TPH diesel -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+03 8.8E+02 5.7E+02 3.6E+03 2.3E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.3E+02 Dir Exp TPH motor oil -- 1.1E+04 1.4E+05 3.2E+04 -- -- 5.1E+03 -- -- -- 5.1E+03 Gross Contam 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 2.4E+01 1.1E+02 3.1E+02 1.5E+00 7.6E+00 3.2E+03 1.0E+03 2.5E+03 2.5E+03 1.5E+00 Leaching 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 2.1E+03 8.9E+03 8.8E+03 7.8E+00 7.8E+00 1.2E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 7.8E+00 Leaching 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 9.6E-01 4.2E+00 5.2E+00 7.0E-02 6.6E+01 1.8E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 7.0E-02 Leaching Trichloroethene 79-01-6 1.2E+00 8.0E+00 2.3E+01 4.6E-01 5.1E-01 1.3E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 4.6E-01 Leaching 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 7.8E+03 1.2E+05 3.5E+04 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 7.6E+02 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 1.8E-01 Leaching 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 9.9E+00 4.7E+01 3.5E+02 2.1E-01 1.6E+02 9.7E+03 1.0E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 2.1E-01 Leaching Vanadium 7440-62-2 3.9E+02 5.8E+03 4.7E+02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.9E+02 Dir Exp Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 8.2E-03 1.5E-01 3.4E+00 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.2E+03 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 8.2E-03 Dir Exp Xylenes 1330-20-7 5.6E+02 2.4E+03 2.4E+03 2.3E+00 1.1E+01 4.2E+02 5.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 2.3E+00 Leaching Zinc 7440-66-6 2.3E+04 3.5E+05 1.1E+05 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.3E+04 Dir Exp Notes:

Res. - Residential
Com/Ind - Commercial/Industrial
CW - Construction Worker
Exp - Exposure
Exhibit B

Page 262 of 468 ends

Appendix C-1:
2017, October 26:

Thomas Harder & Company
Response to Initial Technical Comments issued by SC‐HSA's 3d‐Party Toxicologist (agency comment letter dated September 29th)
Exhibit B

Page 263 of 468 ends

Appendix C-3
.

Response to Initial Technical Comments issued by SC‐HSA's 3rd‐Party Toxicologist (agency comment letter dated September 29th)
.

Source: Thomas Harder & Company, October 26, 2017

Page 561 of 885 ends

Thomas Harder & Co.
1260 N. Hancock St., Suite 109
Anaheim, California 92807
(714) 779-3875
October 26, 2017
Mr. Pat Hoban, PG
Weber, Hayes & Associates
120 Westgate Drive
Watsonville, California 95076
Re: Response to September 29, 2017 Huntley Environmental Comments 2 through 12 to:

As you requested, this letter provides Thomas Harder & Company’s (TH&Co’s) responses to Comment 2 through Comment 12 provided by Huntley Environmental (Huntley) to the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR) for the Former Clusters Storage Yard located at 511 Ohlone Parkway in Watsonville, California. Both documents were prepared by Weber, Hayes & Associates (WHA) and submitted to the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Service (SCCEHS). Our responses immediately follow each of the Huntley comments, which are shown in italics and were copied and pasted directly from the electronic portable document file (pdf) provided to TH&Co by WHA via electronic mail on October 2, 2017.

Huntley Comment 2: The basis for making the decision to remediate soils to 2 ft is not clear in the RAP. Potential health risks in soils at 0‐2 ft are not presented in the RAP for the COPCs identified.

Moreover, cumulative noncancer and cancer risks are not presented in the RAP as the basis for remediating the upper 2 ft of soil or leaving soil deeper than 2 ft in place. While the decision to remediate soils to a depth of 2 ft can be made based on COPC exceedances of ESLs, the decision to leave soils in place at 2 ft and deeper should be supported by calculated cumulative noncancer and cancer risks, noting that four carcinogens (arsenic, hexavalent chromium, naphthalene, and nickel) were identified as COPCs. I would recommend that estimated cumulative noncancer and Exhibit B

Page 264 of 468 ends

3DW+REDQ
)URP
6FRWW&DUVRQ6FRWW&DUVRQ#VDQWDFUX]FRXQW\XV!
6HQW
7XHVGD\'HFHPEHU
307R
3DW+REDQ&F

6WHYH+XQWOH\

5LVN
-LP9DQGH:DWHU
6XEMHFW
5(
2+/21(3$5.:$<:$76219,//(57&$WWDFKPHQWV
2KORQH3NZ\+XQWOH\,QLWLDO&RPPHQWVWR57&SGIHello Pat, As you know, I have not had a chance to review the Thomas Harder & Co. response dated October 26, 2017, to the Huntley comments dated September 29, 2017. However, I asked Steve Huntley to provide some initial feedback on the response (attached email dated December 5, 2017) to see if it appears to be on the right track and to assist you with preparing the requested redline/strikeout versions of the SPTR and RAP. I hope you will find Mr. Huntley’s comments helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott E. Carson, PG, CEG
Professional Geologist County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Environmental Health Division Site Mitigation Program 701 Ocean Street, Suite 312 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Voice 831-454-2758, Fax 831-454-3128, Email [email protected] Main http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/, EHS Home http://www.scceh.com/Site Mitigation Home http://www.scceh.com/Home/Programs/SiteMitigation.aspxThis message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message, and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited. &ƌŽŵ͗ Pat Hoban [mailto:[email protected]] ^ĞŶƚ͗ Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:08 PM dŽ͗ 'Steve Huntley' <[email protected]>; Scott Carson <[email protected]>; '(Risk) Jim Van de Water' <[email protected]> ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ RE: 511 OHLONE PARKWAY, WATSONVILLE (Conference Call (Thursday October 19th, at 10 am) Hi Scott and Steve, ATTACHED are Jim’s responses as we discussed in our conference call. I’m currently incorporating them in a track h d h hld b ld d
1 6FRWW&DUVRQ)URP
6WHYH+XQWOH\VKXQWOH\#KXQWOH\HQYLURQPHQWDOFRP!
6HQW
7XHVGD\'HFHPEHU
307R
6FRWW&DUVRQ6XEMHFW
5H
2KORQH3NZ\:DWVRQYLOOH+XQWOH\UHYLHZRI7+ &R5HVSRQVHWR&RPPHQWV Hi Scott, Following are my initial comments on the TH&Co response to comments (RTCs).

2. 2. TH&Co indicated that several minor errors identified in the Huntley Comments would be corrected in the revised RAP. I am in agreement.

3. 3. I concur with the results of the supplemental background evaluation presented in Attachment 1 of the RTCs, as follows:
a. For the TH&Co evaluation of arsenic background, I concur with the statistical analyses and conclusion that there does not appear to have been an arsenic release at the site, and therefore,arsenic would not be classified as a COPC. The arsenic data appear to represent a single population((e.g., background) as supported by the very low coefficient of variation (CV), absence of outliers,and graphical presentation of the data. b. For the same reasons stated above for arsenic, I also concur with the TH&Co evaluation of chromium VI background that the data appear to represent a single population and that there doesnot appear to have been a chromium VI release at the site. c. For the same reasons stated above for arsenic and chromium VI, I also concur with the TH&Co evaluation of nickel background that the data appear to represent a single population and that theredoes not appear to have been a nickel release at the site.

In summary, I concur that the site data do not support selecting arsenic, chromium VI, or nickel as COPCs since all three appear to be consistent with background conditions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Steve pp
In summary, I concur that the site data do not support selecting arsenic, chromium VI, or nickel as COPCs g since all three appear to be consistent with background conditions. response to comments (RTCs).
-- 6WHYH+XQWOH\HUNTLEY ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Consulting, Assessment, and Strategic Solutions(775) 720-5330 www.huntleyenvironmental.com Exhibit B

Page 265 of 468 ends

Agency Response to October 26, 2017 Response to Comments Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 2 cancer risks for residential and construction worker exposures to post‐remediation residual soils be included in the RAP to ensure that the planned remediation is adequate to protect human health.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 2
The requested cumulative noncancer and cancer risks for the residential receptor are provided in Table 1a and Table 1b, respectively, whereas the cumulative noncancer and cancer risks for the construction worker receptor are provided in Table 2a and Table 2b, respectively. It is noted that the risk values provided in this attachment are based on:
 total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH‐diesel), total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil (TPH-motor oil), and naphthalene as the only COPCs for which cumulative risk values are calculated for the residential and construction worker receptors in accordance with RWQCB guidance; and
 comparison tables for lead for the residential and construction worker receptors are included as Table 3a and Table 3b, respectively.

We also note that, where two concentration values are reported for a given COPC (e.g., B-3(t) and B-8(t) for naphthalene), the higher value is used to provide a conservative analysis. Finally, all qualified (“flagged”) and non-qualified values as noted in the summary tables provided in the RAP are included in the risk estimates provided herein.
(In addition to the COPCs listed in the above bullet items, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and nickel were also identified as COPCs in the RAP. The exclusion of these three metals as COPCs through statistical analysis is presented as Attachment 1 to this response letter.) Residential Receptor (TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene risk values) The residential environmental screening levels (ESLs) for TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene are the those associated with direct soil exposure (i.e., via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and particulate inhalation) as listed in Table S-1 of the February 2016 ESL guidance as posted at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/esl.html and are as follows:

COPC Residential RSL (mg/kg)
Noncancer Cancer
TPH-diesel 2.3 x 102 Non-carcinogenic
TPH-motor oil 1.1 x 104 Non-carcinogenic
Naphthalene 1.1 x 102 3.3 x 100
Exhibit B

Page 266 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 3 As shown in Table 1a, there are six instances in which the HI value exceeds 1.0.[1] As shown in Table 1b, the maximum ILCR value (5 x 10-7) is less than the de minimis level of 1 x 10-6.

Construction Worker Receptor (TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene risk values) The construction worker environmental screening levels (ESLs) for TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene are the those associated with direct soil exposure (i.e., via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and particulate inhalation) as listed in Table S-1 of the February 2016 ESL guidance as posted at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/esl.html and are as follows:

COPC Construction Worker RSL (mg/kg)
Noncancer Cancer
TPH-diesel 8.8 x 102 Non-carcinogenic
TPH-motor oil 3.2 x 104 Non-carcinogenic
Naphthalene 4.4 x 102 3.5 x 102
As shown in Table 2a, the HI value exceeds 1.0 at one location (T-16(t)). Given the HQ values at this location is driven by TPH-motor oil, segregation of the HI values by target organs was not warranted. The risk-driving exposure pathways for TPH-motor oil are soil ingestion and dermal contact. As such, precautionary measures associated with these pathways near this locations may be warranted. As shown in Table 2b, the maximum ILCR value (4 x 10-9) is less than the de minimis level of 1 x 10-6. An ILCR value less than the de minimis level is generally considered to be without potential adverse health effects.

Lead
The residential and construction worker ESLs for lead (80 and 160 mg/kg, respectively) are associated with blood lead levels calculated using a blood lead model developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalEPA/OEHHA) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (CalEPA/DTSC) LeadSpread Model rather than the standard USEPA algorithms. As such, the risk values associated with lead are neither calculated nor combined with that for the other COPCs but, rather, a direct comparison to the ESLs is conducted as shown in Table 3a and Table 3b for the residential and construction worker receptor, respectively.

The fact that the vast majority of the TPH/naphthalene- and lead-impacted soil is confined within the upper 2 feet provides the basis for the removal depth of 2 feet. As noted in our response to

1 One of these 6 samples (B-10(w) at 0.5 feet) has HQ values less than 1.0 for both TPH fractions and, as such, a target organ analysis may reveal that this sample would not result in an adverse noncancer health effect. Given that the HI for the underlying sample at 2 feet is less than 1.0 and soils will be removed to a depth of 2 feet, a target organ analysis is not presented here.

Exhibit B

Page 267 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 4 Huntley Comment 8 below, over-excavation and subsequent confirmation sampling will be conducted at those locations at which ESL exceedances were not vertically defined.

Huntley Comment 3: At the bottom of Section 3.9 on pg. 13, the RAP states that the screening level for cadmium is 5.2 mg/kg. However, the lowest ESL (e.g., the Tier 1 ESL) for cadmium is 39 mg/kg which is equal to the residential ESL. I recommend that this apparent error should be corrected in a revised RAP.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 3
The error will be corrected in the revised RAP to the Tier 1 ESL for cadmium (39 mg/kg). (It is noted that the screening level noted in the RAP [5.2 mg/kg] is the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control [CalEPA/DTSC] residential soil screening level.)
Huntley Comment 4: On pg. 14 of the RAP, reference is made to a 2003 background study for soil arsenic and based on that study the 95% UCL for arsenic is 7.48 mg/kg. No reference is given here for the background study. At the end of the arsenic discussion it states, “This site‐specific, UCL‐95% derived concentration of 7.27 mg/kg is in very close magnitude to the background Arsenic concentration established for the Watsonville area, is therefore assumed to be ambient/naturally occurring. Therefore, use of the site‐specific, UCL‐95% of 7.27 mg/kg appears to be a justifiable clean‐up goal.” As discussed on pg. 14 and shown on the table on pg. 14 the background threshold value (BTV) for arsenic is 7.48 mg/kg, not 7.27 mg/kg. Note that on pg. 18, the RAP correctly identifies 7.48 mg/kg as the Remedial Criteria for soils. I recommend that this apparent error should be corrected in a revised RAP. After reading a similar discussion regarding hexavalent chromium, I am not sure this was an error, but it is likely incorrect. See Huntley Comment 6 regarding hexavalent chromium. Assuming that arsenic was handled in the same manner, then I recommend that the RAP be revised accordingly following the applicable regulatory guidance.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 4
See response to Huntley Comment 2 above and Attachment 1. As noted in our response and associated attachment, it is recommended that arsenic, along with hexavalent chromium and nickel, be eliminated as COPCs.

Huntley Comment 5: In the second paragraph of pg. 14 of the RAP, it states, “Simply stated, the 95% UCL is an upper bound estimate of the representative soil chemical concentration found at the Site.” And, in footnote 10 on the same page, it states, “A 95th percentile upper‐confidence limit (UCL‐95%) is a risk based calculation establishing the upper (maximum) concentration that will be encountered within a sampling footprint, 95% of the time.” Both these definitions are incorrect. The 95%UCL is an upperbound estimate of the average concentration. By definition, Exhibit B

Page 268 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 5 the 95%UCL is a value for which there is only a five percent chance that the true average (mean) concentration would exceed that value. This concept is explained in detail in USEPA (2002a) as referenced at the end of this memo. I recommend that the definition of the 95%UCL be corrected in a revised RAP.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 5
The definition will be corrected in the revised RAP.

Huntley Comment 6: At the end of the discussion of hexavalent chromium on pg. 15, it states, “As noted, the site‐specific, UCL‐95% Hex‐Chrome concentration of 2.2 mg/kg is lower than the background concentration obtained at a nearby agricultural parcel. This indicates that use of the site‐specific, UCL‐ 95% of 2.2 mg/kg appears to be a justifiable clean‐up goal.” I do not understand the logic of why the site 95%UCL for hexavalent chromium of 2.2 mg/kg, if less than the “background” concentration of 2.34 mg/kg, is a “justifiable cleanup goal”. The cleanup goal should be the upper‐bound background concentration as determined following DTSC (1997) and USEPA (2002) guidance. I recommend that the RAP be revised accordingly. Additional comments regarding background are provided below in Huntley Comments 10 through 12.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 6
See responses to Huntley Comments 2 and 4 above.

Huntley Comment 7: At the bottom of pg. 15 of the RAP, the point is made that the maximum detected nickel concentration of 150 mg/kg is below the residential ESL of 820 mg/kg but exceeds the construction worker ESL of 86 mg/kg. The RAP then discusses that the 95%UCL value for nickel in soil at 2 ft and below is 86.02 mg/kg, essentially the same value as the construction worker ESL which is also the Tier 1 ESL. I concur with the analysis, that is, the 95%UCL is the appropriate metric for comparison to the ESLs. The fact that 95%UCL is equal to the lowest ESL (e.g., the construction worker ESL) indicates that nickel should not pose an unacceptable risk to any receptors exposed to soil currently at 2 ft and below. However, please see Huntley Comment 2, above, regarding cumulative risks.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 7
See responses to Huntley Comments 2 and 4 above.

Huntley Comment 8: Over‐excavation and confirmation sampling are discussed at the bottom of pg. 19 and at the bottom pg. 21. Currently, there appear to be numerous sampling locations shallower than 2 ft with COPC concentrations exceeding ESLs, but no deeper samples to confirm that concentrations at or below 2 ft are less than ESLs. I would recommend that in all cases where there is the absence of a sample deeper than the deepest sample with an ESL exceedance within the 0‐2 ft interval that a discreet confirmation sample should be collected following excavation. If Exhibit B

Page 269 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 6 there is sample‐specific justification for not collecting a discreet confirmation sample at a particular location with these conditions, then I would recommend that the consultant communicate such justification to SCCEHS and receive approval before proceeding. I would also recommend that an excavation plan (figure) be included in the RAP to show where over‐excavation is planned based on ESL exceedances of deeper soils.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 8
See response to Huntley Comment 2 above. The RAP will be revised to clarify that overexcavation and subsequent confirmation sampling will be conducted at those locations in which impacts were not vertically delineated in accordance with the reviewer’s comment.

Huntley Comment 9: With respect to the 4‐point composite samples discussed at the top of pg. 22, I would recommend that if the resulting composite sample COPC concentration exceeds ¼ the value of applicable ESL, then each of the four discreet samples comprising that composite sample would also need to be independently analyzed. I recommend that the RAP be revised accordingly.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 9
The RAP will be revised in accordance with the reviewer’s comment.

Huntley Comments on RAP Appendix C, Background Evaluation Note that cleanup criteria for arsenic and hexavalent chromium are based on background.

Cleanup criteria for all other COPCs are based on ESLs.

Huntley Comment 10: The reference for the soil arsenic background study used to derive a soil arsenic background benchmark for use at the site is “Remedial Investigation Report: Watsonville 2 Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site, 11 Walker Street, Watsonville, Uribe and Associates, dated September 4, 2003.” This study is not provided in the RAP and the RAP provided no information on the background study design or methods or whether it was approved by SCCEHS.

I cannot determine if these background Watsonville data are representative of the subject site. I recommend that the study report be added as an appendix to the RAP, and a discussion be included in the body of the RAP explaining why these background data should be considered representative of background conditions at the 511 Ohlone Pkwy site. If this is not possible, then I would suggest that DTSC (1997) guidance may be followed to derive a site‐specific background soil arsenic benchmark.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 10
Based on our review, the applicability of the Uribe and Associates background dataset to the Site is uncertain. Given this uncertainty, the analysis included as Attachment 1 herein prepared in response to Huntley Comment 2 above does not rely on the Uribe and Associates background dataset.

Exhibit B

Page 270 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 7 Huntley Comment 11: There are only 14 samples in the background dataset for arsenic. This is a relatively small sample size. Based on the data provided in Appendix C of the RAP I was able to verify that the 95%UCL for this background data set is 7.48 mg/kg as stated in the RAP. However, I also note that use of the 95%UCL background concentration as a remedial goal or cleanup level is highly unusual and inconsistent with the key regulatory guidance documents (DTSC 1997 and USEPA 2002b) that present the methods and rationale for the derivation and application of background benchmarks. Following these guidelines, the soil background benchmark is intended to be an upper‐bound estimate, generally within the range of the 90th to the 99th percentiles of the background data distribution. For a small sample size such as 14 samples, DTSC (1997) would recommend using the lower value in this range (e.g., the 90th percentile concentration). I calculated the 90th percentile concentration of the Watsonville background data set to be 10.0 mg/kg. Use of the 95%UCL background value of 7.48 to cleanup all site soils is very conservative (assuming that the use of the Watsonville background data set is appropriate for this site).

However, because it is more conservative and more health protective than the 90th percentile value and is well below the typical range of upper‐bound background soil arsenic concentrations in California of about 11 to 12 mg/kg, as noted in the RAP, I don’t necessarily recommend that use of the 95%UCL value be changed in the RAP. However, I believe the RAP should be revised to clarify these points and definitions, and most importantly, justification needs to be provided in the body of the RAP that shows that the background dataset is representative of 511 Ohlone Pkwy site conditions.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 11
See response to Huntley Comment 2 above.

Huntley Comment 12: The background soil hexavalent chromium concentration proposed as the cleanup criteria is 2.34 mg/kg based on a “Local Site Confirmation Testing to Receive Surplus Soils” apparently conducted in July 2017. No report reference is given for this study. No information is provided about the study design or methods employed or the basis for assuming these data are representative of background conditions for the 511 Ohlone Pkwy site. I recommend that the hexavalent chromium soil background study report be included in the RAP as an appendix, and most importantly, justification needs to be provided in the body of the RAP that shows that the background dataset is representative of 511 Ohlone Pkwy site conditions.

TH&Co Response to Huntley Comment 12
See response to Huntley Comment 2 above.

Closing
The most common issue in the comments addressed herein is associated with the calculation of metals background concentrations. Based on the attached statistical analysis, arsenic, hexavalent Exhibit B

Page 271 of 468 ends

Response to Comments
Clusters Property, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 8 chromium, and nickel are not COPCs. If you have any questions, please contact me on my cellphone at 949 795-0855 via text or voice, my office telephone at 714 779-3875, or via electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jim Van de Water, P.G., C.HG.

Principal Hydrogeologist
949 795-0855 (cell)
949 779-3875 (office)
[email protected]
Exhibit B

Page 272 of 468 ends

TABLES

Exhibit B

Page 273 of 468 ends

TABLE 1a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values
~ Default Residential Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  HQ = HI

0.5 ND 3,500 0.31 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 3E-01 3E-03 3E-01

1.5 ND 1,800 1.50 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-01 1E-02 2E-01 B-8(t) 0.5 ND 32,000 0.22 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 3E+00 2E-03 3E+00 B-9(t) 0.5 -- -- 0.067 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - 6E-04 6E-04 T-2(t) T6 3.5 ND 85 0.016 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 8E-03 1E-04 8E-03 T-3(t) T9 2 94 240 0.017 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-01 2E-02 2E-04 4E-01 T-4(t) T10 1 ND 32 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 3E-03 - 3E-03 T-6(t) T12 1 ND 250 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-02 - 2E-02T-7(t) T6 1 ND ND ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00T-8(t) T12 2 ND 400 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 4E-02 - 4E-02T-9(t) T15 2 ND 510 0.02 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 5E-02 2E-04 5E-02 T-11(t) T1 6 ND 680 0.018 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 6E-02 2E-04 6E-02 T-12(t) T3 2 ND 800 0.043 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 7E-02 4E-04 7E-02 T-14(t) T10 4 ND 18 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-03 - 2E-03 T-15(t) T1 2 ND 2,000 0.018 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-01 2E-04 2E-01 T-16(t) T1 8 ND 97,000 0.28 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 9E+00 2E-03 9E+00 T-17(t) T1 2 ND 51 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 5E-03 - 5E-03 T-18(t) Debris -- ND 1,600 0.067 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 1E-01 6E-04 1E-01

0.5 180 2,400 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-01 2E-01 - 1E+00 2 ND 22 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-03 - 2E-03

0.5 670 5,500 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E+00 5E-01 - 3E+00 2 4.8 39 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 4E-03 - 2E-02

0.5 8.3 80 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 7E-03 - 4E-02 2 ND 29 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 3E-03 - 3E-03

0.5 3.5 45 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 4E-03 - 2E-02 2 6.2 38 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 4E-03 - 3E-02

0.5 60 820 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-01 8E-02 - 3E-01 2 8.9 63 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 6E-03 - 5E-02

0.5 15 170 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-02 2E-02 - 8E-02 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 6.5 63 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 6E-03 - 3E-02 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 53 750 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-01 7E-02 - 3E-01 2 4.9 51 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 5E-03 - 3E-02

0.5 110 1,300 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-01 1E-01 - 6E-01 2 10 98 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 9E-03 - 5E-02

0.5 7.1 48 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 4E-03 - 4E-02 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 12 150 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-02 1E-02 - 7E-02 2 ND 21 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-03 - 2E-03
HQ Values (unitless)
B-20(w) SB-11B-17(w) SB-8B-18(w) SB-9B-19(w) SB-10
SB-4
B-14(w) SB-5B-15(w) SB-6B-16(w) SB-7
Area 6Area 8
B-10(w) SB-1B-11(w) SB-2B-12(w) SB-3B-13(w)
Residential ESLs for Noncancer Endpoint
(in mg/kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-8TB-9
Area 1Area 2Area 5
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

Page 1 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 274 of 468 ends

Page 572 of 885 ends

TABLE 1a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values
~ Default Residential Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  HQ = HI HQ Values (unitless) Residential ESLs for Noncancer Endpoint (in mg/kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

0.5 33 380 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 1E-01 4E-02 - 2E-01 2 18 78 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-02 7E-03 - 9E-02

0.5 7.1 64 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 6E-03 - 4E-02 2 ND 19 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 2E-03 - 2E-03

0.5 150 1,600 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-01 1E-01 - 8E-01 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 10 140 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 1E-02 - 6E-02 2 ND 28 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - 3E-03 - 3E-03
B-25(w) 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00B-26(w) 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00B-27(w) 2 5.2 14 0.023 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 1E-03 2E-04 2E-02 B-28(w) 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00B-29(w) 2 5.6 23 ND 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 2E-03 - 3E-02B-30(w) 2 7.3 42 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 4E-03 - 4E-02 B-31(w) 2 5.8 33 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 3E-03 - 3E-02 B-32(w) 2 43 180 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-01 2E-02 - 2E-01 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+004 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+006 160 1,200 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-01 1E-01 - 8E-01 2 1.7 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-03 - - 8E-033 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 68 310 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-01 3E-02 - 3E-01 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 25 170 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 1E-01 2E-02 - 1E-01 2 110 360 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-01 3E-02 - 5E-01 B-66a(w) 2 19 78 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-02 7E-03 - 9E-02 2 11 33 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-02 3E-03 - 5E-02
4 3.6 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 - - 2E-02
B-66c(w) 2 21 86 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 9E-02 8E-03 - 1E-01

0.5 60 700 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-01 7E-02 - 3E-01 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 620 3,300 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E+00 3E-01 - 3E+00 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00
2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 110 510 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-01 5E-02 - 5E-01 2 130 980 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 6E-01 9E-02 - 7E-01 4 1.5 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-03 - - 7E-03
20 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+0040 1.1 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-03 - - 5E-03 B-71(w) EB-1 B-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4cB-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5cB-70(w) G&G Discrete #1 G&G 2a
B-66b(w) G&G 2b
G&G 2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3c
B-52(L) G + G -1B-55(L) G + G -4
B-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1cB-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c
DP-4DP-5DP-6DP-7DP-8DP-9
B-23(w) SB-14B-24(w) SB-15
DP-1DP-2
B-21(w) SB-12B-22(w) SB-13

Page 2 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 275 of 468 ends

Page 573 of 885 ends

TABLE 1a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values
~ Default Residential Receptor ~

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

0.5 6.1 30 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 3E-03 - 3E-02 2 1.6 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-03 - - 7E-03

0.5 8.8 58 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 5E-03 - 4E-02 2 1.6 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-03 - - 7E-03

0.5 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00
2 6.4 31 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 3E-03 - 3E-02

0.5 3.2 16 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 1E-02 1E-03 - 2E-02 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 5.6 57 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 5E-03 - 3E-02 2 4 39 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 4E-03 - 2E-02

0.5 31 250 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 1E-01 2E-02 - 2E-01 2 4.5 35 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 3E-03 - 2E-02

0.5 15 130 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-02 1E-02 - 8E-02 2 5.3 48 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 4E-03 - 3E-02

0.5 45 200 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-01 2E-02 - 2E-01 2 12 57 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-02 5E-03 - 6E-02

0.5 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00
2 62 200 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-01 2E-02 - 3E-01 B-80a(w) 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00 2 190 600 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-01 6E-02 - 9E-01 4 2 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 9E-03 - - 9E-03
B-80c(w) 2 3.2 16 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 1E-02 1E-03 - 2E-02

0.5 170 670 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-01 6E-02 - 8E-01 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 33 130 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 1E-01 1E-02 - 2E-01 2 ND ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 1.7 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 8E-03 - - 8E-03
2 110 390 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-01 4E-02 - 5E-01 4 4.5 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-02 - - 2E-02

0.5 8.6 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 - - 4E-02
2 2.1 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 9E-03 - - 9E-03

0.5 12 56 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 5E-02 5E-03 - 6E-02 2 34 140 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E-01 1E-02 - 2E-01

0.5 14 22 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 6E-02 2E-03 - 6E-02 2 500 1,400 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 2E+00 1E-01 - 2E+004 1.5 ND -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-03 - - 7E-03

0.5 6.3 33 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 3E-02 3E-03 - 3E-02 2 1.5 15 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 7E-03 1E-03 - 8E-03

0.5 8.9 54 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 5E-03 - 4E-02 2 9.4 64 -- 2.3E+02 1.1E+04 1.1E+02 4E-02 6E-03 - 5E-02 Maximum HI => 9E+00
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1cB-89(w) Bay City # - 2a,2b,2cB-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1cB-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1cB-87(w) Residence #1 (discrete)B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3cB-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4cB-83(w) Gerrys DiscreteB-80(w) Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c Gerrys 2a
B-80b(w) Gerrys 2b
Gerrys 2c
B-77(w) Chaz #- 1a,1b,1cB-78(w) Chaz # - 2a,2b,2cB-79(w) Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1cB-74(w) Clusters# - 1a,1b,1cB-75(w) Clusters# - 2a,2b,2cB-76(w) Clusters# - 3a,3b,3cB-72(w) Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1cB-73(w) Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2c

Page 3 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 276 of 468 ends

Page 574 of 885 ends

TABLE 1b
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) Values
~ Default Residential Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  ILCR = ILCRtotal

0.5 ND 3,500 0.31 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 9E-08 9E-081.5 ND 1,800 1.50 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 5E-07 5E-07 B-8(t) 0.5 ND 32,000 0.22 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 7E-08 7E-08 B-9(t) 0.5 -- -- 0.067 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 2E-08 2E-08
T-2(t) T6 3.5 ND 85 0.016 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 5E-09 5E-09T-3(t) T9 2 94 240 0.017 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 5E-09 5E-09 T-4(t) T10 1 ND 32 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
T-6(t) T12 1 ND 250 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00T-7(t) T61 NDNDND NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00 T-8(t) T12 2 ND 400 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00T-9(t) T15 2 ND 510 0.02 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 6E-09 6E-09 T-11(t) T1 6 ND 680 0.018 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 5E-09 5E-09 T-12(t) T3 2 ND 800 0.043 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 1E-08 1E-08 T-14(t) T10 4 ND 18 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
T-15(t) T1 2 ND 2,000 0.018 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 5E-09 5E-09 T-16(t) T1 8 ND 97,000 0.28 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 9E-08 9E-08T-17(t) T1 2 ND 51 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00 T-18(t) Debris -- ND 1,600 0.067 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 2E-08 2E-08

0.5 180 2,400 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 22 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 670 5,500 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4.8 39 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.3 80 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 29 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 3.5 45 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 6.2 38 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 60 820 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 8.9 63 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 15 170 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 6.5 63 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 53 750 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4.9 51 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 110 1,300 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 10 98 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 7.1 48 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 12 150 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 21 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
Area 6
B-19(w) SB-10B-20(w) SB-11B-16(w) SB-7B-17(w) SB-8B-18(w) SB-9 Concentrations (in mg/kg) Residential ESLs for Cancer Endpoint (in mg/kg) ILCR Values (unitless)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-13(w) SB-4B-14(w) SB-5B-15(w) SB-6
Area 8
B-10(w) SB-1B-11(w) SB-2B-12(w) SB-3
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-8TB-9
Area 1Area 2Area 5

Page 1 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 277 of 468 ends

Page 575 of 885 ends

TABLE 1b
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) Values
~ Default Residential Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  ILCR = ILCRtotal Concentrations (in mg/kg) Residential ESLs for Cancer Endpoint (in mg/kg) ILCR Values (unitless)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 33 380 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 18 78 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 7.1 64 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 19 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 150 1,600 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 10 140 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 28 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-25(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-26(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-27(w) 2 5.2 14 0.023 NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC 7E-09 7E-09
B-28(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-29(w) 2 5.6 23 ND NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00B-30(w) 2 7.3 42 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00 B-31(w) 2 5.8 33 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-32(w) 2 43 180 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00
4 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00
6 160 1,200 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.7 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
3 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 68 310 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 25 170 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 110 360 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-66a(w) 2 19 78 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 11 33 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+004 3.6 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00 B-66c(w) 2 21 86 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 60 700 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 620 3,300 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 110 510 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 130 980 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+004 1.5 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00 20 ND ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
40 1.1 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-70(w) G&G Discrete #1B-71(w) EB-1
G&G 2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3cB-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4cB-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5cB-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1cB-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c G&G 2a
B-66b(w) G&G 2b
DP-8DP-9
B-52(L) G + G -1B-55(L) G + G -4
DP-1DP-2DP-4DP-5DP-6DP-7
B-22(w) SB-13B-23(w) SB-14B-24(w) SB-15B-21(w) SB-12

Page 2 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 278 of 468 ends

Page 576 of 885 ends

TABLE 1b
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) Values
~ Default Residential Receptor ~

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 6.1 30 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.6 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.8 58 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.6 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00
2 6.4 31 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 3.2 16 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 5.6 57 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4 39 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 31 250 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4.5 35 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 15 130 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 5.3 48 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 45 200 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 12 57 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00
2 62 200 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
B-80a(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 190 600 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+004 2 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00 B-80c(w) 2 3.2 16 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 170 670 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 33 130 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.3E+00 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 1.7 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 110 390 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+004 4.5 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.6 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 2.1 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 12 56 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 34 140 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 14 22 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 500 1,400 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
4 1.5 ND -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 6.3 33 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.5 15 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.9 54 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
2 9.4 64 -- NC NC 3.3E+00 NC NC - 0E+00
Maximum ILCRtotal => 5E-07
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1cB-89(w) Bay City # - 2a,2b,2cB-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1cB-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1cB-87(w) Residence #1 (discrete) Gerrys 2c
B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3cB-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4cB-83(w) Gerrys DiscreteB-79(w) Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1cB-80(w) Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c Gerrys 2a
B-80b(w) Gerrys 2b
B-76(w) Clusters# - 3a,3b,3cB-77(w) Chaz #- 1a,1b,1cB-78(w) Chaz # - 2a,2b,2cB-73(w) Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2cB-74(w) Clusters# - 1a,1b,1cB-75(w) Clusters# - 2a,2b,2cB-72(w) Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1c

Page 3 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 279 of 468 ends

Page 577 of 885 ends

TABLE 2a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values
~ Default Construction Worker Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  HQ = HI

0.5 ND 3,500 0.31 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 1E-01 7E-04 1E-01

1.5 ND 1,800 1.50 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 6E-02 3E-03 6E-02 B-8(t) 0.5 ND 32,000 0.22 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 1E+00 5E-04 1E+00 B-9(t) 0.5 -- -- 0.067 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - 2E-04 2E-04 T-2(t) T6 3.5 ND 85 0.016 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 3E-03 4E-05 3E-03 T-3(t) T9 2 94 240 0.017 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-01 7E-03 4E-05 1E-01 T-4(t) T10 1 ND 32 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 1E-03 - 1E-03 T-6(t) T12 1 ND 250 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 8E-03 - 8E-03T-7(t) T6 1 ND ND ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00T-8(t) T12 2 ND 400 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 1E-02 - 1E-02T-9(t) T15 2 ND 510 0.02 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 2E-02 5E-05 2E-02 T-11(t) T1 6 ND 680 0.018 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 2E-02 4E-05 2E-02 T-12(t) T3 2 ND 800 0.043 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 2E-02 1E-04 2E-02 T-14(t) T10 4 ND 18 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 6E-04 - 6E-04 T-15(t) T1 2 ND 2,000 0.018 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 6E-02 4E-05 6E-02 T-16(t) T1 8 ND 97,000 0.28 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 3E+00 6E-04 3E+00 T-17(t) T1 2 ND 51 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 2E-03 - 2E-03 T-18(t) Debris -- ND 1,600 0.067 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 5E-02 2E-04 5E-02

0.5 180 2,400 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-01 7E-02 - 3E-01 2 ND 22 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 7E-04 - 7E-04

0.5 670 5,500 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 8E-01 2E-01 - 9E-01 2 4.8 39 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 5E-03 1E-03 - 7E-03

0.5 8.3 80 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 9E-03 2E-03 - 1E-02 2 ND 29 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 9E-04 - 9E-04

0.5 3.5 45 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-03 1E-03 - 5E-03 2 6.2 38 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-03 1E-03 - 8E-03

0.5 60 820 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-02 3E-02 - 9E-02 2 8.9 63 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 2E-03 - 1E-02

0.5 15 170 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-02 5E-03 - 2E-02 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 6.5 63 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-03 2E-03 - 9E-03 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 53 750 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-02 2E-02 - 8E-02 2 4.9 51 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-03 2E-03 - 7E-03

0.5 110 1,300 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-01 4E-02 - 2E-01 2 10 98 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 3E-03 - 1E-02

0.5 7.1 48 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 8E-03 1E-03 - 1E-02 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 12 150 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 5E-03 - 2E-02 2 ND 21 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 6E-04 - 6E-04
B-19(w) SB-10B-20(w) SB-11B-16(w) SB-7B-17(w) SB-8B-18(w) SB-9 Construction Worker ESLs for Noncancer
Endpoint (in mg/kg) HQ Values (unitless)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-13(w) SB-4B-14(w) SB-5B-15(w) SB-6
Area 8
B-10(w) SB-1B-11(w) SB-2B-12(w) SB-3
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-8TB-9
Area 1Area 2Area 5Area 6
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

Page 1 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 280 of 468 ends

Page 578 of 885 ends

TABLE 2a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values
~ Default Construction Worker Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  HQ = HI Construction Worker ESLs for Noncancer
Endpoint (in mg/kg) HQ Values (unitless)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

0.5 33 380 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-02 1E-02 - 5E-02 2 18 78 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-02 2E-03 - 2E-02

0.5 7.1 64 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 8E-03 2E-03 - 1E-02 2 ND 19 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 6E-04 - 6E-04

0.5 150 1,600 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-01 5E-02 - 2E-01 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 10 140 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 4E-03 - 2E-02 2 ND 28 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - 9E-04 - 9E-04
B-25(w) 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00B-26(w) 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00B-27(w) 2 5.2 14 0.023 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-03 4E-04 5E-05 6E-03 B-28(w) 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00B-29(w) 2 5.6 23 ND 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-03 7E-04 - 7E-03B-30(w) 2 7.3 42 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 8E-03 1E-03 - 1E-02 B-31(w) 2 5.8 33 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-03 1E-03 - 8E-03 B-32(w) 2 43 180 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 5E-02 6E-03 - 5E-02 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+004 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+006 160 1,200 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-01 4E-02 - 2E-01 2 1.7 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-033 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 68 310 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 8E-02 1E-02 - 9E-02 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 25 170 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 3E-02 5E-03 - 3E-02 2 110 360 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-01 1E-02 - 1E-01 B-66a(w) 2 19 78 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-02 2E-03 - 2E-02 2 11 33 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 1E-03 - 1E-02
4 3.6 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-03 - - 4E-03
B-66c(w) 2 21 86 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-02 3E-03 - 3E-02

0.5 60 700 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-02 2E-02 - 9E-02 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 620 3,300 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-01 1E-01 - 8E-01 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00
2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 110 510 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-01 2E-02 - 1E-01 2 130 980 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-01 3E-02 - 2E-01 4 1.5 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03
20 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+0040 1.1 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-03 - - 1E-03 B-70(w) G&G Discrete #1B-71(w) EB-1
G&G 2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3cB-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4cB-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5cB-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1cB-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c G&G 2a
B-66b(w) G&G 2b
DP-8DP-9
B-52(L) G + G -1B-55(L) G + G -4
DP-1DP-2DP-4DP-5DP-6DP-7
B-22(w) SB-13B-23(w) SB-14B-24(w) SB-15B-21(w) SB-12

Page 2 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 281 of 468 ends

Page 579 of 885 ends

TABLE 2a
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) Values
~ Default Construction Worker Receptor ~

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

0.5 6.1 30 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-03 9E-04 - 8E-03 2 1.6 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03

0.5 8.8 58 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 2E-03 - 1E-02 2 1.6 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03

0.5 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00
2 6.4 31 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-03 1E-03 - 8E-03

0.5 3.2 16 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-03 5E-04 - 4E-03 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 5.6 57 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-03 2E-03 - 8E-03 2 4 39 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 5E-03 1E-03 - 6E-03

0.5 31 250 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-02 8E-03 - 4E-02 2 4.5 35 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 5E-03 1E-03 - 6E-03

0.5 15 130 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-02 4E-03 - 2E-02 2 5.3 48 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-03 1E-03 - 7E-03

0.5 45 200 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 5E-02 6E-03 - 6E-02 2 12 57 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 2E-03 - 2E-02

0.5 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00
2 62 200 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-02 6E-03 - 8E-02 B-80a(w) 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00 2 190 600 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-01 2E-02 - 2E-01 4 2 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03
B-80c(w) 2 3.2 16 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-03 5E-04 - 4E-03

0.5 170 670 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-01 2E-02 - 2E-01 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 33 130 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-02 4E-03 - 4E-02 2 ND ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 - - - 0E+00

0.5 1.7 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03
2 110 390 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-01 1E-02 - 1E-01 4 4.5 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 5E-03 - - 5E-03

0.5 8.6 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 - - 1E-02
2 2.1 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03

0.5 12 56 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 2E-03 - 2E-02 2 34 140 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 4E-02 4E-03 - 4E-02

0.5 14 22 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-02 7E-04 - 2E-02 2 500 1,400 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 6E-01 4E-02 - 6E-01 4 1.5 ND -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 - - 2E-03

0.5 6.3 33 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 7E-03 1E-03 - 8E-03 2 1.5 15 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 2E-03 5E-04 - 2E-03

0.5 8.9 54 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 2E-03 - 1E-02 2 9.4 64 -- 8.8E+02 3.2E+04 4.4E+02 1E-02 2E-03 - 1E-02 Maximum HI => 3E+00
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1cB-89(w) Bay City # - 2a,2b,2cB-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1cB-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1cB-87(w) Residence #1 (discrete) Gerrys 2c
B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3cB-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4cB-83(w) Gerrys DiscreteB-79(w) Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1cB-80(w) Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c Gerrys 2a
B-80b(w) Gerrys 2b
B-76(w) Clusters# - 3a,3b,3cB-77(w) Chaz #- 1a,1b,1cB-78(w) Chaz # - 2a,2b,2cB-73(w) Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2cB-74(w) Clusters# - 1a,1b,1cB-75(w) Clusters# - 2a,2b,2cB-72(w) Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1c

Page 3 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 282 of 468 ends

Page 580 of 885 ends

TABLE 2b
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) Values
~ Default Construction Worker Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  ILCR = ILCRtotal

0.5 ND 3,500 0.31 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 9E-10 9E-101.5 ND 1,800 1.50 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 4E-09 4E-09 B-8(t) 0.5 ND 32,000 0.22 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 6E-10 6E-10 B-9(t) 0.5 -- -- 0.067 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 2E-10 2E-10
T-2(t) T6 3.5 ND 85 0.016 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 5E-11 5E-11T-3(t) T9 2 94 240 0.017 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 5E-11 5E-11 T-4(t) T10 1 ND 32 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
T-6(t) T12 1 ND 250 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00T-7(t) T61 NDNDND NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00 T-8(t) T12 2 ND 400 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00T-9(t) T15 2 ND 510 0.02 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 6E-11 6E-11 T-11(t) T1 6 ND 680 0.018 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 5E-11 5E-11 T-12(t) T3 2 ND 800 0.043 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 1E-10 1E-10 T-14(t) T10 4 ND 18 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
T-15(t) T1 2 ND 2,000 0.018 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 5E-11 5E-11 T-16(t) T1 8 ND 97,000 0.28 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 8E-10 8E-10T-17(t) T1 2 ND 51 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00 T-18(t) Debris -- ND 1,600 0.067 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 2E-10 2E-10

0.5 180 2,400 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 22 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 670 5,500 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4.8 39 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.3 80 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 29 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 3.5 45 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 6.2 38 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 60 820 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 8.9 63 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 15 170 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 6.5 63 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 53 750 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4.9 51 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 110 1,300 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 10 98 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 7.1 48 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 12 150 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 21 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-19(w) SB-10B-20(w) SB-11B-16(w) SB-7B-17(w) SB-8B-18(w) SB-9 Construction Worker ESLs for Cancer
Endpoint (in mg/kg) ILCR Values (unitless)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-13(w) SB-4B-14(w) SB-5B-15(w) SB-6
Area 8
B-10(w) SB-1B-11(w) SB-2B-12(w) SB-3
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-8TB-9
Area 1Area 2Area 5Area 6
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

Page 1 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 283 of 468 ends

Page 581 of 885 ends

TABLE 2b
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) Values
~ Default Construction Worker Receptor ~

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene TPH as DIESEL TPH as MOTOR OIL Naphthalene  ILCR = ILCRtotal Construction Worker ESLs for Cancer
Endpoint (in mg/kg) ILCR Values (unitless)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

0.5 33 380 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 18 78 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 7.1 64 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 19 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 150 1,600 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 10 140 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 ND 28 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-25(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-26(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-27(w) 2 5.2 14 0.023 NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC 7E-11 7E-11
B-28(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-29(w) 2 5.6 23 ND NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00B-30(w) 2 7.3 42 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00 B-31(w) 2 5.8 33 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-32(w) 2 43 180 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00
4 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00
6 160 1,200 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.7 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
3 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 68 310 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 25 170 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 110 360 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-66a(w) 2 19 78 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 11 33 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+004 3.6 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00 B-66c(w) 2 21 86 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 60 700 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 620 3,300 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 110 510 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 130 980 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+004 1.5 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00 20 ND ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
40 1.1 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-70(w) G&G Discrete #1B-71(w) EB-1
G&G 2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3cB-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4cB-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5cB-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1cB-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c G&G 2a
B-66b(w) G&G 2b
DP-8DP-9
B-52(L) G + G -1B-55(L) G + G -4
DP-1DP-2DP-4DP-5DP-6DP-7
B-22(w) SB-13B-23(w) SB-14B-24(w) SB-15B-21(w) SB-12

Page 2 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 284 of 468 ends

Page 582 of 885 ends

TABLE 2b
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) Values
~ Default Construction Worker Receptor ~

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Concentrations (in mg/kg)

0.5 6.1 30 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.6 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.8 58 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.6 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00
2 6.4 31 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 3.2 16 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 5.6 57 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4 39 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 31 250 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 4.5 35 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 15 130 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 5.3 48 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 45 200 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 12 57 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00
2 62 200 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
B-80a(w) 2 ND ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 190 600 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+004 2 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00 B-80c(w) 2 3.2 16 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 170 670 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 33 130 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 NDND -- NCNC 3.5E+02 NCNC - 0E+00

0.5 1.7 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 110 390 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+004 4.5 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.6 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 2.1 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 12 56 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 34 140 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 14 22 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 500 1,400 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
4 1.5 ND -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 6.3 33 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 1.5 15 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00

0.5 8.9 54 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
2 9.4 64 -- NC NC 3.5E+02 NC NC - 0E+00
Maximum ILCRtotal => 4E-09
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1cB-89(w) Bay City # - 2a,2b,2cB-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1cB-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1cB-87(w) Residence #1 (discrete) Gerrys 2c
B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3cB-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4cB-83(w) Gerrys DiscreteB-79(w) Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1cB-80(w) Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c Gerrys 2a
B-80b(w) Gerrys 2b
B-76(w) Clusters# - 3a,3b,3cB-77(w) Chaz #- 1a,1b,1cB-78(w) Chaz # - 2a,2b,2cB-73(w) Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2cB-74(w) Clusters# - 1a,1b,1cB-75(w) Clusters# - 2a,2b,2cB-72(w) Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1c

Page 3 of 3 ends

Exhibit B

Page 285 of 468 ends

Page 583 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)
B-1(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -
B-2(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -

0.5 12 80 No -

1.5 140 80 Yes 1.5

2.5 -- 80 - -
4 -- 80 - -
B-4(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -
B-5(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -
B-6(t) 0.75 -- 80 - -
B-7(t) 0.5 -- 80 - -

0.5 23 80 No -

1.5 -- 80 - -

2.5 -- 80 - -
4 -- 80 - -

0.5 40 80 No -

1.5 -- 80 - -

0.5 63 80 No -
2 13 80 No -

0.5 110 80 Yes 0.5
2 9.9 80 No -

0.5 250 80 Yes 0.5
2 17 80 No -

0.5 52 80 No -
2 14 80 No -
B-11(w) SB-2
B-12(w) SB-3
B-13(w) SB-4
Area 2
Area 5
B-10(w) SB-1
Area 6
Area 8
TB-5
TB-6
TB-7
Area 1
B-9(t) TB-9
TB-1
TB-2
B-3(t) TB-3

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-8(t) TB-8
TB-4

Page 1 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 286 of 468 ends

Page 584 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 23 80 No -
2 6.9 80 No -

0.5 7 80 No -
2 6.4 80 No -

Page 2 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 287 of 468 ends

Page 585 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
2 7.2 80 No -
4 5.3 80 No -

0.5 32 80 No -
2 17 80 No -
B-69a(w) 0.5 37 80 No -
B-69b(w) 0.5 33 80 No -
B-69c(w) 0.5 69 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 14 80 No -

0.5 100 80 Yes 0.5
2 16 80 No -
B-73a(w) 0.5 33 80 No -
B-73b(w) 0.5 120 80 Yes 0.5
B-73c(w) 0.5 85 80 Yes 0.5

0.5 16 80 No -
2 20 80 No -

0.5 16 80 No -
2 17 80 No -

0.5 41 80 No -
2 31 80 No -

0.5 34 80 No -
2 100 80 Yes 2
B-77a(w) 2 280 80 Yes 2
B-77b(w) 2 36 80 No -
B-77c(w) 2 19 80 No -

0.5 26 80 No -
2 38 80 No -

0.5 29 80 No -
2 28 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 21 80 No -

0.5 130 80 Yes 0.5
2 19 80 No -

0.5 46 80 No -
2 -- 80 - -

0.5 110 80 Yes 0.5
2 -- 80 - -

0.5 15 80 No -
2 -- 80 - -

Page 3 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 288 of 468 ends

Page 586 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-82a(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-82b(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-82c(w) 2 -- 80 - -

0.5 60 80 No -
2 22 80 No -
B-85a(w) 0.5 48 80 No -
B-85b(w) 0.5 16 80 No -
B-85c(w) 0.5 17 80 No -

0.5 15 80 No -
2 18 80 No -

0.5 28 80 No -
2 18 80 No -

0.5 44 80 No -
2 48 80 No -

0.5 32 80 No -
2 7.5 80 No -

0.5 13 80 No -
2 11 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 9.5 80 No -

0.5 38 80 No -
2 8 80 No -

0.5 15 80 No -
2 8.6 80 No -

0.5 24 80 No -
2 12 80 No -

0.5 25 80 No -
2 15 80 No -

0.5 17 80 No -
2 8.3 80 No -

0.5 12 80 No -
2 13 80 No -

Page 4 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 289 of 468 ends

Page 587 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

0.5 8.6 80 No -
2 7.8 80 No -
2 8.2 80 No -

3.5 11 80 No -
2 42 80 No -
3 5.2 80 No -
2 14 80 No -
3 14 80 No -

Page 5 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 290 of 468 ends

Page 588 of 885 ends

TABLE 3a
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Residential ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 40 80 No -
2 43 80 No -

0.5 28 80 No -
2 20 80 No -
B-67a(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-67b(w) 2 -- 80 - -
B-67c(w) 2 -- 80 - -

0.5 5400 80 Yes 0.5
2 66 80 No -

0.5 100 80 Yes 0.5
2 260 80 Yes 2

0.5 170 80 Yes 0.5
2 150 80 Yes 2

0.5 480 80 Yes 0.5
2 25 80 No - B-68c(w) G&G 4c
G&G 3a
G&G 3b
G&G 3c
B-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4c
B-68a(w) G&G 4a
B-68b(w) G&G 4b
B-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3c

Page 6 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (Res) Exhibit B

Page 291 of 468 ends

Page 589 of 885 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)
B-1(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -
B-2(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -

0.5 12 160 No -

1.5 140 160 No -

2.5 -- 160 - -
4 -- 160 - -
B-4(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -
B-5(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -
B-6(t) 0.75 -- 160 - -
B-7(t) 0.5 -- 160 - -

0.5 23 160 No -

1.5 -- 160 - -

2.5 -- 160 - -
4 -- 160 - -

0.5 40 160 No -

1.5 -- 160 - -

0.5 63 160 No -
2 13 160 No -

0.5 110 160 No -
2 9.9 160 No -

0.5 250 160 Yes 0.5
2 17 160 No -

0.5 52 160 No -
2 14 160 No -

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
TB-1
TB-2
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-4
Area 1
Area 2
Area 5
Area 6
Area 8
B-10(w) SB-1
TB-5
TB-6
TB-7
B-8(t) TB-8
B-9(t) TB-9
B-11(w) SB-2
B-12(w) SB-3
B-13(w) SB-4

Page 1 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 292 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 23 160 No -
2 6.9 160 No -

0.5 7 160 No -
2 6.4 160 No -

Page 2 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 293 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
2 7.2 160 No -
4 5.3 160 No -

0.5 32 160 No -
2 17 160 No -
B-69a(w) 0.5 37 160 No -
B-69b(w) 0.5 33 160 No -
B-69c(w) 0.5 69 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 14 160 No -

0.5 100 160 No -
2 16 160 No -
B-73a(w) 0.5 33 160 No -
B-73b(w) 0.5 120 160 No -
B-73c(w) 0.5 85 160 No -

0.5 16 160 No -
2 20 160 No -

0.5 16 160 No -
2 17 160 No -

0.5 41 160 No -
2 31 160 No -

0.5 34 160 No -
2 100 160 No -
B-77a(w) 2 280 160 Yes 2
B-77b(w) 2 36 160 No -
B-77c(w) 2 19 160 No -

0.5 26 160 No -
2 38 160 No -

0.5 29 160 No -
2 28 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 21 160 No -

0.5 130 160 No -
2 19 160 No -

0.5 46 160 No -
2 -- 160 - -

0.5 110 160 No -
2 -- 160 - -

0.5 15 160 No -
2 -- 160 - -

Page 3 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 294 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
B-82a(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-82b(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-82c(w) 2 -- 160 - -

0.5 60 160 No -
2 22 160 No -
B-85a(w) 0.5 48 160 No -
B-85b(w) 0.5 16 160 No -
B-85c(w) 0.5 17 160 No -

0.5 15 160 No -
2 18 160 No -

0.5 28 160 No -
2 18 160 No -

0.5 44 160 No -
2 48 160 No -

0.5 32 160 No -
2 7.5 160 No -

0.5 13 160 No -
2 11 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 9.5 160 No -

0.5 38 160 No -
2 8 160 No -

0.5 15 160 No -
2 8.6 160 No -

0.5 24 160 No -
2 12 160 No -

0.5 25 160 No -
2 15 160 No -

0.5 17 160 No -
2 8.3 160 No -

0.5 12 160 No -
2 13 160 No -

Page 4 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 295 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

0.5 8.6 160 No -
2 7.8 160 No -
2 8.2 160 No -

3.5 11 160 No -
2 42 160 No -
3 5.2 160 No -
2 14 160 No -
3 14 160 No -

Page 5 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 296 of 468 ends

TABLE 3b
Comparison of Lead Concentrations
to Construction Worker ESL Value

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth (ft) Lead (mg/kg) Lead ESL (mg/kg)
ESL
Exceedance?
Depth of ESL
Exceedance (ft)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID

0.5 40 160 No -
2 43 160 No -

0.5 28 160 No -
2 20 160 No -
B-67a(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-67b(w) 2 -- 160 - -
B-67c(w) 2 -- 160 - -

0.5 5400 160 Yes 0.5
2 66 160 No -

0.5 100 160 No -
2 260 160 Yes 2

0.5 170 160 Yes 0.5
2 150 160 No -

0.5 480 160 Yes 0.5
2 25 160 No -
B-66(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3c
B-68b(w) G&G 4b
B-68c(w) G&G 4c
G&G 3a
G&G 3b
G&G 3c
B-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4c
B-68a(w) G&G 4a

Page 6 of 6 ends

Table 3 - LEAD.xlsx | Lead (CW)
Exhibit B

Page 297 of 468 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic,
Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel
Background Concentrations

Exhibit B

Page 298 of 468 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Background Concentrations
Former Clusters Storage Yard
Watsonville, California
This attachment provides a statistical evaluation of arsenic, hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]), and nickel. The evaluation uses a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach to establish whether a siterelated release of these metals has occurred and, as such, whether these metals should be included as ‘chemicals of potential concern’ (COPCs) to be included in quantitative risk calculations. The analysis is conducted consistent with California Environmental Protection Agency guidance (CalEPA, 1997) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency statistical software (USEPA, 2015). 1 BACKGROUND
Seven contaminants of concern were identified in the RAP based on concentration exceedances of conservative, Tier‐1 agency‐established thresholds that are designed to be protective of human health and the environment (i.e., Environmental Screening Levels [ESLs], RWQCB, 2016). These contaminants include arsenic (up to 14 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]), Cr(VI) (up to

4.9 mg/kg), lead (up to 5,400 mg/kg), nickel (up to 150 mg/kg), total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH‐diesel, up to 670 mg/kg), total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil (TPH-motor oil, up to 97,000 mg/kg), and naphthalene (up to 1.5 mg/kg). The datasets for the three constituents considered in this analysis (arsenic, Cr[VI], and nickel) as excerpted from the RAP are included as Enclosure A.
2 ARSENIC
The arsenic site dataset consists of samples collected in June and October 2016 as shown in Enclosure A. The summary statistics for the arsenic site dataset are as follows:

Total Number of Observations 60 Number of Distinct Observations 40 Minimum 0.6 First Quartile 4.075
Second Largest 11 Median 5.7
Maximum 14 Third Quartile 6.7
Mean 5.681 Standard Deviation (SD) 2.739
Coefficient of Variation 0.482 Skewness 0.517
Mean of logged Data 1.582 SD of logged Data 0.64
As shown in the above table, the range of concentrations is relatively narrow (i.e., minimum concentration of 0.6 mg/kg and maximum concentration of 14 mg/kg) with a relatively low coefficient of variation (0.482). Visual analyses using box and Q-Q plots show the arsenic site Exhibit B

Page 299 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 2 dataset to follow a normal distribution with potential outliers of 11 mg/kg (four samples) and 14 mg/kg (one sample).

Rosner’s test was used to quantitatively assess the presence of outliers visually identified in the box and Q-Q plots. Rosner’s test did not identify any outliers in the arsenic site dataset.

Exhibit B

Page 300 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 3 Given these findings, no outliers were removed from the arsenic site dataset. This uncensored dataset was further evaluated and found to follow an ‘approximate normal distribution’[1] with a background threshold value (BTV) of 13.97 mg/kg (i.e., the 95% upper simultaneous limit [USL]), which is essentially equal to the maximum arsenic concentration detected at the Site (14 mg/kg).

Given the following lines of evidence, it appears that a site-related release of arsenic has not occurred:
 arsenic concentrations fall within a narrow range;
 the coefficient of variation for the arsenic site dataset is less than 1;  visual and quantitative analyses show the arsenic site dataset to be normally distributed;  quantitative analysis shows the arsenic site dataset to contain no statistical outliers; and  the BTV, quantified as the 95% USL (13.97 mg/kg), is essentially equal to the maximum detected concentration (14 mg/kg).

Given the finding that a site-related release of arsenic has not occurred, it is eliminated as a COPC. 3 HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (CR[VI])
The Cr(VI) site dataset consists of samples collected during the one sampling episode in which it was analyzed (October 2016) as shown in Enclosure A. Visual analyses using box and Q-Q plots show the Cr(VI) site dataset to follow a lognormal distribution with no potential outliers as shown below.

1 One of the two ‘goodness of fit’ (GOF) tests (i.e., the Shapiro-Wilk test) shows the arsenic site dataset to be normally distributed.

Exhibit B

Page 301 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 4 The summary statistics for the log-transformed Cr(VI) site dataset are as follows:

Total Number of Observations 23 Number of Distinct Observations 17 Minimum -0.215 First Quartile 0.041
Second Largest 0.544 Median 0.204
Maximum 0.69 Third Quartile 0.322
Mean 0.211 Standard Deviation (SD) 0.22
Coefficient of Variation 1.041 Skewness 0.156
Exhibit B

Page 302 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 5 Using Dixon’s test for outliers as programmed into ProUCL confirmed the visual analyses in that no outliers were identified in the log-transformed Cr(VI) site dataset.

Given these findings, the log-transformed Cr(VI) site dataset was then evaluated using ProUCL and found to follow a normal distribution (i.e., thus confirming the semi-quantitative analyses that the Cr[VI] site dataset follows a lognormal distribution) with a BTV of 100.787 mg/kg (6.1 mg/kg; the 95% USL).

While recommended by CalEPA (1997), it is noted that USEPA (2015) recommends against using the lognormal distribution. To this end, the Cr(VI) site dataset is also found to follow a gamma distribution with 95% USLs ranging from 5.2 and 5.3 mg/kg.

Given the following lines of evidence, it appears that a site-related release of Cr(VI) has not occurred:
 Cr(VI) concentrations fall within a narrow range (0.61 to 4.9 mg/kg);  the coefficient of variation of the log-transformed Cr(VI) dataset is approximately 1;  visual and quantitative analyses show the log-transformed Cr(VI) site dataset to contain no statistical outliers;
 visual and quantitative analyses show the Cr(VI) site dataset to be lognormally distributed; and
 the BTV, quantified as the 95% USL for a lognormal distribution (6.1 mg/kg) and the 95% USLs for a gamma distribution (5.2 to 5.3 mg/kg), exceeds the maximum detected concentration (4.9 mg/kg).

Given the finding that a site-related release of Cr(VI) has not occurred, it is eliminated as a COPC.

Exhibit B

Page 303 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 6 4 NICKEL
The nickel site dataset consists of samples collected during three sampling episodes (December 2003, June 2016, and October 2016) as shown in Enclosure A. The summary statistics for the nickel site dataset are as follows:

Total Number of Observations 96 Number of Distinct Observations 56 Minimum 0.76 First Quartile 56.75
Second Largest 150 Median 76
Maximum 150 Third Quartile 89.5
Mean 72.67 Standard Deviation (SD) 29.86
Coefficient of Variation 0.411 Skewness -0.1
Mean of logged Data 4.14 SD of logged Data 0.698
Semi-quantitative analyses using box and Q-Q plots show the nickel site dataset to follow a normal distribution with potential outliers of 0.76 mg/kg (one sample) and 150 mg/kg (two samples) as shown in the figures that follow.

Exhibit B

Page 304 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 7 Using Rosner’s test for outliers as programmed into ProUCL did not identify any outliers in the nickel site dataset.

Given these findings, the nickel site dataset was then further evaluated using ProUCL and found to follow an ‘approximate normal distribution’[2] with a BTV of 168.1 mg/kg (i.e., the 95% USL).

Given the following lines of evidence, it appears that a site-related release of nickel has not occurred:
 the coefficient of variation for the nickel site dataset is less than 1;  quantitative analysis shows the nickel site dataset to contain no statistical outliers;  visual and quantitative analyses show the nickel site dataset to be normally distributed; and

2 One of the two ‘goodness of fit’ (GOF) tests (i.e., the Shapiro-Wilk test) shows the nickel site dataset to be normally distributed.

Exhibit B

Page 305 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, CA 26-Oct-17 8  the BTV, as the 95% USL (168.1 mg/kg), exceeds the maximum detected concentration (150 mg/kg).

Given the finding that a site-related release of nickel has not occurred, it is eliminated as a COPC. 5 CLOSING
The statistical analysis presented herein, using multiple lines of evidence and conducted in accordance with CalEPA and USEPA guidance using USEPA’s statistical software ProUCL, supports the conclusion that site-related releases of arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and nickel have not occurred at the Site. Therefore, it is recommended that these three metals be eliminated as COPCs for the Site. Based on this finding and the other COPCs identified in the RAP, the COPCs for the Site are lead, TPH-diesel, TPH-motor oil, and naphthalene.

References
California Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Selecting Inorganic Constituents as Chemicals of Potential Concern at Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, Final Policy. Prepared by Human and Ecological Risk Division, Department of Toxic Substances Control. February.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/backgrnd.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency / Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region, 2016. User’s Guide: Derivation and Application of Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Interim Final, February.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015 (Ashtok, A.S. and A.K. Singh). ProUCL Version

5.1.002 Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets With and Without Nondetect Observations. EPA/600/R-07/041. October.

Weber, Hayes & Associates, 2017a. Remedial Action Plan (RAP), Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, California. September 13th.

Weber, Hayes & Associates, 2017b. Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR), Former Clusters Storage Yard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville, California. July 13th.

Enclosure
Enclosure A: Concentrations of Metal in Soil (Table 2 of the RAP) Exhibit B

Page 306 of 468 ends

Enclosure A
Table 2 from RAP
Exhibit B

Page 307 of 468 ends

Statistical Evaluation of Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, and Nickel

Page 605 of 885 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc Mercury B-1(t) 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B-2(t) 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

0.5 ND -- 1 95 0.12 0.37 13 0.78 6.5 27 12 1 15 ND 0.1 0.12 51 71 0.044

1.5 0.89 -- 1.7 140 0.24 2.4 23 1.1 8.7 85 140 1.2 26 ND 0.18 ND 53 410 0.073

2.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B-4(t) 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B-5(t) 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B-6(t) 0.75 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- B-7(t) 0.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

0.5 0.75 -- 0.77 54 0.14 0.71 9.9 1 6.6 54 23 2.4 9.9 ND ND ND 51 75 0.053

1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.61 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

0.5 0.14 -- 2.2 93 0.17 1.3 29 1.1 7.4 82 40 2.6 31 ND 0.12 ND 46 97 0.11

1.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.85 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-1(t) T4 4 -- -- 5.9^ -- -- -- -- 2.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-2(t) T6 3.5 ND -- 4.4^ 170^ 0.30^ 0.74^ 21^ --- 5.9^ 15^ 20^ 0.91^ 18^ ND ND ND 25^ 68^ 0.39 T-3(t) T9 2 ND -- 9.2^ 110^ 0.32^ 1.4^ 33^ --- 9.6^ 69^ 29^ 1.5^ 37^ ND ND ND 44^ 150^ 0.28 T-4(t) T10 1 ND -- 3.3^ 120^ 0.50^ 0.35^ 31^ --- 12^ 10^ 6.8^ 0.48^ 23^ ND ND ND 43^ 39^ 0.047 T-5(t) T11 1.5 -- -- 5.5^ -- -- -- -- 1.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-6(t) T12 1 ND -- 5.6^ 170^ 0.42^ 0.68^ 53^ --- 13^ 25^ 76^ 0.60^ 57^ ND ND ND 49^ 110^ 0.14 T-7(t) T6 1 ND -- 5.8^ 210^ 0.50^ 0.38^ 62^ --- 16^ 36^ 8.6^ 0.27^ 100^ ND ND ND 42^ 76^ 0.17 T-8(t) T12 2 ND -- 5.0^ 140^ 0.30^ 0.95^ 77^ --- 13^ 31^ 22^ 0.63^ 93^ ND ND ND 43^ 110^ 0.15 T-9(t) T15 2 ND -- 3.5^ 83^ 0.26^ 0.53^ 47^ --- 11^ 63^ 55^ 0.72^ 52 ND ND ND 52 88^ 0.16 T-10(t) Area 3 T1 3 -- -- 8.6 -- -- -- -- 3.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-11(t) T1 6 1.5^ -- 11^ 2,100^ 0.48^ 9.3^ 100^ --- 16^ 86^ 3,200^ 5.5^ 140^ ND ND ND 42^ 1,400^ 0.14 T-12(t) T3 2 6.1^ -- 9.4^ 250^ 0.45^ 4.3^ 57^ --- 19^ 100^ 1,100^ 2.8^ 84^ ND ND ND 50^ 380^ 0.18 T-13(t) T5 3 -- -- 5.8^ -- -- -- -- 4.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-14(t) T10 4 ND -- 7.4^ 260^ 0.64^ 0.44^ 70^ --- 18^ 35^ 16^ 0.57^ 110^ ND ND ND 48^ 69^ 0.09 T-15(t) T1 2 0.62^ -- 5.4^ 130^ 0.42^ 1.2^ 45^ 2.3 12^ 73^ 130^ 1.5^ 59^ ND ND ND 49^ 160^ 0.11 T-16(t) T1* 8 1.6^ -- 11^ 120^ 0.22^ 2.6^ 35^ --- 8.1^ 160^ 310^ 13^ 74^ ND ND ND 62^ 380^ 0.18 T-17(t) T1 2 0.56^ -- 4.5^ 120^ 0.37^ 3.0^ 35^ --- 9.7^ 94^ 50^ 2.6^ 42^ ND 0.77^ ND 59^ 360^ 0.099 T-18(t) Debris -- ND -- 14^ 330^ 0.92^ 1.6^ 110^ --- 28^ 53^ 120^ 0.83^ 150^ ND ND ND 61^ 150^ 0.17 31 NE 0.067 (3) 15,000 42 39 120,000 0.3 23 3,100 80 390 86 (4) 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 13 31 / -- 77,000 / -- 0.68 / 0.11 15,000 / -- 160 / 15 71 / 5.2 120, 000 /36,000 0.3 / -- 23 / -- 3,100 / -- 400 / 80 390 / -- -- / -- 390 / -- 390 / 390 0.78 / -- 390 / 390 23,000 / -- 11 / 1.0

13.97 (3) 6.1 (3) 168.1 (3)
Laboratory Results: CAM 17 Metals plus Mercury
Table 2 - Metals
Soil Sample Test Results: CAM 17 METALS Analysis
Former Clusters Junkyard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg) TB-4

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID October 2016 (sampled by Trinity Source Group) TB-9 Area 1
Area 2
Area 5
Area 6
Area 8
Sample Info
B-9(t)
TB -1
TB-2
B-3(t) TB-3
TB-5
TB-6
TB-7
B-8(t)
Date Sampled
TB-8
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC-Modified SLs (Residential)
Site Specific, Background Concentrations
(Naturally-Occurring Metals)

Page 1 of 7 ends

Exhibit B

Page 308 of 468 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc Mercury Laboratory Results: CAM 17 Metals plus Mercury
Table 2 - Metals
Soil Sample Test Results: CAM 17 METALS Analysis
Former Clusters Junkyard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Sample Info
TB -1
Date Sampled

0.5 ND 15,000 3.3 65 0.12J 1.7 24 --- 12 140 63 2.3J 22 ND 0.41J ND 54 110 0.060 J
2 ND 15,000 6.7 170 0.5 0.29J 52 --- 13 31 13 ND 98 ND 0.31J ND 33 66 0.056 J

0.5 ND 18,000 2.3 78 0.13J 1.8 28 --- 9.7 690 110 2.6 150 ND 0.45J ND 58 5,500 0.063 J
2 ND 17,000 11 120 0.49J 0.092J 62 --- 14 41 9.9 ND 89 ND 0.44J ND 41 71 0.083 J

0.5 ND 17,000 4.1 100 0.19J 0.8 39 --- 11 170 250 1.0J 43 ND 1 ND 61 82 0.076 J
2 ND 22,000 1 130 0.48J 0.15J 75 --- 11 35 17 ND 83 ND 0.21J ND 23 71 0.21

0.5 ND 18000^ 5.9 180 0.49J 0.62 51 --- 12 35 52 ND 67 6.2 0.24J ND 43 61 0.044 J
2 ND 21000^ 6.2 160 0.51 0.13J 57 --- 15 34 14 ND 80 7.7 0.33J ND 43 59 ND

0.5 ND 17,000^ 5.3 110 0.29J 0.34J 48 --- 8.8 51 23 1.3J 54 7 1.1 ND 48 71 0.052 J
2 ND 19,000^ 6.1 210 0.47J ND 53 --- 7.5 22 6.9 ND 64 ND 0.23J ND 40 30 0.047 J

0.5 ND 17,000^ 3.1 100 0.25J 0.29J 30 --- 9.8 210 32 0.21J 33 7.1 0.33J ND 47 77 0.070 J
2 ND 15,000^ 5.3 200 0.5 ND 46 --- 11 20 7.5 ND 55 ND 0.18J ND 36 26 0.045 J

0.5 ND 12,000^ 4 76 0.20J 0.15J 46 --- 7.5 50 13 0.34J 43 ND 0.22J 0.50J 40 51 0.077 J
2 ND 16,000^ 6.3 170 0.43J 0.085J 53 --- 9.6 25 11 ND 69 ND 0.23J ND 41 40 0.045 J

0.5 ND 15,000^ 2.2 72 0.14J 0.25J 16 --- 5.4 39 17 0.30J 18 ND 0.26J ND 38 48 0.053 J
2 ND 16,000^ 5.8 130 0.46J ND 57 --- 10 33 9.5 ND 79 ND 0.24J ND 33 58 0.11 J

0.5 ND 22,000^ 2.8 71 0.19J 0.78 19 --- 9.4 87 38 0.36J 28 ND 0.28J ND 58 58 0.12 J
2 ND 16,000^ 5.4 170 0.52 ND 51 --- 13 25 8 ND 69 ND 0.20J ND 34 35 0.078 J

0.5 ND 19,000^ 6.4 180 0.48J 0.16J 76 --- 13 37 15 0.067J 86 ND 0.21J ND 36 98^ 0.15 J
2 ND 19,000^ 8 66 0.47J ND 71 --- 10 35 8.6 ND 91 ND 0.16J ND 42 74^ 0.15 J

0.5 ND 25,000^ 3.4 78 0.19J 0.78 27 --- 11 72 24 0.41J 31 ND 0.27J ND 66 130^ 0.059 J
2 ND 19,000^ 8.4 190 0.49J 0.16J 68 --- 14 34 12 0.088J 93 ND 0.17J ND 51 73^ 0.23

0.5 ND 17,000^ 4.8 85 0.23J 0.22J 50 --- 11 59 25 0.18J 53 ND 0.29J 0.68J 58 88^ 0.12 J
2 ND 15,000^ 4.7 89 0.26J 0.11J 54 --- 10 59 15 1.7J 63 ND 0.30J ND 48 60^ 0.089 J

0.5 ND 18,000^ 7.2 180 0.48J 0.087J 61 --- 14 32 17 0.14J 88 ND 0.20J ND 47 64^ 0.079 J
2 ND 21,000^ 7.8 180 0.5 0.34J 81 --- 14 35 8.3 ND 95 ND 0.26J ND 46 70^ 0.16

0.5 ND 14,000^ 6.7 120 0.26J 0.077J 20 --- 6.7 12 12 1.0J 13 ND 0.11J 1.3J 45 63^ 0.044 J
2 ND 16,000^ 6.3 130 0.48J ND 55 --- 11 23 13 ND 67 ND 0.13J ND 37 43^ 0.069 J

0.5 ND 17,000^ 0.60J 3.7 0.052 0.64 ND --- 6.2 18 8.1 0.48J 0.76 ND ND ND 20 100^ 0.15 J
2 ND 15,000^ 6.2 100 0.42J ND 51 --- 26 21 9.6 ND 64 2.4 0.27J ND 34 49^ 0.044 J
B-25(w) 2 ND -- 7.2 260 0.55 0.35J 61 --- 17 26 9.1 ND 77 ND 0.25J ND 48 40 ND B-26(w) 2 ND -- 6.6 190 0.61 0.083J 65 --- 13 31 9.4 ND 92 ND 0.21J ND 46 49 ND B-27(w) 2 ND -- 6.4 220 0.50 0.056J 59 --- 13 29 9 ND 86 ND 0.24J ND 41 48 ND B-28(w) 2 ND -- 4.1 11 0.35J ND 51 --- 11 26 5.9 ND 70 ND ND ND 29 47 0.066 J
B-29(w) 2 ND -- 5.6 210 0.52 ND 57 --- 15 25 7.5 ND 87 ND 0.18J ND 37 40 0.063 J
B-30(w) 2 ND -- 6.1 210 0.58 0.067J 58 --- 16 26 8.8 ND 82 ND 0.15J ND 44 37 ND B-31(w) 2 ND -- 11 160 0.48J 0.24J 70 --- 16 40 23 0.14J 100 ND 0.31J ND 42 72 0.078 J
B-32(w) 2 ND -- 5.6 160 0.44J 0.090J 60 --- 12 31 14 0.55J 83 ND 0.21J ND 41 52 0.059 J
31 NE 0.067 (3) 15,000 42 39 120,000 0.3 23 3,100 80 390 86 (4) 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 13 31 / -- 77,000 / -- 0.68 / 0.11 15,000 / -- 160 / 15 71 / 5.2 120, 000 /36,000 0.3 / -- 23 / -- 3,100 / -- 400 / 80 390 / -- -- / -- 390 / -- 390 / 390 0.78 / -- 390 / 390 23,000 / -- 11 / 1.0

13.97 (3) 6.1 (3) 168.1 (3)
SB-15
DP-1
DP-2
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC-Modified SLs (Residential)
DP-4
B-16(w) SB-7
B-20(w) SB-11
B-21(w) SB-12
DP-5
B-23(w) June 2016 (Sampled by Weber Hayes and Associates)SB-14 B-24(w)
B-22(w) SB-13
DP-8
DP-9
B-18(w) SB-9
B-19(w) SB-10
DP-6
DP-7
B-17(w)
B-14(w) SB-5
B-15(w) SB-6
B-10(w) SB-1
B-11(w) SB-2
B-12(w) SB-3
B-13(w) SB-4
SB-8
Site Specific, Background Concentrations
(Naturally-Occurring Metals)

Page 2 of 7 ends

Exhibit B

Page 309 of 468 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc Mercury Laboratory Results: CAM 17 Metals plus Mercury
Table 2 - Metals
Soil Sample Test Results: CAM 17 METALS Analysis
Former Clusters Junkyard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Sample Info
TB -1
Date Sampled
1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-36(L) 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-39(L) 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 44 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 21 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 25 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-51(L) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 31 NE 0.067 (3) 15,000 42 39 120,000 0.3 23 3,100 80 390 86 (4) 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 13 31 / -- 77,000 / -- 0.68 / 0.11 15,000 / -- 160 / 15 71 / 5.2 120, 000 /36,000 0.3 / -- 23 / -- 3,100 / -- 400 / 80 390 / -- -- / -- 390 / -- 390 / 390 0.78 / -- 390 / 390 23,000 / -- 11 / 1.0

13.97 (3) 6.1 (3) 168.1 (3)
B-37(L) CL-5 August 2004 (Sampled by Lowney Associates) B-47(L) BC-3
B-48(L) BC-4
B-49(L)
B-42(L)
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC-Modified SLs (Residential)
B-41(L) R-2
GZ-1
B-34(L) CL-2
B-35(L)
CL-3
CL-4
B-38(L) CL-6
CL-8
B-40(L) R-1
CZ-2
CZ-3
R-3
B-43(L)
CL-1
CZ-1
B-44(L) GZ-2
B-45(L) BC-1
B-46(L) BC-2
B-50(L)
B-33(L)
Site Specific, Background Concentrations
(Naturally-Occurring Metals)

Page 3 of 7 ends

Exhibit B

Page 310 of 468 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc Mercury Laboratory Results: CAM 17 Metals plus Mercury
Table 2 - Metals
Soil Sample Test Results: CAM 17 METALS Analysis
Former Clusters Junkyard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Sample Info
TB -1
Date Sampled
2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 77 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 8.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

3.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 16 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SS-1(L) -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SS-2(L) -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 28 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SS-3(L) -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 110 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SS-4(L) -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SS-5(L) -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 31 NE 0.067 (3) 15,000 42 39 120,000 0.3 23 3,100 80 390 86 (4) 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 13 31 / -- 77,000 / -- 0.68 / 0.11 15,000 / -- 160 / 15 71 / 5.2 120, 000 /36,000 0.3 / -- 23 / -- 3,100 / -- 400 / 80 390 / -- -- / -- 390 / -- 390 / 390 0.78 / -- 390 / 390 23,000 / -- 11 / 1.0

13.97 (3) 6.1 (3) 168.1 (3)
G+G-2
G-1
US EPA RLs / DTSC-Modified SLs (Residential)
B-62(L) G-4
B-63(L) G-5
B-64(L) G-6
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels Residential
B-54(L) G+G-3
B-55(L) G+G-4
B-56(L) G+G-5
B-61(L) G-3
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5 August 2004 - continued - (Sampled by Lowney Associates) SS-1
SS-2
B-52(L) G+G-1
B-53(L)
B-60(L) G-2
B-57(L) G+G-6
Site Specific, Background Concentrations
(Naturally-Occurring Metals)
B-58(L) G+G-7
B-59(L)

Page 4 of 7 ends

Exhibit B

Page 311 of 468 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc Mercury Laboratory Results: CAM 17 Metals plus Mercury
Table 2 - Metals
Soil Sample Test Results: CAM 17 METALS Analysis
Former Clusters Junkyard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Sample Info
TB -1
Date Sampled

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 65 --- --- --- 49 --- 93 --- --- --- --- 99 0.076 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 83 --- --- --- 70 --- 130 --- --- --- --- 110 -- B-65a(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- -- 64 --- --- --- 25 --- -- --- --- --- --- -- -- B-65b(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- -- 85 --- --- --- 89 --- -- --- --- --- --- -- -- B-65c(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- -- 72 --- --- --- 50 --- -- --- --- --- --- -- --

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 50 --- --- --- 40 --- 70 --- --- --- --- 93 ND 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 48 --- --- --- 43 --- 75 --- --- --- --- 65 --

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 60 --- --- --- 28 --- 82 --- --- --- --- 94 0.065 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 71 --- --- --- 20 --- 100 --- --- --- --- 79 --- B-67a(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 74 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-67b(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 53 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-67c(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 75 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 19 --- --- --- 5,400 --- 28 --- --- --- --- 370 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 54 --- --- --- 66 --- 77 --- --- --- --- 280 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 100 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 260 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 170 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 150 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 480 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 25 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 50 --- --- --- 32 --- 67 --- --- --- --- 75 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 53 --- --- --- 17 --- 85 --- --- --- --- 47 --- B-69a(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 37 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-69b(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-69c(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 69 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 43 --- --- --- 17 --- 67 --- --- --- --- 45 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 55 --- --- --- 14 --- 74 --- --- --- --- 45 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 58 --- --- --- 100 --- 92 --- --- --- --- 110 0.083 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 61 --- --- --- 16 --- 88 --- --- --- --- 50 --- B-73a(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-73b(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 120 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-73c(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 85 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 63 --- --- --- 16 --- 100 --- --- --- --- 54 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 59 --- --- --- 20 --- 79 --- --- --- --- 64 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 61 --- --- --- 16 --- 120 --- --- --- --- 58 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 61 --- --- --- 17 --- 110 --- --- --- --- 64 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 50 --- --- --- 41 --- 72 --- --- --- --- 62 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 46 --- --- --- 31 --- 71 --- --- --- --- 61 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 44 --- --- --- 34 --- 55 --- --- --- --- 69 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- 1.2 53 --- --- --- 100 --- 77 --- --- --- --- 160 --- B-77a(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 280 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-77b(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 36 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-77c(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 31 NE 0.067 (3) 15,000 42 39 120,000 0.3 23 3,100 80 390 86 (4) 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 13 31 / -- 77,000 / -- 0.68 / 0.11 15,000 / -- 160 / 15 71 / 5.2 120, 000 /36,000 0.3 / -- 23 / -- 3,100 / -- 400 / 80 390 / -- -- / -- 390 / -- 390 / 390 0.78 / -- 390 / 390 23,000 / -- 11 / 1.0

13.97 (3) 6.1 (3) 168.1 (3)
Gonzalez 2a
Gonzalez 2b December 2003 (Sampled by Weber Hayes and Associates) B-68b(w) G&G# - 2a,2b,2c
G&G 4b
B-69(w) G&G# - 5a,5b,5c
G&G 3b
G&G 3c
B-68(w) G&G# - 4a,4b,4c
B-68a(w) G&G 4a
B-77(w)
Chaz #- 1a,1b,1c
Chaz 1a
Chaz 1b
Chaz 1c
Gonzalez 2c
B-74(w)
Clusters# - 1a,1b,1c
B-75(w)
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels Residential
US EPA RLs / DTSC-Modified SLs (Residential)
B-72(w)
Gonzalez# - 2a, 2b, 2c
G&G 5a
G&G 5b
G&G 5c
G&G 1b
G&G 1c
B-66(w)
Gonzalez# - 1a, 1b, 1c
B-67(w) G&G# - 3a,3b,3c
G&G 3a
B-65(w) G&G# - 1a,1b,1c
G&G 1a
B-68c(w) G&G 4c
B-73(w)
Clusters# - 2a,2b,2c
B-76(w)
Clusters# - 3a,3b,3c
Site Specific, Background Concentrations
(Naturally-Occurring Metals)

Page 5 of 7 ends

Exhibit B

Page 312 of 468 ends

UPDATED
Sample ID Depth Antimony Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Hexavalent Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc Mercury Laboratory Results: CAM 17 Metals plus Mercury
Table 2 - Metals
Soil Sample Test Results: CAM 17 METALS Analysis
Former Clusters Junkyard, 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville All soil results are in milligrams per Kilogram (mg/Kg)

ORIGINAL
Consultant ID
Sample Info
TB -1
Date Sampled

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 54 --- --- --- 26 --- 84 --- --- --- --- 71 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 57 --- --- --- 38 --- 83 --- --- --- --- 69 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 43 --- --- --- 29 --- 66 --- --- --- --- 81 0.068 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 46 --- --- --- 28 --- 74 --- --- --- --- 53 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 51 --- --- --- 17 --- 100 --- --- --- --- 61 0.087 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 56 --- --- --- 21 --- 83 --- --- --- --- 67 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 43 --- --- --- 130 --- 75 --- --- --- --- 130 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 71 --- --- --- 19 --- 110 --- --- --- --- 67 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 46 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 79 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 110 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 72 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 71 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 50 --- --- --- 47 --- 87 --- --- --- --- 86 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 78 --- --- --- 20 --- 120 --- --- --- --- 78 --- B-82a(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 97 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-82b(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 77 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-82c(w) 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 77 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 49 --- --- --- 60 --- 91 --- --- --- --- 320 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 49 --- --- --- 22 --- 77 --- --- --- --- 58 --- B-85a(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 48 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-85b(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 16 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- B-85c(w) 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 17 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 45 --- --- --- 15 --- 68 --- --- --- --- 42 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 53 --- --- --- 18 --- 78 --- --- --- --- 51 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 53 --- --- --- 28 --- 63 --- --- --- --- 110 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 56 --- --- --- 18 --- 65 --- --- --- --- 50 ---

0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ND 46 --- --- --- 44 --- 56 --- --- --- --- 120 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- ND 50 --- --- --- 48 --- 98 --- --- --- --- 120 --- 31 NE 0.067 (3) 15,000 42 39 120,000 0.3 23 3,100 80 390 86 (4) 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 13 31 / -- 77,000 / -- 0.68 / 0.11 15,000 / -- 160 / 15 71 / 5.2 120, 000 /36,000 0.3 / -- 23 / -- 3,100 / -- 400 / 80 390 / -- -- / -- 390 / -- 390 / 390 0.78 / -- 390 / 390 23,000 / -- 11 / 1.0

13.97 (3) 6.1 (3) 168.1 (3)
US EPA RLs / DTSC-Modified SLs (Residential)
Gerrys 3c
Gerrys 3a
B-80(w)
Gerrys #- 2a,2b,2c
B-78(w)
Chaz # - 2a,2b,2c
Bay City # - 2a,2b,2c
B-79(w)
Gerrys #- 1a,1b,1c
JV 1a
JV 1b
JV 1c
B-86(w) Residence #- 1a,1b,1c December 2003 - continued - (Sampled by Weber Hayes and Associates) B-81b(w) Gerrys 3b Gerrys 4c
B-85(w) JV # - 1a,1b,1c
B-81c(w)
B-81(w) Gerrys # - 3a,3b,3c
B-81a(w)
B-82(w) Gerrys # - 4a,4b,4c
Gerrys 4a
Site Specific, Background Concentrations
(Naturally-Occurring Metals)
Gerrys 4b
RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels Residential
B-88(w) Bay City # - 1a,1b,1c
B-89(w)

Page 6 of 7 ends

Exhibit B

Page 313 of 468 ends

Renewed Remedial Action Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
Weber, Hayes and Associates

APPENDIX D
Environmental Soil Management Plan (SMP)
&
Environmental Site Safety Plan (SSP)
for Remedial Grading & Soil Removal
Operations
Exhibit B

Page 314 of 468 ends

File: 2t009/ 2022-03-18_Environ Soil Management Plan 1
Weber, Hayes & Associates
Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering
120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076
(831) 722-3580 // www.weber-hayes.com
Environmental Soil Management Plan
for a Construction Site
March 2022
Site:

Hillcrest Development Project
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
Santa Cruz County
Assessor Parcel Number:
018-372-14
(11.3-acres)
Prepared for Submittal to:

LANDCO Hillcrest, LLC.
c/o: Mark Lester, Lisa Li
Twenty Park Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Project: 2t159
Grading and Earthworks Project
Exhibit B

Page 315 of 468 ends

Table of Contents
ii Weber, Hayes & Associates

1.1 Redevelopment Details (construction and earthworks)........................................................ 2

1.2 Report Organization............................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Contaminant Characterization (groundwater, soil and soil vapor) ....................................... 6 Landfill Disposal ................................................................................................................... 12

6.1 Off-Site Reuse ...................................................................................................................... 12

6.2 Final Documentation of Any Soil Off-Haul........................................................................... 12

6.3 Imported Fill......................................................................................................................... 13

6.4 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 13

6.5 Site Conditions Requiring Notification................................................................................. 13

6.6 Documentation.................................................................................................................... 13 Figures
Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Location Map (topographic)
Vicinity Map (aerial)
Site Map Showing Footprint of 5-ft Soil Vapor Detections Appendices
Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Environmental Site Safety Plan (SSP) & Dust Monitoring Plan Civil Engineering Plans (Remediation & Rough Grading Plan) Exhibit B

Page 316 of 468 ends

File: 2t009/ 2022-03-18_Environ Soil Management Plan
Weber, Hayes & Associates
Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering
120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076
(831) 722-3580 // www.weber-hayes.com

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Weber, Hayes and Associates (WHA) has prepared this environmental Soil Management Plan (Environmental SMP) on behalf of LANDCO Hillcrest, LLC, for management of environmental work tasks that will be conducted on a vacant, 11.3-acre property that is being redeveloped into a residential neighborhood (511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville; “the Site”, see Location Map, Figure 1). This environmental SMP addresses construction monitoring and soil handling procedures designed to address limited chemical impacts in surface/shallow soils originating from decades of vehicle storage activities. Surface and shallow soil samples obtained from across the property have characterized the Site through multiple rounds of soil and groundwater testing. These investigations included laboratory analysis of 249 soil samples collected from 145 locations across the Site. Multiple environmental consultant reports concluded that chemical impacts exceeding agency screening levels for residential land use were generally limited to the upper two (2) feet of soil (Trinity, 2018; WHA, 2018; Lowney, 2004). Agency oversight of ongoing assessment and Site-wide remediation remedial activities is provided by the County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services Agency, in accordance with a Sitespecific, Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement (SC-HSA, 2016).

The irregularly-shaped subject Site is situated on a small hilltop that has been cut and filled over the years to create several flat-lying terrace areas. The Site is currently vacant (all structures and infrastructure were cleared from the site in 2017, see aerial birds eye view of the site, below).

View of the 11.3-acre, Multi-Terraced, Subject Site
(Google Earth Birds Eye View)
Exhibit B

Page 317 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
2 Weber, Hayes and Associates
This Environmental SMP addresses simple soil and off-site soil disposal handing, worker-right-to-know, and documentation obligations required for this regulated Site. The Environmental SMP is designed to provide:
• Worker awareness (i.e., worker right-to-know) of the presence or potential presence of Chemicals of Concern (COCs) that have previously been identified in soil vapor, soil, and groundwater at the Site.
• Procedures to minimize risks to on-site construction workers (construction earthworks and utility installation workers), and neighboring residents, other trade workers, and customers from potential exposure to COCs during construction earthwork/utility installation tasks. • Appropriate soil handling procedures and requirements for off-site disposal of surplus development soils. And
• Documentation procedures.

This Environmental SMP will be amended to be included as an exhibit in the Land Use Covenant (LUC) as the Post-Construction Site Management Plan (Post-Construction SMP). This separate document includes requirements for standard of care monitoring, agency notification and soil handling obligations for future cap repairs and/or repairs of utility located within the cap footprint. As note in the recent Renewed Remedial Action Plan (WHA 2022b), the LUC would run-with-the-land and will document existing conditions and future soil management obligations. The LUC will be an enforceable agreement between SC-HSA and the property owner and recorded with the Santa Cruz County Recorder’s Office to ensure that local agencies, the public, prospective purchasers and tenants are aware of capped footprint of consolidated soil contaminant compounds (non-hazardous) present at the Site.

1.1 Redevelopment Details (construction and earthworks) The project site will be developed with 144 residential units and has limited changes to the original design such as the size and location of open space areas and stormwater management facilities on the site, alignment of on-site trails, alignment of internal circulation roads and utilities, and the use of more retaining walls to reduce extensive grading (Rincon, 2022). The conceptual site development plan for the project is shown on Figure 4.

In order to eliminate shallow, impacted soils from potential exposure to future onsite receptors, the remediation plan consists of the following steps:

1. Off-haul and landfill disposal of approximately 17,200 yd3 of shallow contaminated soils.

2. In accordance with State Department of Toxic Substances’ Control remediation guidance, consolidation and on-site burial of approximately 18,000 yd3 of shallow contaminated soils (nonhazardous) beneath an isolated, capped roadway/parking area in the northeastern corner of the development (see blue-shaded, capped area, right). And,

3. Emplacement of a clean, impervious cap (i.e., concrete) above the AOC-buried soils and as noted above, implementation of a Land Use Covenant that includes requirements for standard of care Exhibit B

Page 318 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
3 Weber, Hayes and Associates
monitoring and a Post-Construction Site Management Plan detailing agency notification and soil handling obligations for future cap or utility repairs. The impervious cap shall consist of a minimum thickness of 4-inches of concrete underlain by a minimum thickness of 8-inches of compacted base rock. DTSC guidance for AOC consolidation and capping does not restrict the installation of utilities within the footprint of a capped area. Guidance also states that storm water runoff associated with a cap that is integrated into a site development project is no different than would be expected from the development itself and would normally be addressed through development-related storm water management requirements. The following standard protections will be put in place:
 A drainage system consisting of inlet grates and pipes will be installed to capture and divert surface waters from the cap area to control run-on and run-off. Standard subsurface storm water drainage and piping controls will be installed to collect and redirect runoff/run-on from rainfall events from the impervious concrete surface to a water garden detention basin (see Civil Engineering Sheets C5-1 and C5-3 for details). For reference, the full set of civil engineering sheets and notes describing the Remediation and Rough Grading Plan for the Hillcrest development are included as Attachment 2 of this Environmental SMP.  The structural quality of the subgrade soil has been evaluated to ensure that it has adequate strength to maintain the remediation pit are and cap (MPE, 2022). The top cover material for the concrete cap will be comprised of hydraulic concrete, which serves as a hydraulic barrier as well as a physical barrier. The 8-inches of crushed base rock layer is used to support the concrete layer of the cover and will be spread and compacted over the entire area of the cap.

These remedial earthworks steps have been integrated into the development’s grading plan (Ramsey, 2022; earthworks and construction details are included as Figures 2 and 3 of this Environmental SMP and a complete set of plans are included as Attachment B ). • Site soils have already been profiled and approved for landfill disposal to: 1) John Smith Class III Landfill for acceptance of 16,700-yd3 of non-hazardous contaminated soils, and 2) Kettleman Class I Landfill for acceptance of 1,500- yd3 of California haz-waste classified soils. • Rough grading/trenching for subsurface utilities within the capped footprint will follow the same requirements described in this SMP for the environmental earthworks and construction of the mitigation pit, including dust monitoring and placement of the separation fabric. Utility fill soils must be designated as clean (i.e., from a quarry or characterized as clean through clean borrow fill testing, DTSC 2001). Any surplus soils generated from utility trenching have already been included with the soil profile for the site and are approved for landfill disposal to John Smith Class III (non-hazardous) Landfill. The concrete cap above utilities within the cap-designated footprint must be installed in accordance with the design to maintain its integrity (i.e., of 4- inches of concrete underlain by a minimum thickness of 8-inches of compacted base rock – see Section 1.1 for details).

Exhibit B

Page 319 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
4 Weber, Hayes and Associates
• Remedial & site development activities (digging, stockpiling, loading, & trucking) can begin immediately following agency approval of the Renewed RAP. A Site-specific, Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) will be managed throughout the earthworks project.

A Licensed surveyor shall stake the limits of the fill pit to verify that the bottom elevation is 26 MSL, and that the appropriate footprint is maintained. The surveyor shall verify the footprint area of the remediation pit for every 5-ft of vertical fill to ensure the footprint is being maintained and verify the final elevation and lateral limits of the fill pit. The earthworks contractor will use GPS technology to verify the contaminated (non-hazardous) soils are placed in the correct location during the filling process.

1.2 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities
This section describes the general project team relevant to the excavation, handling, transportation, offsite disposal of contaminated materials and, as applicable, soil reuse.

1.2.1 General Contractor
Don Chapin Company, a licensed contractor (State contractor's License #406512 with Haz-Certification), has been selected as the General Contractor (Contractor) for the remedial and development earthworks (construction earthworks and utility grading). Because future planned construction activities will encounter soil with documented contaminants, the Contractor will be required to implement this Environmental SMP addressing excavation and management, direct-loading, temporary stockpiling, possible off-site disposal, and measures to protect worker (construction earthworks and utility installation workers) and public health and the environment from impacts caused by the Contractor’s activities. The Contractor shall be responsible for assigning qualified personnel to execute the work, and for selecting and supervising the work of other subcontractors assigned to the project.

The Contractor shall provide a site Superintendent, who will be responsible for site activities. The site Superintendent’s responsibilities will include oversight of equipment, labor, materials, and resources needed to complete the project as it involves the impacted materials.

1.2.2 Subcontractors
The Contractor may utilize subcontractors to execute subtasks of this project. The supervision, inspection, and approval of such subcontractor work will be the responsibility of the Contractor.

1.2.3 Environmental Consultant
Weber, Hayes and Associates has been selected as the qualified environmental professional (Environmental Consultant) to provide environmental oversight services for site construction activities involving contaminated soil. During ground disturbing activities in areas where soil contamination has been identified, the Consultant will be onsite to periodically oversee, assist with, and confirm implementation of this SoMP. The Environmental Consultant will also advise the Contractor how to recognize previously unknown soil contamination. If previously unknown soil contamination is found, Environmental Consultant will provide guidance to the Contractor on segregation of materials as Exhibit B

Page 320 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
5 Weber, Hayes and Associates
necessary and assist in characterizing and profiling if such materials are proposed to be transported and disposed of offsite. The Contractor and/or Environmental Consultant will document soil excavation, disposal, and import activities on daily field reports, which will be maintained onsite and made available to the CSCEHD upon request

1.3 Report Organization
This Environmental SMP is organized as follows:
• Section 2: Provides a brief background of the Site’s land use history and the follow-up evaluation testing of subsurface groundwater and soil media.
• Section 3: Provides an overview of the site-specific, Environmental Site Safety Plan (SSP) prepared for earthwork activities covered by this Environmental SMP. • Section 4: Provides procedures for air monitoring of site-specific, contaminants of concern in the breathing zone of workers (construction earthworks and utility installation workers) performing earthwork activities and along the perimeter boundary of the project. • Section 5: Provides construction dust control and suppression measures for earthwork activities. • Section 6: Provides soil and groundwater management protocols for earthwork activities covered by this Environmental SMP including:
- Surplus soils to be off-hauled.
- Fill imported to the Site. And
- Site conditions requiring notification.

Figures include an aerial vicinity map, and a site map. Supporting appendices include a copy of pertinent civil drawings, a summary of previous site conditions, and a Site Safety Plan.

2.0 BACKGROUND
Standard of care, land use assessment tasks were previously completed to identify historical land uses at the 11.3-acre, subject Site. Historical aerial photographs document that the subject Site was undeveloped, possibly used as grazing lands in the 1930s, and remained so until sometime between 1956 and 1968 (WHA, 2016). By 1968, the Site contained a mixture of automotive wrecking and salvage operations on the western and central portions of the property. Automotive salvage operations continued until approximately 2016 when the majority of vehicles, structures and trees were removed from the property in preparation for redevelopment. All structures, foundations and stored equipment were removed in 2017 and all areas of the Site remain accessible by the historic access road network, which will be utilized during remedial action activities.

Exhibit B

Page 321 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
6 Weber, Hayes and Associates

2.1 Contaminant Characterization (groundwater, soil and soil vapor) Residual contaminants that have been characterized through multiple rounds of soil and groundwater sample collection and testing. These investigations included laboratory analysis of 249 soil samples collected from 145 locations across the Site (WHA, 2022). Investigation results indicated:
• Grab groundwater samples collected from 14 locations as well as the on-site domestic water supply well was not impacted by current/historical land-use activities. • Long-term land-use impacts have not caused significant negative impacts to Site soils. Summary tables of the multiple environmental investigation results (WHA, 2022) show that impacted soils are generally limited to the top one to two feet bgs and COPCs are typically localized in isolated areas. Four COPCs were identified based on concentration exceedances of conservative, Tier-1 agency-established thresholds that are designed to be protective of human health and the environment (i.e., the RWQCB-ESLs). These four COPCs include: Lead (up to 5,400 mg/kg), TPHdiesel (up to 670 mg/kg), TPH-Motor Oil (up to 97,000 mg/kg), and Naphthalene (up to 1.5 mg/kg). However as noted above, the preponderance of elevated detections are largely limited to shallow depths (<2 feet).
• Soil vapor has been evaluated as a potential contaminant but is not considered a transport pathway of concern since test results showed only trace to non-detectable volatile contaminant compounds were detected in soils (no volatile compounds have been identified as COPCs. • A statistical evaluation of the collected concentration data concluded that based on the population of soil sample concentrations, Site-related releases of three naturally occurring metals (Arsenic, Cr(IV), and Nickel) have not occurred at the Site. Calculated Background Threshold Values for Arsenic, Cr(IV), and Nickel are 13.97, 5.2 mg/kg, and 168.1 mg/kg, respectively.
• Transport modeling based on site-specific soil quality data show the migration of the site COPCs vertically towards the water table will occur at extremely slow rates meaning the COPCs will not impact groundwater in any reasonable timeframe. Therefore, a remedial alternative that includes of on-site burial with an engineered cap/cover system (with a 15-foot separation to groundwater) is considered a reasonable and viable option.

3.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
A Site-specific Safety Plan (SSP) has been prepared for earthwork activities covered by this Environmental SMP (included as SMP Attachment 1). The Environmental SSP is intended provide general worker health and safety awareness solely with respect to environmental contamination and earthwork activities (i.e., construction earthworks and utility installation workers) and is general enough to allow the Contractor to implement appropriate safety measures that are specific to the contamination that may be encountered.

Exhibit B

Page 322 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
7 Weber, Hayes and Associates
All contractors and authorized visitors to the Site are responsible for maintaining normal construction safety using their own standard of care, construction Health & Safety Plan. The supplemental Environmental SSP is designed to provide additional worker right to know information regarding the Site-specific COCs as well as generic due diligence overview of safety issues associated with contamination.

Tailgate meetings are to be conducted to orient all on-site staff working with the soils (i.e., grading, utility trenching, and other earthworks) and daily throughout the earthworks portion of the redevelopment project to go over project-specific, Health and Safety issues related to this Environmental SMP.

Reference pages from the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards are included with the Environmental SSP (Attachment A) that provide chemical-specific information regarding Site COCs including chemical properties, exposure limits for field monitoring, and potential routes of exposure and symptoms.

4.0 AIR MONITORING
Standard of care, construction mitigation measures recommended by air resources districts will be followed for this project and are described in Section 5.0. Air monitoring details presented below have been reviewed by Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services Agency. This information is also included in the Environmental SSP for easy reference.

4.1 Respirable Dust Hazards (perimeter monitoring for dust) Control of dust and airborne lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cobalt is a required task for this project. During active Site cleanup activities, air monitoring will be performed at the Site perimeter (between active grading and the existing live/work facility to evaluate if dust control methods applied by the Contractor are adequately protecting the residential complex to the west of the earthworks from exposure to dust and airborne arsenic. Additionally, if earthworks activities come within 200 ft. of a property line, dust monitoring equipment will be deployed downwind of operations to ensure protection of on-site and surrounding receptors.

OSHA has established Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) for chemicals of potential concern (COPC; i.e., Lead, Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, Cobalt, Nickel) which have been calculated as time weighted average concentration for a worker exposed to a COPC in a standard 8‐hour workday (see table below).

An OSHA “Action Level” is an analyte‐specific concentration that initiates required activities designed to protect employee health (e.g., dust exposure monitoring and, if exposed for >30 days a year, medical Exhibit B

Page 323 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
8 Weber, Hayes and Associates
surveillance). Cal‐OSHA publishes action levels for select analytes, however not all analytes have defined action levels. In those cases, the action level is generally calculated as one‐half the PEL. 12 The Dust Action Level represents the trigger level of exposure at which point work will stop and site control measures will take place. This value represents the amount of dust in ppm that contains a concentration of a given analyte that would exceed the action level in an 8 hour workday. Calculations are made in the following section, noting that nuisance dust represents the lowest dust action levels at

2.5 mg/m3 for on Site workers, and 0.5 mg/m3 for offsite non-workers, and therefore will be the triggering action levels for on-site activities.

4.2 Respirable Dust Evaluation
Air monitoring action levels for the excavation work were developed using the primary chemicals of potential concern (COPC) identified at the Site that would reasonably drive air monitoring. Action Levels were generated for:

1. Ambient air quality at the Site perimeter based on US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) or DTSC Screening Levels (SLs); and,

2. For Site construction workers in the work zone based on OSHA permissible exposure levels (PELs)

4.2.1 Site Perimeter Fugitive Dust

SCREENING LEVES FOR DUST IN AMBIENT AIR AT THE SITE PERIMETER Table 1: Site Perimeter Fugitive Dust Action Levels
1 : For example: The OSHA published PEL for lead is .05 mg/m3, while the published action level for lead is .03 mg/m3
. Note in this case, if we calculated the action level to be one-half the PEL, our action level (.025 mg/m3) would be more conservative than OSHA’s published value. - https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=10030 2: For Arsenic: The OSHA published PEL for arsenic is 0.01 mg/m3, and the published action level for arsenic is .005 mg/m3. - https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10023 Chemical of
Potential
Concern
On-Site Soil Concentrations
(mg/kg)
Inhalation
Screening
Level (2)
(mg/m3)
Reference
Calculated
Chemical-specific,
Dust Action Level (4)
(mg/m3)
Maximum
Concentration UCL-95% (1)
Lead 5,400 220.8 0.00015 Non-Cancer
RSL 0.68
Arsenic 38.6 6.3 0.000016 Non-Cancer
RSL 2.5
Hexavalent
Chromium 4.9 2.2 0.0001 Non-Cancer RSL 45.5
Nickel 209 77.7 0.000094 Non-Cancer
RSL 1.2
Exhibit B

Page 324 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
9 Weber, Hayes and Associates
Table 1 notes for dust monitoring in the ambient air at the site perimeter:

1. 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL): The upper boundary (or limit) of a confidence interval of a parameter of interest such as the population mean.

2. Selected inhalation screening levels are obtained from the Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) / DTSCmodified Screening Levels (DTSC-modified SLs) for residential air. Reference identifies whether the screening level is based on non‐cancer or cancer health effects. Non-cancer threshold based on a target hazard quotient of 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2018).

3. The non‐cancer RSLs are developed based on an exposure time of 12 months. EPA guidance states that the averaging time for noncancer is to be set at the same length as exposure duration, even if the exposure duration is less than one year. Exposure Adjustment Factor is set to 1.

4. Chemical‐specific, Dust Action Levels were calculated for ambient air at the Site perimeter using the formula:

Chemical‐Specific Dust Action Level = Inhalation Screening Level (mg/m3) x Exposure Adjustment Factor x 106 (mg/kg) (mg/m3) UCL-95%

5. Property line action level based on lowest, chemical-specific dust action level (i.e., potential Cobalt concentrations in dust = 0.49 mg/m3
). Note: Fugitive dust is visible in air at 0.5 mg/m3.

4.2.2 Work Zone Dust
The OSHA permissible exposure levels (PELs) for the primary constituents detected in site soil are listed below (Table2) along with the maximum potential concentrations of each of these constituents in air which equates to maximum (worst case) construction worker potential exposure concentrations. These values were calculated assuming that dust is present in air at the OSHA PEL limit of 10 mg/m3 and contains the maximum concentration of each constituent listed.

SCREENING LEVES FOR DUST IN N WORK ZONE AIR
Table 2: Work Zone Dust Action Levels
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Maximum
Concentration Detected
in On-site Soil
(mg/kg)
Cal-OSHA PEL
(1)
(mg/m3)
Calculated
Chemical-specific,
Dust Action Level (2)
(mg/m3)
Lead 5,400 0.05 9.25
Arsenic 38.6 0.01 259
Chemical of
Potential
Concern
On-Site Soil Concentrations
(mg/kg)
Inhalation
Screening
Level (2)
(mg/m3)
Reference
Calculated
Chemical-specific,
Dust Action Level (4)
(mg/m3)
Maximum
Concentration UCL-95% (1)
Cobalt 36.5 12.9 0.0000063 Non-Cancer
RSL 0.49 (4)
Naphthalene 1.5 0.09 0.0031 Non-Cancer
RSL 34,444.

Total Dust
(PM10) -- -- -- 0.5
Exhibit B

Page 325 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
10 Weber, Hayes and Associates
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Maximum
Concentration Detected
in On-site Soil
(mg/kg)
Cal-OSHA PEL
(1)
(mg/m3)
Calculated
Chemical-specific,
Dust Action Level (2)
(mg/m3)
Hexavalent
Chromium 4.9 0.005 1,020
Nickel 209 0.05 239
Cobalt 36.5 0.02 547
Naphthalene 1.5 0.1 66,667
Total Dust
(PM10) -- 10 2.5 (3)
Respirable Dust
(PM10) -- 5 2.5 (3)
Table 2 Notes: (below)

1. Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) published by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/tablez-1.html. A PEL is a time‐weighted average (TWA) concentration that describes a worker’s average airborne exposure in any 8‐hour work shift of a 40‐hour work week which shall not be exceeded. The 8‐hour TWA PEL is the level of exposure established as the highest level of exposure an employee may be exposed to without incurring the risk of adverse health effects.

2. Chemical‐specific, Dust Action Levels for construction workers in the work area calculated using the formula:

Chemical‐Specific Dust Action Level = Permissible Exposure Limits (mg/m3) x 106 (mg/kg) (mg/m3) Maximum Soil Concentration (mg/kg)

2.5mg/m3)
Trigger Actions: Below is a summary of the measures to be taken if the Action Levels for dust, lead, arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, nickel, or cobalt are exceeded during Site cleanup. • OSHA has established Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) of 5 mg/m3 for respirable dust (“PM10”), based on time weighted averages for an 8‐hour workday (see attached NIOSH sheet).

The trigger concentration for this grading project in the work zone will be one‐half the established Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) of 5 mg/m3 (i.e., 2.5 mg/m3), The earthworks contractor will stop work and re‐assess Site activities and improve dust control measures should the 2.5 mg/m3 action level be triggered.
• Air monitoring action levels for the site perimeter were developed for ambient air quality based on US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) or DTSC Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) for on Site COPCs (see Table 1). The property line action level is based on lowest, chemical-specific dust action level (i.e., potential Cobalt concentrations in dust = 0.49 mg/m3). Note: Fugitive dust is visible in air at 0.5 mg/m3
. This not to exceed threshold of 0.49 mg/m3 will be implemented on the dust meters deployed at the perimeter of the site to ensure the safety of the public.

Exhibit B

Page 326 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
11 Weber, Hayes and Associates
Increased dust control measures will be
implemented in the case of an
exceedance which include: increased
watering of soils in the excavation and
loading zones, confirming wind speed
and direction are within the conditions
needed to keep the dust at bay, and
increased monitoring frequency of the
meters assuring the alarm system on the
meters are working properly which will
alert on Site workers and staff if specific
dust action levels are being exceeded.

Two perimeter air monitoring stations
will be located along the Site perimeter
at locations between the residential
complex to the west of earthworks grading
work area (one upwind and one downwind, adjusted to target perimeter locations to ongoing earthworks). Sampling for total dust and PM10 (respirable) dust will continue using a data logging, direct reading dust monitor. Dust monitoring will be employed continuously during all remedial activities. Air monitoring procedures are described in the Site Monitoring section of this plan.

5.0 DUST CONTROL & SUPPRESSION MEASURES
Dust suppression protocols during Site earthworks will follow protocols established in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guideline document (BAAQMD, 2011). Specifically, the following construction dust suppression procedures will be observed:
• Dust suppression will be performed to keep dust from migrating beyond the work zone by lightly spraying or misting the work areas (such as the excavation, soil handling areas and haul roads) with water. Misting may also be used on soil placed in the transport trucks. • All stockpiled soils will be placed on and covered with plastic sheeting (or equivalent) in order to avoid inadvertent dust nuisance or potential airborne particulate hazard. In the event of wet weather conditions, the perimeter of the soils stockpiled may be lined with straw wattles. • Efforts will be made to minimize the soil drop height from the excavator’s bucket onto the soil pile or into the transport trucks. The excavator will be positioned so as to load from the leeward side.
• After the soil is loaded into the transport trucks, the soil will be covered to prevent soil from spilling out of the truck during transport to the disposal facility. Soil stockpile(s) will remain covered at all times except when soil from a stockpile is being loaded into a transport truck.

Exhibit B

Page 327 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
12 Weber, Hayes and Associates

6.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

6.1 Landfill Disposal
Aside from a limited area in the southwestern corner of the Site where approximately 1,500 yd3 of soil is documented to contain hazardous waste levels of Lead in shallow soil, the remaining soils have been characterized as having only low concentration detections of relic contaminants (described in Section

2.1; see Site Environmental Grading Plan, Figure 2). Because of the regulated status of the 511 Ohlone Parkway property, surplus soils must be managed so as to document off-site disposal locations and volumes.
• Records of surplus soil testing and offsite disposal will be maintained and documented in the summary Remedial Action Completion Report.
• As noted above, aside from the 1,500 yd3 of soil documented to contain hazardous waste levels of Lead located in the southwest corner of the development (see Site Environmental Grading Plan, Figure 2), It is appropriate to dispose of the on-site soils at a non-hazardous, Class III sanitary landfill.
• Soil stockpiles that are not actively in use must be covered.

For landfill disposal, it will be necessary to coordinate with the landfill’s acceptance engineer to determine profiling requirements (i.e., soil sample frequency, and laboratory analyses). Soil sampling can be performed from stockpiled soil or in-situ prior to earthwork activities.

6.2 Off-Site Reuse
It may be acceptable to dispose of on-site surplus soils to another site as long as there is a paper trail documenting disclosure, testing, and transport.
• Disclosure: The accepting party needs to sign an acknowledgement that the soils originated from a regulated site.
• Testing: In addition, documentation testing needs to confirm that no unacceptable soils are being transported to a commercial or residential zoned site. Clean-clearance of soils from a regulated site requires a higher frequency of sampling/testing than a landfill and may vary depending on the accepting party. Test results should be below unrestricted land use Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs).
• Transport: A record of transport tags must document the volume and location where soils are being transported. The soil balance for the Site development has a significant surplus so the use of imported fill is not anticipated during construction and redevelopment activities.

6.3 Final Documentation of Any Soil Off-Haul
Surplus soil testing and off-haul documentation must be provided prior to completion of the project.

Submitted records should include any profile (lab) testing reports, copies of transport records (bill of lading/transporter tags) and landfill weight tags (if disposed of at a landfill).

Exhibit B

Page 328 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
13 Weber, Hayes and Associates

6.4 Imported Fill
In the event imported fill is brought to the Site, the Contractor shall provide:
• Documentation of the source (quarry),
• If from a private fill source, testing documentation showing the import is certified clean. And , • The on-site location(s), where the imported fill was used.

These requirements do not apply to landscaping materials or quarry base rock for roadways.

6.5 Groundwater
Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction and redevelopment. Should groundwater be encountered, it should be containerized and labeled with date of collection and generator contact information. At a minimum, the containerized groundwater must be tested for chlorinated VOCs using EPA Test Method 8260 to determine appropriate handling and disposal methods. Additional testing may be required for disposal. Potential disposal options may include:
• For small volumes: On-site containerization for subsequent transport via a licensed waste hauler and disposal to an appropriate disposal facility.
• For larger volumes: Discharge to the city sanitary sewer under permit (typically via a city permit for larger volumes of water).
• For dewatering operations: On-site treatment and disposal to the city storm sewer under permit (typically via a NPDES permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board).

6.6 Site Conditions Requiring Notification
The Contractor will notify WHA:

1.) If soils are encountered that are visibly stained, have an oily appearance, or are discolored and/or have a noticeable chemical odor. And/or,

2.) In the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered during earthworks or dewatering operations become necessary.

WHA will provide an initial field assessment and determine appropriate next steps (i.e., removal, confirmation sampling, waste characterization, off-site disposal, agency notification (Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services and/or the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board).

As needed, on-call Haz-Mat support services will be readily available should unexpected contamination be discovered during grading/excavation (i.e., soils with odors, staining) and potential handling of soils containing haz-waste levels of contaminants.

6.7 Documentation
To satisfy project/agency documentation reporting, WHA will complete a summary completion report that will document site monitoring, surplus soil removal, and any unexpected haz-mat condition (if they Exhibit B

Page 329 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
14 Weber, Hayes and Associates
occur). Records will be compiled that include documentation of surplus soil testing and off-haul, any laboratory testing reports, transport records (bill of lading/transporter tags) and landfill weight tags (if soils are disposed of at a landfill).

LIMITATIONS
Our service consists of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geologic and engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all others, either express or implied. The analysis and conclusions in this report are based on sampling and testing which are necessarily limited. Additional data from future work may lead to modification of the opinions expressed herein. If you have any questions regarding this report, or any aspect of this project, please contact us at (831) 722-3580.

Sincerely,

WEBER, HAYES AND ASSOCIATES
Pat Hoban, PG
Principal Geologist
Exhibit B

Page 330 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
15 Weber, Hayes and Associates

REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),
- (BAAQMD, 2011), CEQA Guidelines Updated, May 2011.

California Code of Regulations [CCR (a)]:
• (CCR, 2021) Subchapter 7, Group 16, Article 107, Section 5155, Table AC-1 (copy in Appendix C). • (CCR, 2021) Subchapter 7, Group 16, Article 107, Section 5144.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Human and Ecological Risk Office, Human Health Risk Assessment:
• (DTSC, 2008), Proven Technologies and Remedies (PT&R) guidance for Remediation of Metals in Soil, August 29. < https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2016/01/Guidance_RemediationSoils.pdf > • (DTSC, 2020), Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), Note Number: 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels, June <https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2019/04/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-A.pdf> California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) • (DTSC, 2001), DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet, October < https://dtsc.ca.gov/information-advisory-clean-imported-fill-material-fact-sheet/ > California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Use of California Human Health Screening Levels in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties, January 2005.

California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (CalEPA/OEHHA) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (CalEPA/DTSC) LeadSpread Model California Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Region) (RWQCB-SFB) • (RWQCB-SFB, 2019), Guideline document: Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Final version, July 2019). - < https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.html > Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CC-RWQCB):
• (CC-RWQCB, 2019), Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, June.

County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services Agency (SC-HSA) guidelines:
• (SC-HSA, 2010), Site Mitigation Program Standards, revised August:
- < http://scceh.com/Portals/6/Env_Health/hazardous_materials/HM08100.pdf > County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services Agency (SC-HSA) correspondence regarding 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville:
• (SC-HSA, 2016), Notice of Intent to Open Remedial Action Case Under Voluntary Cleanup Program, August 9.
• (SC-HSA, 2017): Response to the Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR) and the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), (County RO# 0000365), dated October 2. • (SC-HSA, 2018a): Email Approval of Pathway & Peninsula Sampling Plan, dated March 15. • (SC-HSA, 2018b): Agency Conditional Approval of the Revised Remedial Action Plan, June 15.

Huntley Environmental (Huntley) comments regarding 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville:
• (Huntley, 2017a): Technical Memorandum: Re: Comments on the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and the Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR), dated September 29.

Exhibit B

Page 331 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
16 Weber, Hayes and Associates
• (Huntley, 2017b): Emailed follow-up comments: Additional Comments by SC‐HSA‘s 3rd‐Party Toxicologist: Comments on the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and the Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR), dated December 5.

Lowney Associates, report on the 511 Ohlone Parkway property (formerly 600 Errington Road):
• (Lowney 2004), Soil Quality Evaluation, Cluster Property, dated September.

Miller Pacific Engineering Group (MPE), report on the 511 Ohlone Parkway property:
• (MPE, 2022), Geotechnical Evaluation of the Hillcrest Residential Development, January 20.

Ramsey Civil Engineering (Ramsey):
• (Ramsey, 2022) Drawing, C5.1 (copy in SMP Attachment 2): Remediation Pit Grading Plan (Soil Mitigation & Rough Grading Sequence); January 2022.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon)
• (Rincon, 2018), Sunshine Vista Phased Development Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, May < https://cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/8520/Sunshine-Vista-Final-EIR > • (Rincon, 2018), Sunshine Vista Phased Development Project, Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, February.
- https://cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/10547/Sunshine-Vista-EIR-Addendum-2019 • (Rincon, 2021), Hillcrest Subdivision, Addendum #2 to the Sunshine Vista Phased Development Project, Environmental Impact Report, June.
- https://cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/16506/6-Hillcrest-Sub-EIR-Addendum-2 Thomas Harder & Company (TH&Co) reports regarding 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville:
• (TH&Co, 2017): Response to September 29, 2017, Huntley Environmental Comments 2 through 12, dated October 26.
• (TH&Co, 2018): Response to Huntley Review of TH&Co’s Response to Comments, April 19. • (TH&Co, 2021): Transport Modeling Report (assessment of the potential for leaching), May 20.

Trinity Source Group, report on the 511 Ohlone Parkway property:
• (Trinity 2016), Additional Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, December.

Weber, Hayes & Associates (WHA) reports on the 511 Ohlone Parkway property (formerly 600 Errington):
• (WHA, 2004), Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, 600 Errington Road, February. • (WHA, 2016), Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, 511 Ohlone Parkway, July. • (WHA, 2017a), Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment (SPTR), dated July 13 (submitted September 17, 2017).
• (WHA, 2017b): Remedial Action Plan (RAP) September 13. • (WHA, 2021): Updated Remedial Action Plan (Revised RAP), January 12. - https://cityofwatsonville.org/DocumentCenter/View/16480/5-Updated-Remedial-Action-Plan-2021. • (WHA, 2022): Renewed Remedial Action Plan, February.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA):

Exhibit B

Page 332 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
17 Weber, Hayes and Associates
• (US-EPA, 2015), (Ashtok, A.S. and A.K. Singh). ProUCL Version 5.1.002 (Technical Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and Without Nondetect Observations); EPA/600/R-07/041. October
.
• (US-EPA, 2020), Regional Screening Levels for Residential Uses (TR=1-6, HQ=1), November - https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables Exhibit B

Page 333 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
Weber, Hayes & Associates

FIGURES
(SOIL MANGEMENT PLAN)
Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Vicinity Map (aerial)
Site Environmental Grading Plan
Soil Mitigation Pit Plan
Site Development Plan
Exhibit B

Page 334 of 468 ends

Weber, Hayes & Associates Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering 120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA
831.722.3580 www.weber-hayes.com
Vicinity Map --Soil Management Plan (2022) Figure
1 Project
2t159
Site: Former Clusters Storage YardAddress: 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville Date: February 2022 Revisions/Notes: SUBJECT SITE

OHLONE PARKWAY
Residential
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Residential
0' 100-ft APPROXIMATE SCALE BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE EARTH
Exhibit B

Page 335 of 468 ends

Site Environmental Grading Plan --Soil Management Plan(2022) Figure 2 Project
2t159
Site: Former Clusters Storage YardAddress: 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville Date: February 2022 Revisions/Notes:

Weber, Hayes & Associates Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering 120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA
831.722.3580 www.weber-hayes.com
Limits of Grading Work
(CDRW / RWQCB Setback Line)
Location of Planned Soil Mitigation Pit
(see Appendix A for details)
Site Environmental Grading Plan
(See Attachment 2 for details)
Base Map from
Ramsey Engineering
Exhibit B

Page 336 of 468 ends

Soil Mitigation Pit Plan -Soil Management Plan(2022) Figure 3 Project
2t159
Site: Former Clusters Storage YardAddress: 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville Date: February 2022 Revisions/Notes:

Weber, Hayes & Associates Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering 120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA
831.722.3580 www.weber-hayes.com
Limits of Grading Work
(CDRW / RWQCB Setback Line)
Location of Planned
Soil Mitigation Pit
Remediation Pit Grading Plan
(See Appendix A for details) Base Map from
Ramsey Engineering
Exhibit B

Page 337 of 468 ends

Site Development Plan
- Showing Capped Site Mitigation Pit Location Figure 4
Project
2t159
Site: Former Clusters Storage YardAddress: 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville Date: February 2022 Revisions/Notes:

Weber, Hayes & Associates Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering 120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA
831.722.3580 www.weber-hayes.com
Limits of Grading Work
(CDRW / RWQCB Setback Line)
Location of Planned
Soil Mitigation Pit
Remediation Pit Grading Plan
(See Figure 3 for construction details) Base Map from
Ramsey Engineering
Exhibit B

Page 338 of 468 ends

Environmental Soil Management Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
Weber, Hayes & Associates
ATTACHMENT A
(SOIL MANGEMENT PLAN)
Environmental Site Safety Plan (SSP)
& Dust Monitoring Plan
‐
Chemical Hazards Information for COCs
(NIOSH Pocket Guide)
Exhibit B

Page 339 of 468 ends

File: 2t159 /Site Health & Safety Plan
Weber, Hayes & Associates
Hydrogeology and Environmental Engineering
120 Westgate Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076
(831) 722-3580 // www.weber-hayes.com

SITE HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN
Soil Remediation (earthworks grading, stockpiling, & landfill disposal) for Lead and Total Petroleum Impacted Soils
(includes additional evaluation of naturally-occurring Arsenic & Hexavalent Chromium) This Site Health and Safety Plan has been prepared pursuant to the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA’s) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HAZWOPPER guidelines (29 CFR 1910.120) and the related California OSHA guidelines (Title 8, Section 5192) Job Name and Job Number: Site Preparation Tasks for Redevelopment / 2t159 Client: Hillcrest Residential Development Project
Site Location: 511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville
Type of Facility/Current Usage of Property: Proposed Residential – Former Auto Salvage Yard Subcontractors On Site:

Prime Contractor
LANDCO Hillcrest, LLC.
c/o: Mark Lester, Lisa Li
Twenty Park Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Haz-Mat Earthworks Contractor
Don Chapin Company
Contractor's Lic. #406512 (Haz-Certified)
c/o: Caroline Chapin
560 Crazy Horse Canyon Road
Salinas, California 93907
Regulatory Agencies:

Lead Regulatory Agency:

John Gerbrandt, P.G., R.E.H.S. | Environmental Health Specialist II Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Service
Hazardous Materials Division
701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-454-2731

1.0 Scope of Work
Soil Excavation, Stockpiling, and Reuse and/or Landfill Off-Hauling (Site-wide grading to remove impacted soils:
• Phase I(a) Soil Removal: 1,500-yd3 of the 35,200-yd3 of remediation soils (i.e., upper two feet of soil from the site has been characterized as hazardous and will be excavated and transported to Kettleman Class I Landfill in Kettleman City.
• Phase I(b) Soil Removal: All remaining soils to be remediated are characterized as non-hazardous, with relatively low-concentration contaminants. Initial work will involve grubbing, scraping of the initial 6-inches of soil, and removal of any buried debris that is uncovered during the initial grading of soils across the Site. This phase of soil removal is estimated to generate approximately 8,240-yd3 (~11,500 tons; based on 1 yd3 = 1.4 tons) of soil which would be stockpiled, profiled for landfill acceptance, and transported to the nearest accepting landfill(s). The goal behind this initial round of Exhibit B

Page 340 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 2 ends

scrapping is to consolidate/stockpile the worst-case impacts for landfill acceptance and provide a more transparent, unobstructed view of the underlying soils (and debris). Any accessible debris would be unearthed and separately stockpiled and any areas where chemical staining or odors would be mapped and targeted for further assessment. Details of this Phase I soils removal were described in a recent Limited Interim Remedial Action report (WHA, 2017 rev.) but is being incorporated into this Renewed Rap.
• Phase I(c) Additional Soil Removal: This second step would involve scraping off and additional 18- inches of soil from across the entire Site and stockpiling it in pre-planned locations. This phase of soil removal is estimated to generate approximately 25,460 yd3 (~35,600 tons) of soil which would be stockpiled, profiled for landfill acceptance and project documentation. • In addition, deeper excavations would be completed if any visibly-impacted areas were discovered (i.e., any soils with chemical staining/odors) as well as at locations where previous testing showed deeper contamination (Figures 4b/4c). Specifically, deeper excavations will dig until no visible signs of contamination are present, or one foot below the sample depth of detected COPC in exceedance of regulatory screening levels.

When compared with multiple environmental databases that address leachability (surface and groundwater protection), ingestion/inhalation/dermal (health-based protection), sampling showed localized, mostly shallow, soil‐impacted areas containing elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, nickel, TPH‐as motor oil, and naphthalene that require haz‐mat handling. The 95% Upper Confidence Limit (95%‐UCL) analysis indicates arsenic and hexavalent chromium are present at naturally occurring concentrations (Site‐wide arsenic below 2 feet is 7.27 mg/kg and hexavalent chromium is 2.94 mg/kg which are similar to other local soils).

Key Field Personnel:

Jered Cheney
(Weber, Hayes and Associates)
Project Geologist &
Site Safety Officer
Office: (831) 722-3580
Cell: (831) 254-1747
Pat Hoban
(Weber, Hayes and Associates) Senior Geologist, Project Mgr. Office: (831) 722-3580 Cell: (831) 254-7022
Harrison Hucks
(Weber, Hayes and Associates)
Staff Scientist &
Alternate Site Safety Officer
Office: (831) 722-3580
Cell: (831) 840-7860

2.0 Hazard Assessment & Site Control Measures
The Site contains localized concentrations of TPH as motor oil, metals (arsenic, lead, cobalt, nickel), naphthalene, and various volatile organic compounds in concentrations that exceed regulatory screening thresholds. With soil disturbance, there is a potential for pollutants to become airborne. The primary health and safety concerns at the Site will be from physical activities with equipment and exposure to dust generated during excavation, load-out, and backfill activities. The exposure pathways of concern are inhalation of fugitive dust, ingestion, and dermal contact.

Site Tasks:
• Remove approximately shallow, impacted soilsto depths ranging from surface to 2 feet below ground surface (bgs) using heavy equipment (loaders, excavators). Soils will be stockpiled in separate quadrants of the Site to consolidate similar impacted soils for disposal to an appropriate landfill.

Some limited deeper excavation will address a few areas having documented deeper impacts.

Exhibit B

Page 341 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 3 ends

• Soil Stockpiling
• Soil loading and off-hauling
• Excavation sampling – soil sampling
Anticipated Physical Hazards:
• Traffic: Truck and heavy equipment traffic hazards within exclusion zone will be avoided by maintaining eye contact and using hand signals. All heavy equipment will be required to have working audible reverse signals. Trucks will move on and off site with aid of traffic flaggers at all times. • Heavy Equipment: Potential physical hazards associated with excavation equipment and noise will be mitigated with proper class D PPE and exclusion of personnel other than those authorized in the excavation areas.
• Underground Hazards: Utilities to be cleared by Underground Service Alert (USA) Anticipated Chemical Hazards:

Name
(CAS # if applicable)

EXPECTED CONCENTRATION
ΥSoil ❒ Water ❒ Air
Construction Worker ESL (& basis)
Lead (7439-92-1)
Arsenic (7440-38-2)
Hexavalent-Chromium
(18540-29-9)
Nickel (7440-02-0)
TPH-Diesel
TPH-Motor Oil
Naphthalene (91-20-3)
Shallow Lead: – Up to 3,200 mg/kg
Shallow Arsenic: – Up to 14 mg/kg
(The site’s 95% Upper Confidence Limit (95%-UCL)1
for Arsenic is 6.07 mg/kg, which is below Watsonville
background level of 7.48)
Hexavalent-Chromium (Cr-VI): – Up to 4.9 mg/kg
(The site’s 95%-UCL for Cr-VI is 2.2 mg/kg, which is
similar to a nearby (background) Watsonville site
which has a 95%-UCL of 2.34 mg/kg)
Nickel (TTLC up to 150 mg/kg)
TPH-Diesel: – Up to 670 mg/kg
TPH-Motor Oil: – Up to 97,000 mg/kg
Naphthalene: – Up to 1.5 mg/kg
Lead = 160 mg/kg (blood-Lead)
Arsenic = (0.98 mg/kg (non-cancer)
Hexavalent-Chromium = 2.8 mg/kg
(cancer))
Nickel = 86 mg/kg (non-cancer)
TPH-Diesel= 880 mg/kg (non-can)
TPH-Motor Oil = 32,000 mg/kg (non-can)
Naphthalene = 350 mg/kg (cancer)
Refer to ATTACHED NIOSH guide describing chemical hazards for each individual compound ESLs: Agency-established, Environmental Screening Limits (ESLs) are risk-based screening limits established for different land uses as well as for construction worker health and safety2
1 : A Confidence Interval measures the probability that a statistical parameter will fall between the upper and lower bound of a probability distribution and is calculated using the average mean and the standard deviation. A 95th percentile upper-confidence limit (UCL-95%) is a risk-based calculation establishing the upper (maximum) concentration that will be encountered within a sampling footprint, 95% of the time. 2 : CRWQCB guideline: Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, December 2013 (see footnote #4 for additional details):
< http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/esl.shtml > United States EPA-Region 9, Remedial Screening Limits (Regional Screening Table), October 2015:
< http://www3.epa.gov/region09/superfund/prg / >
Exhibit B

Page 342 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 4 ends

Note: There were 3 isolated detections of cobalt (2 locations; max detection=28 mg/kg; ESLconstruction= 28 mg/kg) and cadmium (1 location; max detection=28 mg/kg; ESLconstruction= 9.3 mg/kg) that were slightly exceeded agency thresholds and are not considered a risk based on the substantial testing across the site.

Respirable Dust Hazards (Perimeter monitoring for dust) Control of dust and airborne lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cobalt is a concern for this project. During active Site cleanup activities, air monitoring will be performed at the Site perimeter (between active grading and the existing live/work facility to evaluate if dust control methods applied by the Contractor are adequately protecting the residential complex to the west of the earthworks from exposure to dust and airborne arsenic. Additionally, if earthworks activities come within 200 ft. of a property line, dust monitoring equipment will be deployed downwind of operations to ensure protection of on-site and surrounding receptors.

OSHA has established Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) for chemicals of potential concern (COPC; i.e. Lead, Arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, Cobalt, Nickel) which have been calculated as time weighted average concentration for a worker exposed to a COPC in a standard 8‐hour workday (see table below). An OSHA “Action Level” is an analyte‐specific concentration that initiates required activities designed to protect employee health (e.g. dust exposure monitoring and, if exposed for >30 days a year, medical surveillance).

Cal‐OSHA publishes action levels for select analytes, however not all analytes have defined action levels. In those cases, the action level is generally calculated as one‐half the PEL. 34 The Dust Action Level represents the trigger level of exposure at which point work will stop and site control measures will take place. This value represents the amount of dust in ppm that contains a concentration of a given analyte that would exceed the action level in an 8 hour workday. Calculations are made in the following section, noting that nuisance dust represents the lowest dust action levels at 2.5 mg/m3 for on Site workers, and 0.5 mg/m3 for offsite non-workers, and therefore will be the triggering action levels for on-site activities.

3.0 Respirable Dust Evaluation
Air monitoring action levels for the excavation work were developed for:
1) ambient air quality at the Site perimeter based on US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) or DTSC Screening Levels (SLs); and,
2) for Site construction workers in the work zone based on OSHA permissible exposure levels (PELs) using the primary chemicals of potential concern (COPC) identified at the Site that would reasonably drive air monitoring.
3 For example: The OSHA published PEL for lead is .05 mg/m3 , while the published action level for lead is .03 mg/m3.

Note in this case, if we calculated the action level to be one-half the PEL, our action level (.025 mg/m3 ) would be more
conservative than OSHA’s published value.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=10030 4 For Arsenic: The OSHA published PEL for arsenic is 0.01 mg/m3, and the published action level for arsenic is .005 mg/m3. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10023 Exhibit B

Page 343 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 5 ends

SCREENING LEVES FOR DUST IN AMBIENT AIR AT THE SITE PERIMETER Table 1: Site Perimeter Fugitive Dust Action Levels
Table 1 notes for dust monitoring in the ambient air at the site perimeter:

1. 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL): The upper boundary (or limit) of a confidence interval of a parameter of interest such as the population mean.

2. Selected inhalation screening levels are obtained from the Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) / DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-modified SLs) for residential air. Reference identifies whether the screening level is based on non‐cancer or cancer health effects. Non-cancer threshold based on a target hazard quotient of 1.0 (U.S. EPA, 2018).

4. Chemical‐specific, Dust Action Levels were calculated for ambient air at the Site perimeter using the formula:

Chemical‐Specific Dust Action Level = Inhalation Screening Level (mg/m3) x Exposure Adjustment Factor x 106 (mg/kg) (mg/m3) UCL-95%

5. Property line action level based on lowest, chemical-specific dust action level (i.e., potential Cobalt concentrations in dust = 0.49 mg/m3
). Note: Fugitive dust is visible in air at 0.5 mg/m3.

SCREENING LEVELS FOR DUST IN WORK ZONE AIR
The OSHA permissible exposure levels (PELs) for the primary constituents detected in site soil are listed below (Table2) along with the maximum potential concentrations of each of these constituents in air which equates to maximum (worst case) construction worker potential exposure concentrations. These values were calculated assuming that dust is present in air at the OSHA PEL limit of 10 mg/m3 and contains the maximum concentration of each constituent listed.

Chemical of
Potential
Concern
On-Site Soil Concentrations
(mg/kg)
Inhalation
Screening
Level (2)
(mg/m3)
Reference
Calculated
Chemical-specific,
Dust Action Level (4)
(mg/m3)
Maximum
Concentration UCL-95% (1)
Lead 5,400 220.8 0.00015 Non-Cancer
RSL 0.68
Arsenic 38.6 6.3 0.000016 Non-Cancer
RSL 2.5
Hexavalent
Chromium 4.9 2.2 0.0001 Non-Cancer
RSL 45.5
Nickel 209 77.7 0.000094 Non-Cancer
RSL 1.2
Cobalt 36.5 12.9 0.0000063 Non-Cancer
RSL 0.49 (4)
Naphthalene 1.5 0.09 0.0031 Non-Cancer
RSL 34,444.

Total Dust
(PM10) -- -- -- 0.5
Exhibit B

Page 344 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 6 ends

Table 2: Work Zone Dust Action Levels
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Maximum Concentration
Detected in On-site Soil
(mg/kg)
Cal-OSHA PEL (1)
(mg/m3)
Calculated
Chemical-specific,
Dust Action Level (2)
(mg/m3)
Lead 5,400 0.05 9.25
Arsenic 38.6 0.01 259
Hexavalent Chromium 4.9 0.005 1,020
Nickel 209 0.05 239
Cobalt 36.5 0.02 547
Naphthalene 1.5 0.1 66,667
Total Dust
(PM10) -- 10 2.5 (3)
Respirable Dust
(PM10) -- 5 2.5 (3)
Table 2 Notes: (below)

2. Chemical‐specific, Dust Action Levels for construction workers in the work area calculated using the formula:

Chemical‐Specific Dust Action Level = Permissible Exposure Limits (mg/m3) x 106 (mg/kg) (mg/m3) Maximum Soil Concentration (mg/kg)

3. The construction worker action level for respirable dust during remedial grading is based on nuisance only factor. The selected airborne Action Level is conservatively set at ½ the OSHA PEL of 5 mg/m3 (i.e. = 2.5mg/m3) Trigger Actions: Below is a summary of the measures to be taken if the Action Levels for dust, lead, arsenic, Hexavalent Chromium, nickel, or cobalt are exceeded during Site cleanup. • OSHA has established Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) of 5 mg/m3 for respirable dust (“PM10”), based on time weighted averages for an 8‐hour workday (see attached NIOSH sheet). The trigger concentration for this grading project in the work zone will be one‐half the established Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) of 5 mg/m3 (i.e., 2.5 mg/m3), The earthworks contractor will stop work and re‐ assess Site activities and improve dust control measures should the 2.5 mg/m3 action level be triggered.
• Air monitoring action levels for the site perimeter were developed for ambient air quality based on US EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) or DTSC Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) for on Site COPCs (see Table 1). The property line action level is based on lowest, chemical-specific dust action level (i.e., potential Cobalt concentrations in dust = 0.49 mg/m3). Note: Fugitive dust is visible in air at 0.5 mg/m3. This Exhibit B

Page 345 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 7 ends

not to exceed threshold of 0.49 mg/m3 will be implemented on the dust meters deployed at the perimeter of the site to ensure the safety of the public.

Increased dust control measures will be implemented in the case of an exceedance which include:
increased watering of soils in the excavation and loading zones, confirming wind speed and direction are within the conditions needed to keep the dust at bay, and increased monitoring frequency of the meters assuring the alarm system on the meters are working properly which will alert on Site workers and staff if specific dust action levels are being exceeded.

Two perimeter air monitoring stations will be located along the Site perimeter at locations between the residential complex to the west of earthworks grading work area (one upwind and one downwind, adjusted to target perimeter locations to ongoing earthworks). Sampling for total dust and PM10 (respirable) dust will continue using a data logging, direct reading dust monitor. Dust monitoring will be employed continuously during all remedial activities. Air monitoring procedures are described in the Site Monitoring section of this plan.

4.0 Site Control Measures:

Dust Control & Suppression Measures:
• Dust suppression will be performed to keep dust from migrating beyond the work zone by lightly spraying or misting the work areas (such as the excavation, soil handling areas and haul roads) with water. Misting may also be used on soil placed in the transport trucks. • Efforts will be made to minimize the soil drop height from the excavator’s bucket onto the soil pile or into the transport trucks. The excavator will be positioned so as to load from the leeward side. • After the soil is loaded into the transport trucks, the soil will be covered to prevent soil from spilling out of the truck during transport to the disposal facility. Stockpile(s) will remain covered at all times.

Ingestion Exposure & Control Measures:
• Ingestion of impacted materials is a primary exposure route of concern. This exposure pathway can be controlled with the implementation of proper hygienic practices (i.e., wearing gloves and washing before eating, smoking, or using the restroom).
• Traffic Control Measures (pedestrian and vehicle):
• No pedestrians will be allowed in the work area other than authorized personnel; • Trucks will move on and off site with aid of traffic flaggers at all times; • Truck and heavy equipment traffic hazards within exclusion zone will be avoided by maintaining eye contact and using hand signals. All heavy equipment will be required to have working audible reverse signals
Decontamination Procedures:
• All equipment in contact with contaminated or potentially contaminated soils will include a triple rinse with liquinox solution/ fresh water / D.I. water. All decon water will be properly containerized and properly disposed of following the field investigation.

5.0 Personal Protective Equipment and Site Monitoring
Personal Protective Equipment:
(see required Personal Protective Equipment below).

Exhibit B

Page 346 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 8 ends

Based on the scope and nature of this field program the following aappropriate level of personal protective equipment is required A: ❒ B: ❒ C: ❒ D Υes
R = required, A = As needed
Hard Hat R Eyewear (type) A
Safety Boots R Respirator (type) A (½-face minimum)
Orange Vest R Filter (type) A (organic vapor & particulate) Hearing Protection A Gloves (type) A nitrile
Tyvek Coveralls A
Site Monitoring:

Air Monitoring:
• An aerosol monitor or monitors capable of measuring total dust and total respirable dust (PM10) will be used (e.g., TSI, Inc. DustTrak DRX Model 8533 or equivalent). Additionally, these meters project and display a calculated time weighted average (TWA) at all times during the work day. This sampler will be used to assess whether the PM10 (respirable) 8-hour Action Level is being met. PM10 monitoring will occur over approximately 8-hour periods (e.g., from the beginning of a workday to the end of the workday). The aerosol monitor will provide for real-time PM10 results, and these results will also be recorded in a data logger. The stored data will be downloaded at the end of each workday and the 8-hour average concentration will be compared to the Action Levels established in this plan (above). The work zone monitor will be positioned at breathing height level (approximately 5-feet above the ground surface) in the work zone.
• Meters are equipped with alarm capabilities and will be setup to alert on site workers and staff if site specific air action levels are exceeded at any time (alarms will be set appropriately for on site workers and perimeter monitoring).
• Continuously measured particulate monitoring data will be reviewed with every hourly inspection.

Any exceedances will be documented in the daily field log (daily charts will also be included as part of the record). In addition, any stop work trigger actions (dust control measures) will also be documented. SC-HAS staff will be regularly updated of the collected data, exceedances, and resulting dust control measures taken.
• Wind monitoring via Wind Socks will be set up at the Site for continuous monitoring of wind speed throughout each workday. The Wind Socks will become fully erect when wind speeds reach 15 mph.

Wind Socks will be positioned around the property, specifically, around the work area. o When the Wind Socks are full erect due to wind (i.e., 15 mph), moving of soil will cease, exposed soils will be additionally wetted, and stockpiles will be covered until the wind subsides and the dust can be controlled.
• Personnel monitoring will be conducted by means of the “buddy system”. Appropriate precautions and/or medical/emergency response will be implemented if signs of co-worker distress or fatigue are apparent, or injury occurs.

Confined Space Entry Procedures
Confined space entry is not a component of this field investigation.

Exhibit B

Page 347 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 9 ends

6.0 Personnel Training Requirements
The environmental site safety officer supervising the earthworks is trained in accordance with U.S.

Department of Labor OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HAZWOPPER guidelines (29 CFR 1910.120), which includes completion of the 40‐Hour Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER) training, 24 hours of supervised on the job training, and annual eight‐hour HAZWOPER refresher courses.

The earthworks contractor is a California licensed contractor maintaining active Hazardous Substances Removal Certification. All workers and other personnel entering the work area shall be informed of the Site hazards in tail gate safety meetings.

Note: The Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) training requirements apply to five (5) distinct groups of employers and their employees5 that do not apply to the grading work being conducted. HAZWOPER training is required for any employees who are engaged in one of the following operations and who are exposed or potentially exposed to hazardous substances & hazardous waste:

1. Agency Required Cleanups at Uncontrolled Haz-Waste Sites: Clean-up operations -- required by a governmental body, whether federal, state, local, or other involving hazardous substances -- that are conducted at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites;

2. RCRA Sites: Corrective actions involving clean-up operations at sites covered by RCRA; Voluntary-Cleanup Program Cleanups at Uncontrolled Haz-Waste Sites: Voluntary clean-up operations at sites recognized by federal, state, local, or other governmental body as uncontrolled hazardous waste sites;

3. TSD Waste Operations: Operations involving hazardous wastes at RCRA-permitted, treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; and

4. Emergency Response: Emergency response operations for releases of, or substantial threats of releases of hazardous substances regardless of the location of the hazard.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (Hazardous waste operations and emergency response. - 1910.120)
This Site Redevelopment project is not an agency required cleanup. The earthworks staff are considered “skilled support personnel”6 for this Site Redevelopment project who are needed temporarily to perform immediate support work as part of cost-effective improvements to the property. 5 : EPA Frequently Asked Questions: Who is covered by OSHA's HAZWOPER standard? < www.osha.gov/html/faqhazwoper.html > 6 : Skilled support personnel [1910.120(q)(4)]. Personnel, not necessarily an employer's own employees, who are skilled in the operation of certain equipment, such as mechanized earth moving or digging equipment or crane and hoisting equipment, and who are needed temporarily to perform immediate emergency support work that cannot reasonably be performed in a timely fashion by an employer's own employees, and who will be or may be exposed to the hazards at an emergency response scene, are not required to meet the training required in this paragraph for the employer's regular employees. However, these personnel shall be given an initial briefing at the site prior to their participation in any emergency response. The initial briefing shall include instruction in the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment, what chemical hazards are involved, and what duties are to be performed. All other appropriate safety and health precautions provided to the employer's own employees shall be used to assure the safety and health of these personnel.
< https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=9765 > Exhibit B

Page 348 of 468 ends

Environmental Site Health and Safety Plan
511 Ohlone Parkway, Watsonville

Page 10 ends

7.0 Tailgate Meetings:

The Field Superintendent will conduct daily Tailgate Safety Meetings prior to commencing work at the Site.

In addition, the following minimum information will be provided to all Site personnel involved with the project:
• Name of personnel and alternate responsible for Site safety and health • Safety, health, and other hazards present at the Site • Hospital directions
• General safety procedures and practices to minimize risks from hazards at the Site • Task specific procedures and practices
• Instructions for safe use of engineering controls and equipment • Instructions for safe use of personnel protective equipment • Medical surveillance requirements including recognition of symptoms and signs, which might indicate overexposure to hazards
• Site control measures
• Standard operating procedures (i.e., lock-out/tag-out) • Emergency/Contingency procedures

8.0 Medical Surveillance and Emergency Response
Standard Level D Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be donned on an as needed basis to mitigate potential physical hazards. In the event of minor physical injury, appropriate first aid will be administered and worker transport to the emergency room, if necessary. In the event of significant physical injury beyond the level of first aid response, emergency response personnel will be contacted immediately by calling.

Any required employee medical surveillance for workers exceeding 30‐days at sites exceeding an OSHA Action Limit will be maintained by the employer in accordance with Title 8 California Code of Regulations, Section 5192(c)(4)(B). No medical surveillance will be necessary for this project, as monitoring will ensure that no personnel will be exposed to concentrations above OSHA PELs for greater than 30 days.

Hospital Directions: See Attached Map
Hospital/Clinic: Watsonville Community Hospital
511 Ohlone Parkway,
Watsonville, CA - (831) 724-4741
(See attached directions sheet)
Fire Department Phone Number: 911Paramedic Phone
Number: 911
Paramedic Phone Number: 911
Police Department Phone Number: 911
Exhibit B

Page 349 of 468 ends

Watsonville City CouncilApril 26, 2022

Watsonville City Council
April 26, 2022