P. 1
T Range Soil n Groundwater

T Range Soil n Groundwater

|Views: 37|Likes:
Published by iwonnascribdnomore

More info:

Published by: iwonnascribdnomore on Aug 25, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/05/2010

pdf

text

original

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program

DRAFT FINAL

T Range
Soil & Groundwater
Investigation Report

Camp Edwards
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Cape Cod, Massachusetts

June 4, 2007
Prepared for: U.S. Army Environmental Command Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Camp Edwards, Massachusetts

Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District Concord, Massachusetts

*269651*
SDMS DOC ID 269651

DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared pursuant to government administrative orders (U.S. EPA Region I SDWA Docket No. I-97-1019 and 1-2000-0014) and is subject to approval by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Page ii

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......…………………………………………………... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT ..…..………………………………………………….. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION …………………………………………………...… 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND …………….……………………………………………....….. 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION & HISTORY …….…………………………………….… 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ………………………………………………….. 2.2.1 Geography ......…………………………………..……………………….. 2.2.2 Cultural Setting …...…………………………..………………………….. 2.2.3 Ecological Setting …………...………………..…………………………. 2.2.4 Climate ……………………………………………………………………. 2.2.5 Geology …………………….……………………………………………... 2.2.6 Hydrology/Hydrogeology ………..………………………………………. 3.0 SOIL & GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES .……………….......…... 3.1 SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE 2B SOIL SAMPLING .....…………………………. 3.1.1 Sampling Plan ..…………………………………..………………………. 3.1.2 Analytical Results ....……………………………..………………………. 3.2 JUNE 2006 SOIL SAMPLING PROJECT NOTE ……………………….…….. 3.2.1 Sampling Plan ..…………………………………..………………………. 3.2.2 Analytical Results …...…………………………..……………………….. 3.2.3 April 2007 Soil Sampling ...…………………………..……………………….. 3.3 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION .............................................................. 3.3.1 Groundwater Analytical Results .……………..…………………………. 3.4 LEACHING ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 4.0 5.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ……………..……………....………………………….. RISK ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………..……………………. 5.1 SUMMARY OF HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ....…………………. 5.1.1 Toxicity Assessment ……………………………..………………………. 5.1.2 Exposure Assessment .…………………………..………………………. 5.1.3 Risk Assessment .....……………………………..………………………. vi ES-1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 7 8 8 8 9 9 11 12 12 13 14 16 17 17 18 18 20

Page iii

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4, 2007

5.1.4 Results of the HHRA ...…………………………..………………………. 20 5.1.5 Human Health Contaminant of Concern …………..………………………. 21 5.1.6 Uncertainty ..............……………………………..………………………. 22 5.2 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ........…………………. 5.2.1 Identification of Representative Wildlife Receptors .....………………. 5.2.2 Conceptual Site Model …………………………..………………………. 5.2.3 Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern .…..………………………. 5.2.4 Ecological Risk Characterization ...……………..………………………. 5.2.5 Potential Ecological Risks at T Range ..………..………………………. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................………………….…………………….…………. 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 27

REFERENCES ….….……………………………………………….….………………………..

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Figure 3-8 Figure 3-9 Massachusetts Military Reservation Location of T Range Surficial Geology of Western Cape Cod Surface Water Bodies in Proximity to T Range TM 02-2 T Range Soil Sampling Locations TM 02-2 Metals in Exceedence of Background and SVOC Detects T Range Project Note Soil Sampling Locations T Range Project Note Sampling Results Well Construction Diagram for MW-467S Well Construction Diagram for MW-489S Reverse Particle Tracks for MW-467S and MW-489S Cross Section A-A’ of T Range Cross Section B-B’ of T Range

List of Tables Table 2-1 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5-5 T Range Ammunition Usage TM 02-2 Data Summary Table TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results Project Note Data Summary Table Project Note Soil Analytical Results T Range Groundwater Analytical Results Chemicals of Potential Concern, Summary of Sampling Results, and Calculated Exposure Point Concentrations for the T Range Exposure Areas Comparison of Soil Sampling Results to Natural and Anthropogenic Concentrations for the T Range Exposure Areas Chemical-Specific Properties of the Chemicals of Potential Concern Toxicity Values for the Carcinogenic Chemicals of Potential Concern Toxicity Values for the Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Potential Concern

Page iv

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4, 2007

Table 5-6 Table 5-7 Table 5-8 Table 5-9 Table 5-10 Table 5-11 Table 5-12 Table 5-13

Exposure Assessment Summary/Conceptual Site Model Exposure Profiles Risk Characterization Results for Exposure Area 1 Risk Characterization Results for Exposure Areas 2 and 3 Area 1 – Values Used and Results for Adult Lead Model – Construction Worker Area 1 – Values Used and Results for Adult Lead Model – Trespasser Input Parameters and Results from the All-Ages Lead Model for the Adult Resident in Area 1 Input Parameters and Results from the IEUBK Child Lead Model for the Child Resident in Area 1

List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Table B-1: Preliminary Results from April 2007 Firing Line Sampling

Page v

2007 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AALM ALM AMEC ANGB AO1 AO3 BBM BBO bgs CERCLA CHPPM COC COPC COPEC CRREL CSM DAF ELCR ERA ERDC F FDA ft GIS HA HEAST HERA HHRA HI HQ IAGWSP IEUBK InhR IR IRIS LIDAR LOAEL o All-Ages Lead Model Adult Lead Model AMEC Earth and Environmental. and Liability Act Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Contaminants of concern Compounds of potential concern Chemicals of potential ecological concern Cold Regions Research and Experimental Laboratory Conceptual Site Model Dilution attenuation factor Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risks Ecological risk assessment Engineer Research and Development Center Degrees Fahrenheit Food and Drug Administration Feet Geographic Information System Health advisory Health effects assessment summary tables Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Human health risk assessment Hazard Index Hazard quotient Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model Inhalation Rate Ingestion Rate Integrated Risk Information System Light Detection and Ranging Lowest observed adverse effect level Page vi . Air National Guard Base Administrative Order Number 1 (SDWA I-97-1019) Administrative Order Number 3 (SDWA 1-2000-0014) Buzzards Bay Moraine Buzzards Bay Outwash Below ground surface Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Inc.

Department of Agriculture Page vii .S. 2007 MAARNG MassDEP MCL MCP mg/kg mg/kg-day µg/kg µg/dL µg/L µg/m3 mm MMCLs MMR MPP MW m2 NCEA ND NGB NGVD NOAEL PAH PE PPRTV PRG QA RAGS RfC RfD RL RME RCRA SAR SDWA SM SSL SVOC TRV USACE USCG USDA Massachusetts Army National Guard Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Maximum contaminant level Massachusetts Contingency Plan Milligrams per kilogram Milligram per kilogram per day Micrograms per kilogram Micrograms per deciliter Micrograms per liter Micrograms per cubic meter Millimeter Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels Massachusetts Military Reservation Mashpee Pitted Plain Monitoring well Square meters National Center for Environmental Assessment Non-detect National Guard Bureau National Geodetic Vertical Datum No observed adverse effect level Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon Performance evaluation Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values Preliminary Remediation Goal Quality assurance Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Reference concentration Reference dose Reporting limit Reasonable maximum exposure Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Small arms range Safe Drinking Water Act Sandwich Moraine Soil screening level Semi-volatile organic compound Toxicity reference values U.S. Army Corps of Engineers United States Coast Guard U.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4.

Geological Survey Volatile organic compound Page viii . Environmental Protection Agency U. 2007 USEPA USGS VOC U.S.S.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4.

40-caliber frangible. As part of the T Range soil investigation. Army Corps of Engineer’s (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)/Cold Regions Research and Experimental Laboratory (CRREL) multi-increment composite sampling method. In an effort to support the Massachusetts Army National Guard’s (MAARNG) range construction plans. Samples were analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals.50-caliber machine gun and pistol range located in the northern portion of the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR).56 mm blank and tungsten nylon.4-dinitrotoluene (DNT). copper. 9 mm frangible. The sample was analyzed for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 total metals. lead is not expected to be detected in groundwater. Conversely. Leaching assessments were carried out by the Idaho National Laboratory for USEPA and by the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP). In 2002. . SVOCs and explosives. It is located on the southern side of Gibbs Road just west of the Sierra East and Sierra West Ranges. A groundwater monitoring well (MW-467S) was installed down gradient of T Range and sampled in October. In addition. antimony. nitroglycerin and 2. and M939 AT4 sub-caliber ammunition. all of the elevated concentrations of typical small arms range metals (e. . etc. concentrations of nitroglycerin within the firing line were elevated compared to other sample locations and were at concentrations greater than preliminary soil levels protective of groundwater as identified in the USEPA report and IAGWSP/USACE technical memoranda.S.45-caliber frangible. additional soil sampling at T Range was conducted under the T Range Sampling Plan Project Note (IAGWSP.50-caliber plastic (including tracers). However. 5-point soil grids and discrete soil samples were taken at depths up to one foot at selected points along each of the two firing lines.S. 2006. the target area.4-DNT did not pose a leaching risk to groundwater above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)/health advisories (HAs) and/or risk based concentrations at the T Range. The highest concentrations of lead and nitroglycerin were detected in the surface soil samples (0-3”) in the sample area located in the center of the firing line.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Soil sampling was conducted at the firing line. the U. 7. Records indicate that ammunition used has included 5. Although the modeling procedures/protocols have not been completely resolved. Though they were relatively few in number and detected at low concentrations. lead.62 mm blank. results of preliminary leaching analyses indicated that concentrations of lead. the findings of the recent Environmental Assessment of Lead report published by CRREL were used to provide information on the leachablility of lead to the groundwater. 12 gauge shotgun. propellant compounds were detected in soils collected from in front of the mounded firing line. and the range floor in several decision units using the U. Page ES-1 . 2006). The only analyte detected in groundwater was tungsten at low concentrations. Based on a number of physical properties of the compound and the site conditions at MMR. .) were detected in soils obtained from in front of the pistol firing line. antimony.g. Reports and technical memoranda were issued by both parties. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requested that soil impacts to groundwater be investigated for lead. 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T Range is an active combination . antimony and 2.

the risk assessment demonstrates that for the most likely and expected current and future uses. groundwater contamination is not a current risk at the site. trespassers and recreational hunters).Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Based on information collected to date. military personnel training at T Range. Data from a single down-gradient groundwater monitoring well was compared to riskbased screening criteria. and construction workers) and hypothetical future residents at T Range. SVOCs. Thus. or metals were detected in MW467S. Future residential development is unlikely to occur as the range is part of the Camp Edwards training facility. the human health risk assessment also indicates that potential excess lifetime cancer risks are less than or within USEPA’s allowable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for all current or future receptors included in the risk assessment and fall within the allowable risk range for future hypothetical residents (between 1. Similarly.3x10-6). the T Range does not pose an unacceptable cancer risk.9x10-6 and 2. As such. Total tungsten was detected at a concentration of 2. The HERA is focused on direct contact and particulate inhalation exposures related to the site soils. the range will be used as an active firing range which is not compatible with residential use. Page ES-2 . The maximum and mean concentrations of vanadium were also within the range of published MassDEP background levels. Potential human health risks were estimated for current receptors (military personnel engaged in firearms training. 2007 A Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) was performed for T Range.9 μg/L and dissolved tungsten was detected at a concentration of 1. the receptors hazard indices associated with potential exposure to soil are still all less than one for all current receptors and all future receptors except child residents. The calculated HI for future hypothetical child residents in Area 1 exceeds 1 primarily due to ingestion of nitroglycerin in soil. recreational hunters. The human health risk assessment indicates that potential noncarcinogenic effects are not expected for any of the likely current site receptors included in the evaluation. COCs identified in the risk assessment as contributing to an excess risk of harm to potential human and environmental receptors will be further evaluated as the basis for the identification and evaluation of remedies. There are no risk-based screening criteria for tungsten in water. No explosives compounds.9 μg/L. future receptors (trespassers. Given the conservative assumptions used in this evaluation of potential non-cancer risk. The BERA indicated that exposure and associated risk to lead and vanadium appeared low because modeled exposure dosages were below the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) toxicity reference value (TRV). The objective of the HERA was to identify any Chemicals of Concern (COCs) in soil and groundwater from impacts associated with small arms training and other activities that occurred within T Range. The HERA consisted of a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA).

2007 1.0. Additional site characterization was proposed and completed at T Range under a project note in 2006 (IAGWSP. Page 1 . Section 6. The investigation was designed to characterize the nature and extent of possible soil and/or groundwater contamination resulting from historical releases associated with past training activities.0 presents information on the site background. Presentation of the risk characterization is included in Section 5. As specified in the Final Supplemental Phase 2b Work Plan (AMEC. T Range was one of 33 supplemental Phase 2b sites evaluated for current and future potential impacts. and site history.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. 2003). 1.1 Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the results of the soil and groundwater investigations conducted at T Range to date. 2006) in an effort to support the Massachusetts Army National Guard’s (MAARNG) priorities and range construction plans.2 Report Organization Section 1. description (to include the physical characteristics of the site). A conceptual site model (CSM) is presented in Section 4.0. Section 2.0 INTRODUCTION T Range (Figure 1-1) was among several training areas. The purpose of this report is to identify any Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) and to characterize the potential risks to human health and ecological risks so that the need for remedial actions at the site can be determined. Groundwater down gradient of T Range was also sampled and analyzed in 2006. 1.0 provides a conclusion. Section 3.0 of this report provides the purpose and objectives of the report. Investigation results were reported in the Final Technical Team Memorandum 02-2 Small Arms Range Report (AMEC.0 provides a summary and description of site investigation activities at the T Range. This report evaluates the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination resulting from past training activities. ranges. and other sites investigated as part of the second round of Phase 2b investigations in 2002 within the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP). 2002).

200 8. Table 2-1 below shows what is known about the ammunition usage for the T Range site. . In the late-1980s.56 mm Blank Unk Qty 0 Unk Qty 9 mm Frangible 0 0 0 12 Gauge 0 0 0 M939 AT4 Subcal 0 0 0 TN: Tungsten Nylon Unk Qty: Unkown Quantity * The Range was designated as P Range during this timeframe Page 2 .800 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.56 mm tungsten nylon.40 cal frangible.880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 SITE BACKGROUND 2. During this time period . 12 gauge shotgun. Former P Range was used first in 1967 as a night defense course where only 5.50 cal .56 mm TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. The dimensions of the range are 940 ft long by 420 ft wide with an approximate area of nine acres.50-caliber machine gun and pistol range located in the northern portion of the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR).56 mm and 7.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4.45 cal frangible.45 cal . the range name was changed to the T Range designation and continued to be used as an assault course.400 10. The range was constructed between 1986 and 1989 at what was formerly P Range. T Range was converted to a . At that time.50 caliber (cal) plastic. Spot elevations of the nearly level range taken from recent Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) results show that the elevations range from 57 to 60 meters (m) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). 9 mm frangible. no ammunition was used.057 6.1 Site Description & History T Range is an active combination . TABLE 2-1 T Range Ammunition Usage 7.62 mm . Only blank ammunition was used during this period. It is located on the southern side of Gibbs Road just west of the Sierra East and Sierra West Ranges (Figure 2-1).800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 1. 2007 2.40 cal Blank Plastic Frangible Frangible Unk Qty 0 Unk Qty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TY: Training Year 0 0 0 6.080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TY *1967-1979 *1980-1986 1986-1991 1991-1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5. and M939 AT4 sub-caliber rounds have been used on the range.535 16.370 0 0 0 5.400 0 2.520 0 0 0 5. Cross sections of the range are depicted in Figures 3-8 and 3-9.50-caliber machine gun range and pistol range. 5. .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. In 1990 or 1991.62 mm blank ammunition was used and continued to be used as such until the mid-1970s when it was converted to a squad and platoon attack course.025 13. including tracers.

USCG Housing. Portions of the MMR are opened for deer and turkey hunting by permit from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.50 cal projectiles. the furthest set measuring 600 feet from the firing line. Bourne.2 Cultural Setting Land use near the MMR is primarily residential and recreational. and covered awaiting further disposition as part of the berm maintenance program prior to construction. and secondarily agricultural and industrial. The major agricultural land use near the MMR is the cultivation of cranberries. but fringed with highways. There are rows of targets downrange at 25 meters from the pistol firing line. surficial soils were removed by the MAARNG from the footprint of the berm. Shawme Crowell State Forest provides camping as well as other recreational activities. Camp Edwards. Sandwich. Commercial and industrial development in the area includes service industries. Findings from these surveys indicate that humans inhabited the Camp Edwards area up to 10. 2006 a backstop berm and bullet collection system (STAPPTM) was installed as part of the MAARNG’s initiative to test fire tungsten nylon bullets into the STAPP system. landscaping.2. which includes T Range. An archaeological survey covering 72 percent of Camp Edwards was conducted in 1987 to assess its archaeological sensitivity. sand and gravel pit operations.2. As a precautionary measure to ensure that any potential remediation would not require the removal of the newly constructed berm and STAPP system. In September. lies within the boundaries of Bourne and Sandwich.000 years ago. were observed throughout the range.2 2. There was previously no backstop berm at this range. 2. A total of one historic site and 26 prehistoric sites were identified within Camp Edwards. 2007 There are currently six elevated . Knowledge of the precise location of these Page 3 .1 Environmental Setting Geography The MMR includes both Camp Edwards and Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB). Massachusetts. and municipal landfills (USACE. The MMR as a whole is a wooded area on the Upper Cape that is largely undeveloped. The predominant land use surrounding the MMR is residential or commercial development. United States Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station Cape Cod. stockpiled. measuring 144 feet long used for pistol training. The cantonment area at the southern portion of Camp Edwards borders Otis ANGB. A series of targets were observed south of the firing points and set at different distances down range. including .50 cal firing points separated by intervals of approximately 50 feet (ft) along a 250-foot long firing line. 2. 1998). and the Veteran’s Affairs Cemetery.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Falmouth. The majority of the rounds were found in a northeast-southwest corridor at the approximate center of the range and extended into the wooded area beyond the targets at the southwest end of the range. and other development (Cape Cod Commission. The MMR is located on the western side of Cape Cod. is situated on the flat area immediately down range (south) of the . and Mashpee. A second firing line. Numerous plastic .50 cal firing line. homes. 2002). The MMR is situated within four towns.50 cal tracer rounds.

Occasional tropical storms that affect Barnstable County may produce 24-hour rainfall events of five to six inches (NGB. 2002). The northern portion of the MMR consists of forested uplands dominated by stands of pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and mixed oak species (Quercus spp. the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). 2007 historic sites is restricted to only the Geographic Information System (GIS) Manager and the MAARNG Regional Cultural Resources Manager to prevent damage or looting (MAARNG. the MMR does support a number of animals that are listed by the state as species of special concern. with a yearly average of 49. and fire suppression activities. 1993). The dominant vegetation types vary accordingly.8. These include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). and the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). 2001). MA by Acid Rain Project of the University of Massachusetts. or mammals are known to inhabit the MMR. the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). and the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) (USACE. The present composition of these forests is a reflection of eighteenth-century logging practices. Winds of 30 miles per hour may be expected on an average of at least one day per month. ovate spikerush (Eleocaris obtusa var.) with a diverse shrubby understory. These species are primarily associated with the grassland fields in the southern cantonment area. 2.2. and adder’s tongue fern (Ophioglossum pusillum). Remnant vegetation in the southern portion of the MMR consists of open grassland fields interspersed with scattered trees and shrubs. About half of these are lepidoptera (i. The average net recharge to groundwater of this annual rainfall is 27 inches per year.6 oF (USDA. Ground cover at T Range is generally grass although there are scrub pine and oak trees toward the back of the range (down range). fish.e. State-listed plant species documented on the MMR include broad tinker’s weed (Triosteum perfoliatum). is defined as humid continental. Average snowfall is 24 inches (MAARNG. the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus).4 Climate The climate for Barnstable County. and Melsheimer’s sack bearer (Cicinnus melsheimeri). reptiles. No threatened or endangered amphibians.. moths). Page 4 . Based upon runoff measurements taken in Yarmouth. Temperatures range from 29. Mean annual precipitation is 48 inches per year.4 oF in July. Rare bird species on MMR include the upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). 2. Gale force winds can be common and more severe in winter. 1990). 2001).6-5.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Torrey’s beak-sedge (Rhynchospora torreyana). The neighboring Atlantic Ocean has a moderating influence on the temperature extremes of winter and summer.3 Ecological Setting The northern two-thirds of the MMR are characterized as undeveloped open area. where the MMR is located.6 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) in February to 70. replanting strategies.2. There are at least 25 species listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act observed on the MMR. the pH of the rainfall from recent measurements is between 5. ovata). however. while the southern third is characterized as developed land. the barrens daggermoth (Acronicta albarufa). such as Gerhard’s underwing moth (Catocala herodias gerhardi).

1990). silt and clay. 1997 reports that the lower part of the Mashpee Pitted Plain consists of fine-grained. silt and clay. Masterson et al. Four sedimentary units characterize the regional geology: the Buzzards Bay Moraine (BBM).5 Geology The geology of Upper Cape Cod is comprised of glacial sediments deposited during the retreat of the Wisconsin stage of Holocene glaciation. silt and clay with locally poorly to moderately sorted sand and gravel. the sand and gravel outwash overlies fine to very fine sand. The Mashpee Pitted Plain. or streams exist on the property. and dense sandy till. sand. The Buzzards Bay and Sandwich Moraines form the hummocky terrain along the northwest and north side of MMR. Numerous discontinuous lenses of fine-grained sediments. rivers. the Sandwich Moraine (SM). Both of these surface water bodies are located Page 5 .000 years ago. consists of fine. Surface water is not retained due to the well drained sandy soils of Camp Edwards. sand. approximately 15. which slopes from west to east (NGB. Most of the wetlands and surface waters in the Sandwich and Buzzards Bay Moraines on Camp Edwards are considered to be perched (MAARNG. sandy silt. 2005a).to coarse-grained brown sands overlie fine to very fine sands and silt.6 Hydrology/Hydrogeology Surface water resources on Camp Edwards are scarce. 2001). including laminated silts and unsorted debris flow deposits are also present in the moraines. Masterson et al. 2. the lower part consists of sandy sediments. the Buzzards Bay Outwash (BBO) and the Mashpee Pitted Plain (MPP).2. 1990).. The glacial deposits overlie crystalline bedrock. and lies to the east and south of the moraines. The till in the lower part of the Buzzards Bay Moraine is comprised of sand. The Buzzards Bay and Sandwich Moraines lie along the western and northern edges of Camp Edwards as shown in Figure 2-2. approximately 60 percent of the annual rainfall on Camp Edwards infiltrates the soil and contributes to the groundwater aquifer (AMEC. The upper part of the Sandwich Moraine resulted from glacial deformation of material. forms a broad outwash plain. 2007 2. Like the Mashpee Pitted Plain. glacio-lacustrine sediments comprised of fine sand. in which T Range is located. No large lakes. In proximity to T Range are Raccoon and Spruce Swamps. This laterally persistent facies can be encountered underlying the moraines.2. only small marshy wetlands and ponds. 1997 describes the moraine deposits as generally consisting of gravel. The surface of the moraine is characterized by an abundance of boulders.. The 31 wetlands on the training sites of Camp Edwards comprise only 55 acres of land. Southeast of the moraines is the MPP where 130 to 200 feet of medium. South of State Route 151. 1997 indicates that the Buzzards Bay Moraine resulted from the melt water deposition of sorted sediments within a stagnant ice margin overlying a basal till. unsorted matrix. Masterson et al. interior to MMR (Figure 2-2). The Buzzard’s Bay Outwash can be found along the west of the MMR boundary to the canal and Buzzard’s Bay. silt. Both moraines form the hummocky ridges characteristic of the northwest and north side of MMR.to coarse-grained sands. The till contains lenses of clay. As a result. and/or gravel..Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. the Buzzard’s Bay Outwash consists of coarse sand and gravel of deltaic origin with locally interbedded fine sand and silt. Bedrock slopes from west to east (NGB. and scattered gravel in a compacted.

Similarly. The T Range is located north of the top of the groundwater mound (Figure 2-2). In the vicinity of T Range.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. groundwater flow is toward the north-northeast as indicated by the equipotential lines shown in Figure 2-3. within 1. The sole source of natural fresh water recharge to this groundwater system is rainfall and snowmelt water that averages approximately 48 inches per year (NGB. 1990). which is not a productive source of water. At T Range. The top of the groundwater mound of the Sagamore Lens is located within the J-Range. depth to groundwater is approximately 127 feet. 2007 within a mile of the site to the northwest. levels are lowest in the late summer/early autumn when rainfall is minimal. a part of the larger Cape Cod Aquifer (MAARNG. Groundwater flows radially outward: north to either the Cape Cod Canal or the Cape Cod Bay. Approximately 27 inches of the average annual rainfall infiltrates the soil and recharges groundwater on an annual basis. The height of the water table in and around the MMR can fluctuate up to seven feet annually due to seasonal variations in groundwater recharge. Page 6 . and west and southwest towards Buzzards Bay (MAARNG.3 miles of the site to the north is Upper Shawme Lake (Figure 2-3). south and southeast to Nantucket Sound. The groundwater beneath Camp Edwards is known as the Sagamore Lens. Groundwater levels are highest in the spring when recharge rates are high. southeast of the Impact Area within the central portion of the MMR (Figure 2-2). unconfined aquifer underlain by low permeability crystalline bedrock. The Sagamore Lens is a single. 2001). east to the Bass River. 2001).

and MCP Method 1 risk assessment values. and risk limits (non-cancer hazard quotient [HQ] of 1 or cancer risk equivalent to one in one million).S. and refine an acceptable analytical method. the detected concentrations of the various analytes are compared to several preliminary screening tools including background concentrations. The results obtained to date for tungsten concentrations in groundwater should be considered tentative and should not be used for decision making purposes. evaluate. MCP S1/GW1 Method 1 values provide default soil and groundwater concentrations that have been determined to be protective of human health under exposure scenarios including very conservative residential exposures. These criteria are defined as follows: • Background values are those that are present in soil or groundwater that are not the result of activities related to range use on MMR. Page 7 . Throughout the following text. The IAGWSP has been working diligently with the U. and the MassDEP lab to develop. Method improvements have been made and fine tuning of the analytical method will continue until an approved USEPA method is established. USEPA Region IX PRGs were derived using current approved or provisional toxicity values. The method development has included two sets of performance evaluation (PE) samples and quality assurance (QA) split samples being sent to the three different labs. There is no USEPA approved method for analyzing tungsten in groundwater. a commercial lab. If the SSL is exceeded.0 SUMMARY OF SOIL & GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES The following sub-sections address the sampling and analysis of soil and groundwater samples that have been conducted at T Range to date. However. 2007 3. EPA Region IX preliminary remediation goals (PRGs). remedial efforts are typically not conducted for naturally occurring COPCs with concentrations at or below background levels. They can be superseded by sitespecific risk assessment that takes into account site-specific potential exposures. additional leaching analysis can be conducted to determine if the compound is likely to reach the groundwater. Those constituents whose maximum detected values exceeded this criteria were retained as COPCs in the risk assessment. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) lab. The background level was not used to eliminate or screen out any possible COPC. Many of the metals and other analytes are naturally present in the soil and groundwater at detectable concentrations. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) using a dissolution partitioning equation for the migration to groundwater pathway.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. soil screening levels (SSLs). • • • Tables 3-2 and 3-4 include these screening values to facilitate comparison to the detected concentrations.S. conservative exposure factors. SSLs were developed as initial soil screening values by U.

Vanadium had a maximum concentration (29. calcium. Manganese had a maximum concentration (165 mg/kg) in the deep composite sample at grid 169C which exceeded its 44.1 Supplemental Phase 2b Soil Sampling Sampling Plan As part of the second round of Phase 2b investigations in April of 2002. Aluminum had a maximum concentration (20. and nickel) did not exceed SSLs or PRGs. The center nodes for each grid were positioned approximately eight feet down range of the firing line and two feet to the right of their respective lane markers.009 mg/kg) and its PRG (0.20 mg/kg PRG. vanadium. 2007 3.421. 2001c) and the addendum to TM 01-1 (AMEC.800 mg/kg) were both reported in the deep discrete sample collected from grid 169A (Figure 3-2). and its S1/GW1 (10 mg/kg) in Page 8 .39 mg/kg).9 mg/kg) and lead (5.3-diethyl-1.1. Samples were submitted for analysis of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals. 2001d). Antimony was detected in 17 of 37 samples with 9 exceeding background (1. Seven of these (magnesium.02 mg/kg SSL.13 mg/kg) in six samples. and deep (6 to 12 inches bgs).1. and din-butyl phthalate) were detected among the 38 samples collected from the T Range (Table 3-1) (Figure 3-2). and iron exceeded background in only 1 sample each. Of these compounds.300 mg/kg) in the deep discrete sample at grid 169B which exceeded its SSL (2.15 mg/kg SSL. One 5-point composite and one discrete soil sample (obtained from the center grid node) were collected at each depth interval. arsenic.3 mg/kg) in the deep discrete sample at grid 169B which exceeded its 7.4 mg/kg) in the deep discrete sample at grid 169A which exceeded its SSL (0.32 mg/kg). the IAGWSP established three 5-point soil grids on T Range at selected firing points along each of the two firing lines to determine if range-related residual propellant and metal constituents exist in soil there (Figure 3-1). 3.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4.92 mg/kg) and its PRG (2. The maximum detected concentrations of antimony (91.82 mg/kg PRG. Other SVOCs detected include eight polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).400 mg/kg) in the deep discrete sample at grid 169B which exceeded its 7614.90 mg/kg). which was detected once at a concentration of 36 J μg/kg.77 μg/kg. manganese. only n-nitrosodiphenylamine. zinc. its PRG (3. exceeded its SSL of 7. Central grids were positioned near the center of both firing lines and the remaining grids were positioned down range of firing points located near the eastern and western limits of both firing lines. copper. most of which were detected in one discrete sample collected from the intermediate depth at grid 169E. intermediate (3 to 6 inches bgs).3-diphenyl urea. The grids were sampled at three depth intervals: surface (0 to 3 inches below ground surface [bgs]).346. Fifteen metals were detected at concentrations in excess of background (Table 3-1).2 Analytical Results Three propellant-related SVOCs (n-nitrosodiphenylamine. cobalt. but neither exceeded an applicable standard. aluminum. 1. Chromium had a maximum concentration (21 mg/kg) in the deep discrete sample at grid 169B which exceeded its 7.1 3. selenium. None of the PAHs exceeded their respective MMR background concentrations as established in the Draft Technical Memorandum 01-1 (AMEC. Iron had a maximum concentration (19. Chromium. Arsenic had a maximum concentration (23. Two other SVOCs (benzoic acid and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) were reported in T Range samples.27 mg/kg) in 17 samples. It exceeded its SSL (0.

169E. This provided for a sample from the most heavily used portion of the range and separate samples from the less frequently used flanks. Investigation areas 1. In addition. The center area is likely to have experienced the most intense loading of contaminants because. 3. The three sample areas are identified as West. Refer to Table 3-2 for the complete list of analytical results from the 2002 sampling event. 169B.The area of the planned new berm (approximately 45 x 220 feet) behind the 25meter targets. The two highest concentrations of antimony detected in T Range soils exceeded the 10 mg/kg S1/GW1. Area 2 . antimony. 2006). most of the rounds are fired from the center lanes of a range. copper. etc. 169A. grids 169D.50-caliber firing line (i. and 169F).05 mg/kg) and its PRG (40 mg/kg) in 16 of those samples.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. It exceeded its SSL (4. Center.e. The range was divided conceptually into the following three decision units based on the known past use of the site (Figure 3-3): • • • Area 1 . Though they were relatively few in number and detected at low concentrations. the center section of Area 1 was divided into north and south sub-sections (Area 1/Center/North and Area 1/Center/South) to determine if there is any difference in contaminant concentrations immediately in front of the firing points and somewhat further down range.1 June 2006 Project Note Soil Sampling Sampling Plan In an effort to support the MAARNG’s range construction plans.e. the elevated concentrations of typical small arms range metals (e.2 3. Lead exceeded background (19 mg/kg) in 18 samples.2. and East. historically. 2. lead. and the seven highest lead concentrations reported exceeded the 300 mg/kg S1/GW1. Samples were collected from each of the ten sub-areas as follows: Page 9 . 2007 two samples. 2006 (IAGWSP. and Area 3 . and 3 were conceptually divided into three equal sample areas across the width of the Area. Lead also exceeded its S1/GW1 (300 mg/kg) in seven of those samples. No other analyte detected at this range exceeded an S1/GW1.. propellant compounds were detected in soils collected from the . and 169C).g.) were detected in soils obtained from the samples collected in front of the pistol firing line (i.The area from the top of the machine gun firing points to the 25 meter targets across the entire width of the range. down range (south) of Area 2 and Area 1. additional soil sampling for T Range was conducted under the T Range Sampling Plan Project Note dated June 29.The remainder of the range. Conversely..

tungsten. and perchlorate. tungsten. Another composite sample was collected from 9-12 inches below grade from the same 50 locations.One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten. and perchlorate. A systematic sampling approach was used to collect representative samples from each grid.One 50-point sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals. New Hampshire and ground in a steel puck mill grinder. A replicate sample was collected from this area and analyzed for the same. Area 2/East . Samples for SVOC analysis were sent directly to Severn Trent Laboratory (STL) in Burlington Vermont for analysis. Area 3/Center .One 100 point composite was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals. A replicate sample was collected and analyzed for the same. Area 1/Center/North . A replicate sample was collected from this area and analyzed for the same. and perchlorate. Both samples were analyzed for metals. 2007 • Area 1/West . Area 1/Center/South . Area 1/East . A replicate sample was collected and analyzed for the same.One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals. Area 3/East . Page 10 . Samples were collected using a plug extractor except for the deep samples in Area 1/Center/South which were collected using a hand auger. Area 2/West .One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten.One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten.One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten. metals and tungsten were shipped to ERDC/CRREL in Hanover. The samples were then shipped to STL Laboratory in Burlington Vermont for analyses.One 50-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade. • • • • • • • • • All samples were collected in accordance with USEPA SW846 Method 8330B (umpromulgated).Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. SVOCs (8270). Care was taken to ensure that samples were not concentrated in one portion of the sampling area. tungsten.One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten. A replicate sample was collected from this area and analyzed for the same. explosives (8330). Area 2/Center . perchlorate. explosives and perchlorate.One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten. All samples for explosives. tungsten. explosives. Area 3/West .

2 Analytical Results Only one propellant-related SVOC (1. the concentrations were a factor of 10 lower than the northern sample area.741 μg/kg) in only one sample.6 mg/kg) or its PRG (15. Lead had a maximum detected concentration of 467 mg/kg in Area 1 Center/North. It exceeded its SSL (0.73 mg/kg) in five samples and its PRG (312. Page 11 .86 mg/kg) in two samples. sodium.500 μg/kg (average of primary and replicate samples). nickel. It did not exceed its SSL (260.13 mg/kg) or its PRG (156. Vanadium exceeded background (28.11 mg/kg) in any of the 16 samples. The new unpromulgated CRREL grinding method. Nitroglycerin exceeded its SSL (1. Nitroglycerin was not detected at the deeper 9-12” soil samples in Area 1 Center/South. Although nitroglycerin was also detected in Area 1 Center/South. Six of these (beryllium. The highest concentrations of nitroglycerin were detected in the surface soil samples (0-3”) in the Area 1 Center/North sample area located in the center of the firing line (Table 3-4). Molybdenum had a maximum detected concentration of 2 mg/kg in Area 1 Center/North. 2007 3.300 μg/kg (Table 3-3). Nitroglycerin was detected by the method 8330 analysis in three of the six samples collected with a maximum detected concentration of 36.4 mg/kg and did not exceed either of its SSL (2.3-diphenyl urea) was detected in the two samples collected from Area 1 Center/North at a maximum concentration of 2.360 mg/kg.2. There are no established standards for sodium.3-diphenyl urea.6 mg/kg and did not exceed either of its SSL (292. Lead and molybdenum exceeded background in all 16 samples.8 mg/kg) in only two of 16 samples with a maximum concentration of 29.3-diethyl-1. Chromium results were qualified with an “R”. There are no established standards for 1. It exceeded its SSL (4.05 mg/kg) but did exceed its PRG (7. There are no established standards for potassium.1 mg/kg in Area 2 Center. Calcium exceeded background (288 mg/kg) in 12 of 16 samples with a maximum concentration of 7.183 mg/kg) in all 16 samples but did not exceed its PRG (39. as rejected during data validation due to the high levels of chromium contamination introduced from the grinder. Nickel exceeded background (10 mg/kg) in four of 16 samples with a maximum concentration of 12. It exceeded its SSL (45. It exceeded its SSL (0. calcium.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Tungsten was detected in 22 of 28 samples with a maximum concentration of 77.9 mg/kg) in only one of 16 samples with a concentration of 2 J mg/kg in Area 1 Center/North.13 mg/kg).89 mg/kg).02 μg/kg) in 3 samples and its PRG (34.3-diethyl-1. and its S1/GW1 (300 mg/kg) in three samples.38 mg/kg) in only one of 16 samples with a concentration of 0.9 mg/kg and did not exceed either of its SSL (132.27 mg/kg) but did not exceed its PRG (3. Cobalt exceeded background (4 mg/kg) in only one of 16 samples with a concentration of 5.3 mg/kg. and potassium) did not exceed SSLs or PRGs. Sodium exceeded background (196 mg/kg) in only one of 16 samples with a concentration of 197 J mg/kg. Antimony exceeded background (1.38 mg/kg) or its PRG (902. Copper exceeded background (11 mg/kg) in 14 of 16 samples with a maximum concentration of 742 mg/kg in Area 2 Center. Beryllium exceeded background (0.82 mg/kg). cobalt.05 mg/kg) and its PRG (40 mg/kg) in all 16 samples. Potassium exceeded background (766 mg/kg) in six of 16 samples with a maximum concentration of 935 mg/kg. There are no established standards or MMR background levels for tungsten. The highest concentrations of lead were detected in the surface soil samples (0-3”) in the Area 1 Center sample area located in the center of the firing line (Table 3-4). There are no established standards for calcium.4 mg/kg).43 mg/kg). Twelve metals were detected at concentrations in excess of background (Table 3-3).

iron. The monitoring well was sampled and analyzed for explosives (SW8330). and SVOCs (SW8270C). MW-467S was located and screened at a depth of 125-135 feet below grade to intercept groundwater that originated as precipitation falling on the range. The analytical results of the explosives analyses indicate that elevated concentrations of nitroglycerin are for the most part limited to the area directly in front of the 50-caliber firing line mounds (sample areas Center 1. a groundwater monitoring well (MW-467S) was installed down gradient of the range (Figure 3-3). 2006. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 total metals (SW6010B). These concentrations are all similar with no apparent trend. Low concentrations. 2007 Method 8330B used for metals preparation has been shown to introduce significantly high levels of total chromium and iron from the grinding equipment. Within sample areas Center 1 and Center 2. The preliminary data from this sampling was not included in the risk assessment in this report because validated laboratory data was not available during the preparation of this report.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4.3 Groundwater Investigation In September. Perchlorate was not detected in any of the eight samples taken a T Range (Table 3-3). and total organic carbon (TOC). and 18-24”. and antimony have been added to the analysis for subsequent sampling events at MW-467S.900 square feet each. 6-9”. total and dissolved Tungsten (SW6020). Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes the nitroglycerin data from the samples. 12-18”. The CRREL grinding procedures were developed for explosives and were never intended to be used for metals analyses due to the obvious contamination that is introduced by the grinder. soil profile samples were also collected from 3-6”. 3. zinc. All samples were 50-point composites using the CRREL multi-increment sampling method except in areas Center 1 and Center 2 where 30-point samples were collected due to the difficulty of collecting samples to the desired 2-foot depth. The samples analyzed for metals were ground in a high chromium cast iron steel alloy puck mill grinder prior to acid digestion and analysis to thoroughly homogenize the samples and any contaminants. pH. the firing line area was subdivided into 12 approximately equally sized areas of about 2. Page 12 . barely above the reporting limit of the analysis. and East 1). Chromium levels have been documented to increase by over a factor of 20 between the unground lab blank samples and the ground lab blank samples. Copper. Samples were collected from each area from 0-3” below grade. Samples were collected in April 2007 in accordance with the T Range Firing Line Sampling Project Note. Samples collected 3 inches below grade to a depth of 2 feet in Area Center 1 indicate the presence of low level concentrations of nitroglycerin slightly above the analytical reporting limit. were also detected in two other sample areas. 9-12”. 3. lead and other metals.3 April 2007 Firing Line Soil Sampling In order to further define the nitroglycerin distribution and to assist in developing leaching models.2. Samples were analyzed for explosives. West 1.

and not sorptive capacity. that lead has not migrated to groundwater.3. There is. 3. Geochemical studies found in the literature suggest the propensity to form sparingly soluble precipitates.58 feet below grade to intercept groundwater that originated as precipitation falling on the range floor or offrange bullet fall out area. and oxygen) are not conducive for significant corrosion. That study concluded that. The results of this study are published in the report.58-134. 9 May 2007. and part of the range floor while MW-489S will monitor water from the range floor and part of the off-range area.S.9 μg/L and dissolved tungsten was detected at a concentration of 1. The particle backtracks in Figure 3-7 show that MW-467S will monitor water from the firing line. The monitoring well was sampled and analyzed for explosives (SW8330). The results will be included as an appendix to the Final Report when submitted. Massachusetts Small Arms Ranges. This finding is consistent with a recent study of the behavior of metallic lead in the environment conducted by the U.1 Groundwater Analytical Results No explosives compounds.g. Lead was not detected in the groundwater sample collected at MW-467S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Experimental Laboratory (CRREL). Environmental Assessment of Lead at Camp Edwards. or metals were detected in MW-467S. (e. 2007. RCRA 8 metals (SW6010B). 2007 In April. Experimental results from other studies with conditions similar to Camp Edwards showed minimal lead movement. zinc. These conclusions are supported by the following facts: • • Multiple soil profile samples collected prior and post-berm maintenance from six small arms ranges (SARs) indicated little vertical migration of lead.9 μg/L (Table 3-5).Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. may be the most important factor controlling lead migration in the subsurface. the target area. sufficiently robust. however. Total tungsten was detected at a concentration of 2. tungsten (SW6020). • • • Page 13 . an additional groundwater monitoring well (MW-489S) was installed down gradient of the range to determine if the low concentrations of tungsten detected on the range floor and if any projectiles that may have landed off-range have had an impact on groundwater (Figure 3-3). and transport of lead. corrosion and dissolution processes are sufficiently slow and mechanisms for attenuation. and SVOCs (SW8270C). SVOCs. Unsaturated zone modeling using two different software codes predicted the vertical migration of lead would take centuries to reach groundwater. Geochemical conditions within the surface soils. permeability. MW-489S was located and screened at a depth of 124. resistivity. such as precipitation and adsorption. currently some uncertainty in the ability of the various laboratory methods to reliably detect tungsten at these low concentrations. copper. dissolution. antimony. chloride. pH. The results of groundwater analysis for MW-489S are not included in this report because validated laboratory data was not available during the preparation of this report. iron.

the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). Resolution of the issues remains ongoing at this time. concentrations of nitroglycerin within the “firing line” were elevated compared to other sample locations and were at concentrations greater than preliminary soil levels protective of groundwater as identified in the USEPA report and IAGWSP/USACE technical memoranda. USEPA requested that soil impacts to groundwater be investigated for lead.4-DNT did not pose a leaching risk to groundwater above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)/health advisories (HAs) and/or risk based concentrations at the T Range.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. and Lead introduced into the groundwater near Camp Edwards in a sewage treatment effluent was rapidly and completely attenuated to the soil in the aquifer preventing migration. However. Leaching assessments were carried out by both Idaho National Laboratory in concert with USEPA (Rood and Hull. implying the same reactions will attenuate lead movement in the unsaturated zone. Presently. Additional teleconferences were subsequently held with USEPA/Idaho National Laboratory. Although the modeling procedures/protocols have not been completely resolved. Tracer studies conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) near Camp Edwards demonstrated an aqueous form of lead was rapidly adsorbed onto the soil. IAGWSP/USACE/CRREL to resolve issues identified at the leaching summit in March. • • 3. despite lead being continuously released to soil for more than 60 years. surficial soils will be removed by the Page 14 . USACE/CRREL and other parties pertinent to this issue in February. Once the issues are resolved. 2007. antimony and 2. 2007). Reports and technical memoranda were issued by both parties. IAGWSP. the modeling procedures and protocols will be presented in an appropriate document.4-dinitrotoluene (DNT).4 Leaching Assessment As part of the T Range soil investigation. 2007 to discuss the preliminary leaching study results and to identify areas where both parties agreed/disagreed on the conceptual site model and modeling procedures/protocols. some level of soil removal at the firing line could be conducted in order to remove concentrations of nitroglycerin that may pose a future problem. As a precautionary measure to ensure that any potential remediation would not require the removal of the newly elevated firing line. IAGWSP/USACE/CRREL are developing a series of batch and column experiments in order to better define the sorption/desorption process using expended and/or raw propellant on T Range soils in order to better derive modeling parameters for nitroglycerin and DNT in order to better quantify soil concentrations protective of groundwater for the T Range and other Small Arms Ranges. 2007 • Groundwater data collected to date from across Camp Edwards demonstrated little to no lead contamination as a result of accumulation from small arms training. antimony. Based on the preliminary leaching analyses conducted to date. nitroglycerin and 2. 2007) and IAGWSP (USACE. MAARNG. A leaching summit was held with USEPA. results of preliminary leaching analyses indicated that concentrations of lead.

and covered awaiting further disposition as part of the berm maintenance program prior to construction of the elevated firing line.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. stockpiled. 2007 MAARNG from the existing firing line. Page 15 .

in part. consists of a suite of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) produced by the combustion of small caliber ammunition propellants. These metals (typically lead.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. explosives compounds. and copper) are deposited on. Earlier sampling at MMR revealed that propellant-related contamination. 2007 4. and the inhalation of fugitive dust. the targets and range backstops. Similar metallic residuals. Projectile-related residues consist mainly of the metallic constituents of various alloys used in the manufacturing of small caliber rounds. Both the propellant and projectile-related residues represent potential risks to human and ecological receptors through direct contact and ingestion of surface soil. antimony. detected in firing line soils. are also presumed to be associated with the firing of metal projectiles. In addition.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL Potential sources of small arms range contaminants include propellant-related compounds deposited on the surface in the vicinity of firing lines and projectile-related residuals deposited on the surface at. and near. the surface as the fragmented remnants of projectiles. These compounds are released to the environment and deposited as surface residue via airborne deposition. these residues may pose a potential threat to groundwater by the leaching of SVOCs. and in the vicinity of. and metals from the surface through the unsaturated zone. Page 16 .

lead. Part A (USEPA.0 RISK ASSESSMENT This risk assessment can be used to determine the need for remedial actions to prevent risk to several types of potential site users at the range. 2001a). The assessment also may provide information that may be used to support range management practices in the future. and vanadium. The HERA consisted of a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA). and Aluminum. As shown in Table 5-2.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment The site-specific HHRA was conducted in accordance with the USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS). 1. 2002b) using the USEPA ProUCL software (USEPA. 1989). Those tables are presented as part of this section (Tables 5-1 through 5-13). arsenic. vanadium. All soil data representing current soil Page 17 . The objective of the HERA was to identify any Contaminants of Concern (COCs) in soil and groundwater from impacts associated with small arms training and other activities that occurred within T Range. arsenic. Part D (USEPA. The MMR risk assessment protocols have been developed to maintain a consistent technical approach that adhered to the relevant USEPA and MassDEP risk assessment guidance and policies as interpreted for MMR and the IAGWSP. and Part E (USEPA. A Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) was performed for the T Range.3-diethyl-1. summary tables for the HHRA were developed in order to assist the MassDEP’s risk assessors review of this portion of the report. and Liability Act (CERCLA) style tables found in the HERA in Appendix A. A summary of the frequency of detection. The soil exposure point concentrations for each exposure area of interest were based on the 95% upper confidence limit on the mean in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA. In addition to the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. COCs identified in the risk assessment as contributing to an excess risk of harm to potential human and environmental receptors will be further evaluated as the basis for the identification and evaluation of remedies. The HERA is focused on direct contact and particulate inhalation exposures related to the site soils. and nitroglycerin. 2004a) and in accordance with the established MMR risk assessment protocols. tungsten. arsenic and vanadium were detected at maximum concentrations that were comparable to background in Area 1 and aluminum.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. 2007 5. Compounds in soil were identified as COPCs based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations to risk-based screening criteria protective of direct exposures as follows: • • Area 1 Combined Areas 2 and 3 Aluminum.3-diphenyl urea. tungsten. and vanadium were comparable to background in the combined Areas 2 and 3. 5. arsenic. antimony. 2004c). These metals were carried through as COPCs in the risk assessment. Compensation. minimum and maximum detected concentration and average for each compound of potential concern (COPC) is provided in Table 5-1.

Chemical-specific properties of the COPCs are listed in Table 5-3. The calculated exposure point concentrations for each area of interest are also included in Table 5-1. In calculating exposure point concentrations for soil. combined Areas 2 and 3) were used in deriving exposure point concentrations. or metals were detected in MW-467S. No explosives compounds. Based on information collected to date.1. 1997). 2007 conditions in each of the two exposure areas (Area 1. and non-cancer reference doses or reference concentrations) for the identified COPCs. 5. Non-carcinogenic toxicity values used in the assessment are listed in Table 5-5. which reflect conservative Page 18 .9 μg/L. the ATSDR Minimum Risk Levels. groundwater contamination is not a current risk at the site.1. These concentrations were considered to be representative for the purpose of estimating current and future potential exposures. The likelihood of future risk from groundwater contamination is being assessed separately by USEPA and IAGWSP. which is an on-line USEPA database containing current toxicity values for many chemicals that have gone through a rigorous peer review and USEPA consensus review process (USEPA.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. a value equal to one-half the limit of detection reported by the laboratory was used as a surrogate concentration for those constituents that were not detected in a particular sample. including but not limited to the CalEPA toxicity values.9 μg/L and dissolved tungsten was detected at a concentration of 1. potential exposure pathways. SVOCs.2 Exposure Assessment The exposure assessment identified the potential human receptors.1 Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment summarizes the toxicological data (cancer unit risk or slope values. exposure points for the various media. • • Carcinogenic toxicity values used in the assessment and other related information are presented in Table 5-4. and Tier 3: Additional USEPA and non-USEPA sources of toxicity information. Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenarios were evaluated in this risk assessment. Total tungsten was detected at a concentration of 2. Data from a single down-gradient groundwater monitoring well was compared to risk-based screening criteria. There are no risk-based screening criteria for tungsten in water. and quantification of the magnitude and frequency of receptors’ potential exposure to the identified COPCs in soil. The preferred hierarchy of toxicological information and toxicity values was: • Tier 1: IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 2007). Tier 2: Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) developed by the USEPA Office of Research and Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment/ Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (NCEA). and toxicity values published in the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (USEPA. 5.

A hunter (aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. and inhaling vapors released from groundwater that may migrate up through the soil into indoor air. The routes of exposure for the hypothetical child and adult residents are incidental ingestion. The routes of exposure for the hunter are incidental ingestion. dermal absorption. resulting in lower potential exposures to constituents and. The following receptors and exposure pathways were considered in the HHRA and are summarized in Table 5-6: Current / Potential Receptors: • Military personnel (adults aged 18-28 years) conducting small arms training activities with potential exposures to COPCs in surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site (surface soil is defined as soil in the depth range of 0 to 1 ft bgs). • Exposure pathways considered for the site relating to groundwater included drinking or ingesting the groundwater. Hypothetical residents (a child aged 1-7 years and an adult aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in both the surface and subsurface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. These last two pathways were not likely to be significant for T Range due both to the lack of detected volatiles in the overlying soil and the relatively deep depth to groundwater. lower potential risks associated with those exposures. • • Potential Receptors: • Construction workers (adults aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in both the surface and subsurface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. dermal absorption. Page 19 . and the inhalation of particulates related to the surface soil. therefore. dermal absorption. and the inhalation of particulates related to the surface soil. 2007 exposure assumptions for each identified receptor (USEPA 1999). The routes of exposure for the trespasser are incidental ingestion. These construction workers are not likely to contact or be exposed to groundwater at the site in any manner. This approach is considered to be conservative because. as the depth to groundwater is greater than 100 feet. inhaling volatiles released during water use. most individuals will not be subject to all the conditions that comprise the RME scenario. Given the characteristic depth to groundwater. dermal absorption.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. The routes of exposure for the non-intrusive military trainee are incidental ingestion. A trespasser (aged 12-18 years) with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. and the inhalation of particulates related to the surface soil. dermal absorption. groundwater is not likely to pool up in near surface trenches or excavations. The routes of exposure for the construction worker performing excavation and other intrusive activities are incidental ingestion. in reality.

The risk estimate for this exposure medium and route of exposure (inhalation) was approximately 4. The Total ELCRs for the hypothetical future resident exposed to the soil exposure points were within USEPA’s allowable risk range and above MassDEP’s risk threshold (see Tables 5-8 and 5-9). which exceeds 1. The ELCR for each receptor was compared to the MCP ELCR limit of 1 x 10-5 (one in one hundred thousand) and the USEPA range of 1 x 10-4 (one in ten thousand) to 1 x 10-6 (one in one million). the risk estimates for military personnel engaged in intrusive training activities exposed to soil particulates were 4. Potential hazards associated with exposure to lead were evaluated using the Adult Lead Model (ALM) (USEPA. 5.8. the total ELCRs for current and future trespassers. For each receptor. Lead was selected as a COPC for the Area 1 potential exposure point. To provide information for evaluating all future-use options.3 x 10-5 for Area 1 and 4. 2007 Exposure profiles specific to each of the receptors were compiled from USEPA sources and are summarized in Table 5-7. current and future recreational hunters were within or less than the USEPA and the MassDEP allowable risk benchmarks (range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 and 1x10-5. Total ELCR and total HI for a constituent that does not exceed these risk/hazard limits for a given receptor would indicate that no adverse health effects are expected to occur as a result of that receptor's potential exposure to COPCs. The highest risk estimates were for construction workers exposed to vehicle-generated dusts. current and future military personnel involved with small arms or other non-intrusive training activities.3 x 10-5 for Area 1 and 4. and for adults and children in combined Areas 2 and 3 were less than 1.3 Risk Assessment The risk assessment was performed by inputting site-specific data and assumptions into formulae developed by USEPA for calculation of cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. These values exceed the MassDEP risk limit of 1 x 10-5. Potential health risks were calculated for baseline conditions and address exposures to contaminant levels at the site as they currently exist. 5.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. as presented Tables 5-8 and 5-9 for Exposure Areas 1 and the combined Areas 2 and 3. cumulative Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risks (ELCRs) and non-carcinogenic hazards (expressed as Total Hazard Index (HI)) were estimated. 2003).2 x 10-5 for the combined Areas 2 and 3. Page 20 .4 Results of the HHRA At each of the two potential soil exposure areas. and future construction workers did not exceed 1. respectively) (see Tables 5-8 and 5-9). a hypothetical residential scenario was evaluated in the risk characterization. The total HI for children exposed to COPCs in Area 1 soils was 2. The total HI from potential soil exposures to current and future trespassers. The HI for each receptor or target endpoint (total HI) was compared to a HI of 1 (MassDEP. current and future recreational hunters. current and future military personnel engaged in small arms training or other nonintrusive activities. The total HI from potential soil exposures for adults in Area 1.2 x 10-5 for the combined Areas 2 and 3.1. primarily due to ingestion of nitroglycerin. Nearly all of this risk was due to the assumed presence of hexavalent chromium. Similarly.1.

but it does assume a non-zero baseline blood lead concentration of 1.g. Page 21 .Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. The ALM does not explicitly consider other sources of lead exposure.0 x 10-6 or an HI greater than 1 to a particular receptor were judged to “contribute significantly” to site risks and are summarized below by exposure area for each highlighted receptor (Note: The associated chemical-specific contribution to the ELCR or HI for that COC is included parenthetically): • Construction Workers: Area 1 .e. 2007 2003a) for adult construction workers (Table 5-10) and the adolescent trespasser (Table 11). and the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) Child Lead Model for children (USEPA.1 μg Pb/dL) were compared to this level and were determined to not present a significant risk to children’s health.arsenic (ELCR 1. such as dietary. USEPA has determined that blood lead levels at or above 10 μg Pb/dL present risks to children’s health (USEPA.7 x 10-6). and that other industrial hygiene practices would not be utilized. and. that dust suppression procedures will not be employed.8 x 10-6). Chemicals that were found to individually contribute a carcinogenic risk greater than 1.5 to 1. The blood lead level concentration due to exposure to lead in soil for adult residents as estimated by the AALM was less than 4.8 μg Pb/dL (Table 5-11). even when non-site related sources (e.2 μg Pb/dL even when non-site related sources were included (Table 5-12). the All Ages Lead Model (AALM) (USEPA. For the construction worker. and • Hypothetical Residents: Area 1 – arsenic (ELCR 1.4). The associated probability that fetal blood lead levels would exceed 10 μg Pb/dL is approximately 2% (i. the fetus of a hypothetical pregnant female construction worker would most likely have a blood lead level less than 10 μg Pb/dL)... 1994). 2001b) (Table 5-13).4 μg Pb/dL (Table 5-10).7 μg Pb/dL which reflects exposures to other sources.7 x 10-6) and nitroglycerin (child HI 2. 2005) for adult residents (Table 5-12).5 Human Health Contaminant of Concern Contaminants of concern (COCs) are COPCs that were found to contribute most significantly to site risks. the associated probability that the fetal blood lead level exceeds 10 μg Pb/dL was 1%. The results of the IEUBK modeling (less than 3.arsenic (ELCR 1. dietary) were included with the projected exposures to the Area 1 soil (Table 5-13). These estimates assume that no personal protective equipment will be used.8 x 10-6).arsenic (ELCR 1. the ALM-estimated adult blood lead level concentration associated with exposure to Area 1 soil was less than 2.1. Combined Areas 2 and 3 . and Combined Areas 2 and 3 . 5. the ALM-estimated blood lead level was less than 1. For the adolescent trespasser.

a reasonable degree of certainty that actual risks to individuals exposed to contamination from T Range will not be higher than those estimated in the human health risk assessment and. Physical averaging reduces inter-sample variability. In summary. Uncertainties particular to this assessment are discussed below. and nitroglycerin. 2006b. 5. in fact. For compounds without toxicity values from either IRIS or HEAST. Provisional toxicity values were obtained for aluminum. The increased surface area of the finely ground soil samples which were ground 5-times for 60 second intervals also allows for more metals to be put into solution during the concentrated nitric acid digestion procedure by Method 3050B. The principal limitations of sample compositing are loss of discrete information about the individual sample points. The use of these provisional values contributes to some uncertainty in the overall risk estimates. that is. military personnel engaged in small arms training or other non-intrusive activities. therefore.1.6 Uncertainty All risk assessments contain elements of uncertainty. Page 22 . while the 2006 Project Note samples were 50-point or 100-point composite samples. and vanadium from USEPA and the NCEA (USEPA. 2006c). 2006a. may be much lower. The 2002 Supplemental Investigation samples were 5-point composite samples and discrete samples. As indicated previously.5 to 1. which results in increased precision of the resulting estimate of the overall average concentration (or grand mean). Most of the soil samples were composite samples. 2007).0 bgs) the concentrations of arsenic measured in T Range soil samples are comparable to background as measured in the outwash sample and as established by MassDEP for “natural” soil. the soil COCs for T Range are limited to arsenic. During the grinding processes small pieces of the high chromium cast iron steel alloy grinder may be introduced into the sample. In addition. the 2006 Project Note samples were ground in a high chromium cast iron steel alloy puck mill grinder prior to analysis. nitroglycerin.4 mg/kg arsenic in SS169A 0. Composite samples are essentially a physical averaging of the soil found at each of the grid nodes or points. There is. As evidenced in the Ottowa sand grinding blank samples with and without grinding. and the potential for dilution of the contaminants in a sample with uncontaminated material. 2007 No soil COCs were identified for the trespasser. or the hunter. It should be noted that with the exception of one soil sample (23. toxicity values from Tier 3 sources were used in this evaluation without review of the basis of the RfD(s). All metals concentrations detected during the 2006 investigation are highly dubious and many appear to be artificially elevated. Most assumptions made in developing the baseline risk estimates were biased toward health protectiveness. toward overestimating rather than underestimating risk. the oral RfD for tungsten is based on an unpublished no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from a Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) toxicity study (USACHPPM.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. the grinding process elevates all of the metals concentrations.

The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was selected to represent carnivorous terrestrial avian receptors. Herbivorous Mammals. The short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) was identified as being native to the MMR area and is a species that consumes terrestrial plants.2. fruits. Three avian species and three mammalian species were selected as receptors of interest across the site. The species chosen were selected given that they are all endemic to the terrestrial habitats present in the MMR area. and they include upper tropic level receptors: • Herbivorous Birds. and bark). weedy or brushy habitats. The chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) was selected to represent a largely herbivorous avian species. the shrew is potentially exposed to on-site chemicals for its entire lifetime. small mammals (e. The robin feeds on terrestrial plants. the normal food chain functioning within the affected habitat. 5. they represent the different foraging behaviors anticipated for avian and mammalian wildlife common to the terrestrial habitats present. ground-dwelling rodents) and snakes identified at MMR. 1997) for determining “key organisms” in an ecological food web: (1) resident communities or species exposed to highest chemical concentrations in surface soil. or indicative of. earthworms. grasses. Omnivorous Birds.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Chipping sparrows are found in grassy. • • • • Page 23 . These mice have been identified at MMR and feed primarily on plant matter (shoots. The white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) was selected to represent a largely herbivorous mammalian species. Omnivorous Mammals. The complete BERA may be found in Appendix A of this report. Both avian predators (hawks) and mammalian predators (foxes) prey upon mice.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment The purpose of the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) is to identify contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) in surface soils which may pose potential risk to terrestrial ecological receptors utilizing habitat present at the T Range. Carnivorous Birds. The American robin (Turdus migratorius) was selected to represent omnivorous terrestrial avian receptors. and soil invertebrates. and other invertebrates in soil. and have been identified at MMR. (2) species or functional groups considered to be essential to. as a top-level terrestrial predator that preys on small birds. in addition to small amounts of insects.g.1 Identification of Representative Wildlife Receptors Criteria for the selection of wildlife receptors included two factors specified in USEPA guidance (USEPA. Because of its small home range.. rabbits. it is a commonly observed species in the MMR. 2007 5.

Section 3.1. Macro-elements such as phosphorus. The primary exposure media considered in the BERA for T Range was surface soils (0-1ft. 5.3. and poultry.3 Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Contaminants of potential ecological concern are chemicals that have the potential to present a risk to the representative wildlife receptors identified in Section 5.1 of Appendix A presents the soil screening level assessment for identification of COPECs.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. bgs). and magnesium have been identified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as essential nutrients and were not considered to be problematic or site related. rabbits. not evaluated in the COPEC screening process. This CSM was used to identify the exposure pathways and routes through which the identified wildlife receptors may be exposed to contaminants associated with historical range uses. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was selected to represent carnivorous terrestrial mammalian species. Copper. These detected analytes were. These behavioral functions resulting in the incidental ingestion of soils could include ingestion of soil particles during feeding or ingestion of soil particles during grooming or preening.3 compares maximum detected concentrations to relevant ecological screening values (USEPA ECO-SSLs) for identification of COPECs. The soil screening level assessment described in Appendix A.2. 2007 • Carnivorous Mammals.2. calcium. The primary exposure pathways and routes included ingestion of dietary items that have bioaccumulated contaminants from surface soils and incidental ingestion of surface soils by the receptors during normal behavioral activities in the habitats present.2 Conceptual Site Model Based upon the results of the ecological receptor selection process. a site visit and the terrestrial habitats present on the site. Cadmium. Arsenic. 5. Antimony.2. sodium. Incidental ingestion of soils occur as part of normal behavioral functions by the wildlife species. Red fox prey extensively on mice and voles but also feed on other small mammals. insects. Bioaccumulation was the primary exposure route considered in the dietary component of the CSM. a site-specific food web conceptual site model (CSM) (Figure 3-1) was created. Page 24 . potassium. game birds. This species is a terrestrial predator present throughout the United States and Canada that has been observed at MMR. A total of nine COPECs were identified in the soil screening level assessment for the Site: Nitroglycerin. Table 3. therefore.

omnivorous and carnivorous mammalian receptors. the risks associated with estimated exposures were characterized. this potential risk was determined to be low as the maximum and mean concentration of vanadium was within the range of published MassDEP background levels. the potential ecological risks were attributed to lead exposure at the site.5 Potential Ecological Risks for T Range The ecological receptor groups where potential risks were identified include herbivorous and omnivorous mammalian and avian species and carnivorous mammal species. In this step. Page 25 . 5.2. For both the herbivorous and omnivorous avian species.4 of Appendix A to this report. However. Predicted exposure to vanadium at T Range exceeded both the NOAEL and LOAEL TRV for herbivorous. and (3) uncertainty analysis. The complete ecological risk characterization can be found in Section 3. and assumptions employed in the risk assessment were fully described.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. weaknesses. Exposure and associated risk to lead appeared low because modeled exposure dosages to avian receptors were below the LOAEL toxicity reference value (TRV). Tungsten. 5. (2) risk description.2.4 Ecological Risk Characterization Risk characterization uses the output from the screening process steps of the ERA and involves three principal steps: (1) risk estimation and characterization. This list of COPECs was carried through the ERA process to assess exposure to the wildlife receptors previously identified. and the strengths. and Vanadium. 2007 Lead. Exposure point concentrations were calculated as the arithmetic mean of the relevant data (setting any undetected results to one-half the reported quantitation limit).

The ecological receptor groups where potential risks were identified include herbivorous and omnivorous mammalian and avian species and carnivorous mammal species. For both the herbivorous and omnivorous avian species. the human health risk assessment also indicates that potential excess lifetime cancer risks are less than or within USEPA’s allowable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for all current or future receptors included in the risk assessment and fall within the allowable risk range for future hypothetical residents (between 1. trespassers and recreational hunters). Page 26 . The calculated HI for future hypothetical child residents in Area 1 exceeds 1 primarily due to ingestion of nitroglycerin in soil. the potential ecological risks were attributed to lead exposure at the site. Predicted exposure to vanadium at T Range exceeded both the NOAEL and LOAEL TRV for herbivorous. The human health risk assessment indicates that potential noncarcinogenic effects are not expected for any of the likely current site receptors included in the evaluation. Exposure and associated risk to lead appeared low because modeled exposure dosages to avian receptors were below the LOAEL toxicity reference value (TRV). omnivorous and carnivorous mammalian receptors. this potential risk was determined to be low as the maximum and mean concentration of vanadium was within the range of published MassDEP background levels. the risk assessment demonstrates that for the most likely and expected current and future uses. These include propellants near the firing line that are likely attributable to deposition of propellants from the bullet cartridges and lead deposited on the range floor near the firing line and lesser concentrations down range. This is consistent with the assumed conceptual site model described in Section 4.3x10-6). the T Range does not pose an unacceptable cancer or non-cancer risk. recreational hunters. military personnel training at T Range.9x10-6 and 2. the receptors hazard indices associated with potential exposure to soil are still all less than one for all current receptors and all future receptors except child residents. Future residential development is unlikely to occur. future receptors (trespassers.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. However. and construction workers) and hypothetical future residents at T Range. Similarly.0 Potential human health risks were estimated for current receptors (military personnel engaged in firearms training. Thus.0 CONCLUSIONS Small arms firing at T Range has lead to the deposition of detectable levels of several analytes on the soil. 2007 6. Given the conservative assumptions used in this evaluation of potential non-cancer risk.

9 May 2007. 2007 REFERENCES AMEC. T Range Sampling Plan Project Note. AMEC. Carol A. Westford. 2005. Deep Soil Background Evaluation. Environmental Assessment of Lead at Camp Edwards. Keating. 2005a. MassDEP. Office of Research and Standards. Standards and Guidelines for Contaminants in Massachusetts Drinking Waters. Draft Technical Memorandum 01-1 (TM 01-1). 1998. Massachusetts Military Reservation Master Plan Final Report: Prepared in conjunction with the Community Working Group By the Cape Cod Commission. Massachusetts. Jenkins. MAARNG. IAGWSP. Massachusetts. November 1. 2005b. Final Supplemental Phase 2b Work Plan. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. AMEC. Camp Edwards. Inc. Massachusetts.S. 2004. AMEC Earth and Environmental. Response to USEPA and MassDEP Comments on the July 2004 Draft Health and Ecological (HERA) Work Plan. Cape Cod. March 17. IAGWSP Final Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan. Massachusetts Military Reservation. 2003. Massachusetts. AMEC. Westford. 2001c. Boston. Massachusetts Army National Guard. Cape Cod.0000] effective: June 27. December 12. 2003. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Letter to Ms. Spring. 29 June 2006. Westford. Inc. 2001. AMEC. 2007. Shallow Soil Background Evaluation. AMEC. U. Camp Edwards. Region 1. 2006. 2005e. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Experimental Laboratory. AMEC Earth and Environmental. Addendum to TM 01-1. Massachusetts. 2005b. Cape Cod Commission. The Massachusetts Contingency Plan [310 CMR 40. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program. IAGWSP. 2001d. Massachusetts Military Reservation. AMEC Earth and Environmental. AMEC. Massachusetts. MassDEP. U. Massachusetts. 13 p. April 24. Final Technical Memorandum 02-2 (TM 02-2) Small Arms Range Report. 2003. AMEC Earth and Environmental.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. June 17. 2002. Inc. Camp Edwards. 2003. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. MA. Inc.S. Westford. Request for Information Regarding SESOIL as part of USEPA’s Review of the Army’s 11/1/05 RTC – Draft HERA Work Plan. Massachusetts Small Arms Ranges. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. CRREL. Page 27 .

Massachusetts. 1993. Savoie. A. New England District. L. Massachusetts. D. 2007 MassDEP. J. U. United States Department of Agriculture.. Standards. June 1990. 2002. Rood. Page 28 . A. 2007. S. Soil Survey of Barnstable County. 211 p. 1997. 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)/Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). United Army Corps of Engineers. Massachusetts Military Reservation. 2007. 1990. Marlborough. NGB. January 31. Massachusetts. Background Document for the Development of the MCP Numerical Masterson. P. Westford. Office of Research and Standards. USDA. April. Cape Cod. 2002. Walter. Hydrogeologic Framework of Western Cape Cod. B. Impact Area Groundwater Study. Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-741. March 1993. and Hull. United Army Corps of Engineers. Natural and Cultural Resources Environmental Compliance Assessment. and ENSR International.D. 2007. 102 Fighter Interceptor Wing. Massachusetts Air National Guard. and J. Massachusetts. Stone. Draft Screening Assessment of Soil Samples at Two Small Arms Ranges at MMR. New England District. Geological Survey. Updated Calculation of Maximum Allowable Soil Concentrations for the Protection of Groundwater for Lead and Other Compounds Associated with Firearms at the Massachusetts Military Reserve. April 11.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Draft Final T Range Soil & Groundwater Investigation Report June 4. Draft Technical Update—Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil.. MassDEP. 2007. April. Idaho National Laboratory. USACE. USACE. MA.

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program 10 LEGEND 20 30 40 Small Arms Ranges B-12 C-13 50 Military Training Areas Groundwater Elevation Contours (in feet above NGVD) Water Level Contours .MMR10 B-11 C-14 54 B-10 B-9 60 52 50 48 46 44 42 C-15 C-16 5 6 B-8 T Range 56 BA-5 A-6 B-7 LOCATION MAP A-5 A-3 BA-4 A-4 A-2 BA-3 BA-1 NOTES & SOURCES Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos. 2006 DWN: MTW CHKD: MRK SEL .pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig1-1_110706.000 Feet FIGURE 1-1 M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig1-1_110706.mxd November 7. Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International A-1 BA-6 BA-2 TITLE T Range Location of Study Area 0 7.

MMR10 Moraine Deposits Outwash Deposits C-15 re stu Pa at Go Rd . Sp ru c s cas Po et S a R ich nd w BA-5 NOTES & SOURCES Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos.000 Feet FIGURE 2-1 M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig2-1_110706. 2006 DWN: MTW CHKD: MRK SEL .Sw am p B-11 C-13 Mo nu Impact Area Groundwater Study Program LEGEND Small Arms Ranges Military Training Areas me nt 40 30 B-10 C-14 Groundwater Elevation Contours 50 (in feet above NGVD) Water Level Contours . C-16 LOCATION MAP eS wa mp T Range d. Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International TITLE Location of T Range 0 2. 60 Gib bs Rd .mxd November 7. Rd .pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig2-1_110706.

Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International TITLE T Range Surficial Geology of Western Cape Cod 0 1 Miles FIGURE 2-2 M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig2-2_110706.mxd November 7.pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig2-2_110706. 2006 DWN: MTW CHKD: MRK SEL .Cape Cod Bay Impact Area Groundwater Study Program LEGEND Small Arms Ranges e Ca p an Co d C al Surficial Geology Till or Bedrock End Moraines Sand and Gravel Deposits Sandy Till over Sand Large Sand Deposits T Range sh Sa n Fine-Grained Deposits dw Floodplain Alluvium ich Mo ut w a r ai ne LOCATION MAP ay O Buzzards Bay ay M o r ai ne rds B Buz za Buz za rds B S pr uc Approximate Location of Groundwater Mound eS w am p Rd . Mashpee Pitted Plain NOTES & SOURCES Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos.

26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 22 24 Impact Area Groundwater Study Program LEGEND Small Arms Ranges Groundwater Elevation Contours (in feet above NGVD) MMR-10 48 46 52 50 54 56 58 LOCATION MAP T Range 60 62 64 NOTES & SOURCES Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos. Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International TITLE Surface Water Bodies in Proximity to T Range 66 0 2.pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig2-3_110706. 2006 DWN: MTW CHKD: MRK SEL .mxd November 7.000 Feet FIGURE 2-3 M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig2-3_110706.

TM 02-2 T Range Sampling Locations 3-1 .

aml MMR3713 DRAFT: 02/25/03 .(April 2002) F I GUR E 3-2 c:/chemmaps/mmrdata/mmr/spatial/ogden/amls/qdmmr.

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program A’ SS169F MW-467S LEGEND Sampling Grids GroundwaterFlowDirection Soil Grid West SS169C SS169E Monitoring Well B West North SS169B SS169D Center South SS169A Center East Area 1 LOCATION MAP irectio n East MW-489S Flow D West Area 2 Groun d water Center Area 3 East B’ NOTES & SOURCES Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos.pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig3-3_051507. 2007 DWN: MTW CHKD: MRK SEL .mxd May 15. Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International TITLE A T Range Project Note Sampling Locations (June 2006) 0 100 Feet FIGURE 3-3 M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig3-3_051507.

Area 2 Center ANALYTE PERCHLORATE NITROGLYCERIN LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 2 East ANALYTE LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 2 West ANALYTE LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN

Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006

Units μg/kg μg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") ND ND 123 742 ND 3.6 77.1

(0-3") Rep Backgd ND ND 99.1 19 355 11 ND 1.9 3.1 5.5 46.5

SSL 3.1395 1.0168 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG 7821 34741 40 313 3.13 2.16

S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 50000 300 1000 20 20

300 20 20

Area 1 Center North ANALYTE PERCHLORATE NITROGLYCERIN 1,3-DIETHYL-1,3-DIPHENYL UREA LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 1 Center South ANALYTE PERCHLORATE NITROGLYCERIN LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 1 East ANALYTE LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 1 West ANALYTE

Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006

Units μg/kg μg/kg μg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") ND 26000 800 461 31.5 1.7 J 3 0.86

(0-3") Rep Backgd ND 47000 2300 467 19 30.5 11 2J 1.9 2.8 5.5 0.9

SSL 3.1395 1.0168 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG 7821 34741 40 313 3.13 2.16

S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 50000 300 20 20 300 1000 20 20

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program
LEGEND

Sampling Grids GroundwaterFlowDirection

Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006

Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") 78.3 174 ND 2.7 15.5

Backgd 19 11 1.9 5.5

SSL 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 40 300 300 313 1000 3.13 20 20 2.16 20 20

Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006

Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") 131 312 ND 3.9 25.4

Backgd 19 11 1.9 5.5

SSL 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 40 300 300 313 1000 3.13 20 20 2.16 20 20

Area 1

Date 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006

Units μg/kg μg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") ND 3200 386 110 1.9 J 3 3.5

(9-12") ND ND 100 41.4 0.93 J 3.7 0.99

Backgd

19 11 1.9 5.5

SSL 3.1395 1.0168 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG 7821 34741 40 313 3.13 2.16

S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 50000 300 1000 20 20

Soil Grid Monitoring Well

300 20 20

Area 2

SS169F

MW-467S

Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006

Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") 87.4 22.2 ND 2.2 1.1

(0-3") Rep Backgd 117 19 9 11 ND 1.9 2.1 5.5 0.81

SSL 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG 40 313 3.13 2.16

S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 300 300 1000 20 20 20 20

SS169E

West
SS169C SS169B

North Center SS169A South East East

LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN

Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006

Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") 180 42.7 0.83 J 3 1

(0-3") Rep Backgd 243 19 42.8 11 0.85 J 1.9 2.8 5.5 1.4

SSL 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG 40 313 3.13 2.16

S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 300 300 1000 20 20 20 20

LOCATION MAP

SS169D

West

Center

MW-489S

West

Center East

Ground w Flow D ater irection

NOTES & SOURCES
Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos; Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International

Area 3 Center ANALYTE PERCHLORATE LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 3 East ANALYTE LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN Area 3 West ANALYTE LEAD COPPER ANTIMONY ARSENIC TUNGSTEN

Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006

Units μg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") ND 66.2 36 ND 3.2 3

(0-3") Rep Backgd ND 97.1 19 31.6 11 ND 1.9 3.2 5.5 3.2

SSL 3.1395 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG 7821 40 313 3.13 2.16

S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 300 20 20 300 1000 20 20

TITLE

Area 3

Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006

Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") 82.5 29.1 ND 3.9 11.8

Backgd 19 11 1.9 5.5

SSL 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 40 300 300 313 1000 3.13 20 20 2.16 20 20

T Range Project Note Sampling Results (June 2006)
0 100 Feet FIGURE

Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006

Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

(0-3") 41.4 8.4 ND 3.3 0.69

Backgd 19 11 1.9 5.5

SSL 4.0526 45.727 0.271 0.009

PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS-1 40 300 300 313 1000 3.13 20 20 2.16 20 20

DRAFT
M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig3-4_051507.pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig3-4_051507.mxd May 15, 2007 DWN: MTW CHKD: SEL

3-4

JE
Project Name/Number: Loc. I.D.: Location: Drilling Contractor/Driller Geologist: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Start Date: Complete Date: Total Drilled Depth: MW-467S Screen Interval:
MAARNG Small Arms Ranges/35AY5301

DRAFT

Jacobs Engineering Monitoring Well Construction Diagram
KEY Bentonite sea No. 00N; 1 Sand 10 slot screen Natural Cave-In Schedule 80 PVC (2.5" OD) Schedule 40 PVC (2.0" OD)

MW-467S (T-1) T Range Dragin Drilling / Brett Swiatek Don Melcher Hollow Stem Auger na 9/28/2006 9/29/2006 137.00' 124.94-134.94'

Ground Surface 0.38' Top PVC 0.75' Top of Natural Fil

119.00' Top of Bentonite Sea 122.00' Top #00N Sand Pack 124.94' Top of Screen 126.75' Water Table 134.94' Bottom of Screen 135.16' Bottom of Well (134.78' TOC)

137.00' Bottom of Borehole/Sand Pack TITLE Well Construction Diagram MW-467S FIGURE 3-5

JE
Project Name/Number: Loc. I.D.: Location: Drilling Contractor/Driller Site Inspector: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Start Date: Complete Date: Total Drilled Depth: S Screen Interval:
Small Arms Ranges (Tungsten) / 35AY5301

DRAFT

Jacobs Engineering Monitoring Well Construction Diagram
KEY Bentonite sea No. 00N Sand 10 slot screen Soil Cuttings Backfil Schedule 40 PVC (2.0" OD)

MW-489S T Range downrange of berm Dragin Drilling / B. Swiatek Lou Baerga Hollow Stem Auger Dedicated bladder pump 4/18/2007 4/24/2007 135.2' 124.58-134.58'

Ground Surface 0.46' Top PVC 0.9' Top of Soil Cuttings Backfil

117.2' Top of Bentonite Sea 120.4' Top #00N Sand Pack 124.58' Top of Screen 125.87' Water Table (4/24/2007) 134.58' Bottom of Screen 134.71' Bottom of Well ( TOC) 134.25'

135.2' Bottom of Borehole TITLE Well Construction Diagram MW-489S FIGURE 3-6

Impact Area Groundwater Study Program
LEGEND

Monitoring Wells Reverse Particle Track

MW-467S

LOCATION MAP

MW-489S

NOTES & SOURCES
Basemap data from US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute Topographic Maps: Source: MassGIS Aerial Photos: Color Digital Orthophotos; Date Flown: 2002 Source: EarthData International

TITLE

T Range Reverse Particle Tracks MW-467S and MW-489S
0 150 Feet FIGURE

DRAFT
M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig3-7_051507.pdf M:\MMR\2006\TangoRange\110706\Fig3-7_051507.mxd May 15, 2007 DWN: MTW CHKD: MRK SEL

3-7

...\TangoRange\Figures\MMRC301.S01 5/30/2007 10:59:27 AM

.S02 5/30/2007 11:00:21 AM ..\TangoRange\Figures\MMRC302..

46 99261 231595 SSL .35 2.18 292.93 203.59 17100 21 7 41. > RCS1 2 22 1 8 12 1 18 2 1 3 1 1 2 37 33 37 28 37 16 300 7 300 7 300 400 100 400 2500 700 700 700 7000 100000 7000 1.3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE BENZO(A)PYRENE BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE CHRYSENE DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE FLUORANTHENE INDENO(1.70 0.23 260.96 150832 108129 316.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .1 0.39 537.13 2.60 9.76 16.82 2346.32 40 176.92 4.40 7.89 312.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .38 9.50 24 0.0E+08 34741 62146 611031 229361 621.15 0.48 72016 3403.49 15.20 3.46 6214. > PRG 19 6 28 S-1/GW-1 10 30 1000 0.57 1.32 No.57 29.43 39. > SSL 17 28 4 36 PRG 7614.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .48 114.60 460 460 460 460 No.4 J 21.77 19028 No.2.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .0E+06 100000 7000 50000 1.70 30 1000 500 1000 No.70 210. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SILVER VANADIUM ZINC 1.Estimated value Page 1 of 1 .13 0.D)PYRENE N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE PYRENE Frequency of Detections 37 of 37 17 of 37 28 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 29 of 37 13 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 28 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 25 of 37 3 of 37 37 of 37 37 of 37 15 of 38 1 of 38 2 of 38 1 of 38 1 of 38 15 of 38 21 of 38 3 of 38 3 of 38 3 of 38 1 of 38 1 of 38 5 of 38 Maximum Detected Concentration 20400 91.11 7.92 36.3 61.3-DIETHYL-1.8 736 1.01 114.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .11 156.38 3.8 0.52 0.44 1600 3.0E+06 700 100000 700000 37 1 460 460 460 460 1 621.24 39.009 120.60 0.38 45.99 7.70 30 1000 No.11 39.73 2421.Table 3-1 T Range TM 02-2 Data Summary Table (Soils 0-1') Analyte ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.27 0.3-C.46 62.98 14.05 44.05 2201.86 2346.68 902.80 25.20 10 766 1.15 621.9 J 23.0E+06 700 700000 300 400 100 400 2500 700 700 700 7000 1.90 5.1 6200 100 J 47 J 110 J 96 J 50 J 140 J 140 J 37 J 180 J 18 J 36 J 240 J Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG Location of Maximum Detection HD169B3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169D3BAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3BAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HC169C1AAA HD169B3CAA HD169A3CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HD169B3CAA HD169C3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3CAA HD169A3AAA HD169B3CAA HC169A1BAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169D3AAA HD169F3CAD HD169E3BAA HC169D1BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HC169D1BAA HD169E3BAA Bkgd Outwash (0-1 foot) 16019 1. > Bkgd 1 9 1 SSL 54006 0.8 0.02 132.74 28.6 19300 5800 J 3130 165 0.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1. > S-1/GW-1 2 RCS1 10 30 1000 0.

73 2421.6 8820 276 1300 J J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 1.9 5.68 902.70 210.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .7 28.67 11.05 2201.40 7.18 292.0E+08 34741 231595 S-1/GW-1 RCS1 J J X X X X X 10 30 1000 0.27 0.68 902.92 4.89 312.7 25.9 0. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE PYRENE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.3 23 20 19 10.40 7.35 2.5 24 0.82 2346.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1AAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM Concentration 5970 3.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .05 44.92 4.52 0.13 0.49 15.6 0.9 0.52 15900 11.35 10100 11.5 2.38 45.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 16019 1.60 9.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.5 0.7 30 1000 10 30 1000 0.25 2.2 7230 540 961 58.9 5.7 30 1000 10 30 1000 0.32 1.Estimated value Page 1 of 22 .1 2 41.9 27.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.27 2.02 132.009 120.32 40 X X 10 30 1000 0.38 9.47 4.11 7.9 0.73 2421.009 120.6 0.9 13.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .52 0.20 3.05 X X 7614.9 0.43 39.7 30 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X X X 300 SSL.92 72016 19028 PRG 7614.6 2.11 156.1 513 0.13 2.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.7 30 1000 500 1000 X 300 X X X X X X J X X X X X X 300 J 300 400 400 2500 100000 700000 300 400 400 2500 1.89 312.5 24 0.44 1600 3.60 9.32 40 176.13 0.24 39.9 3.27 0.44 1600 3.38 45.15 0.2 10 766 1.0E+06 100000 700000 J X J J J * 460 8140 2.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 X 54006 0.86 2346.20 3.76 260.8 25.02 132.1 Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 54006 0.70 210.35 2.49 15.4 9.39 537.86 2346.39 537.38 9.

32 40 176.05 44.76 260.89 312.60 9.8 25.32 34741 611031 X X 10 30 1000 0.4 3.82 2346.27 0.68 902.92 72016 PRG 176.5 20.9 5.4 13.18 1800 13 4 16.18 292.49 15.8 19 22 12.39 537.6 0.7 10 30 1000 0.2 623 0.70 210.73 2421.6 > Bkgd > SSL X X > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1BAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169A1CAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.2 10 766 1.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .44 1600 3.38 54006 0.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.43 39. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM Concentration 75.11 7.20 3.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.76 260.27 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.20 3.35 2.2 J J J J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 1.32 34741 S-1/GW-1 RCS1 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 100000 X X 11900 2.49 15.35 2.3 61.3 603 1.02 132.9 12300 256 1340 81 0.44 X X 10 30 1000 0.9 5.7 28.5 24 0.5 13 0.05 2201.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .Estimated value Page 2 of 22 .8 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 44.11 156.92 4.9 0.05 2201.82 2346.15 0.27 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 1.52 0.38 9.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.009 120.13 0.47 J 5.66 7.7 30 1000 10 30 1000 0.8 25.7 28.009 120.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .11 7.11 156.8 0.1 19 J 14.2 10 766 1.38 45.13 0.40 7.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 134 1.39 537.76 J 14.15 0.13 2.6 X 54006 0.92 72016 150832 X X 7614.7 SSL.24 39.27 2.24 39.18 292.86 2346.43 39.8 16.7 30 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X X X X X 300 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 100000 50000 X 8850 1.4 0.60 X X 7614.2 4.5 24 0.13 2.

Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A - 169F)
Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 9.6 0.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1

Sample ID HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1AAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA

Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002

Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB

Analyte BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1,3-DIETHYL-1,3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE PYRENE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC

Concentration 2.5 0.24 6060 11.4 3.3 18.8 9780 195 J 1320 80.4 0.39 J 5.9 647 0.71 J 15.3 21 22 J 30 J 34 J 20 J 11.3 *

Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT

SSL 9.52 0.40 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92

PRG 1600 3.70 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32 1.0E+08 34741 231595

S-1/GW-1 30 1000

RCS1 30 1000 500 1000 300

X X

X X

X X X X

X X

300

300 400 400 2500

300 400 400 2500 1.0E+06 100000 700000

X

460

72016 19028

100000 700000

10100 3.6 11 0.25 2.8 328 11.4 3.7 6.5 10900 57.9 1170 75.6 0.49 6.8 562 0.82 18.1 14.2

J

J

J

J

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG

16019 5.5 24 0.38 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6

54006 0.009 120.35 2.60 9.52 X 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92

X

7614.20 0.39 537.49 15.44 1600 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32

X X

30 1000 0.7

30 1000 0.7

X

1000

1000 500 1000 300

X

X X X X

X X

300

300 400 400 2500

300 400 400 2500

X

SSL- MMR Soil Screening Level PRG- Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD- MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 - MCP Method 1 value RCS1- MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil

*=not validated J - Estimated value

Page 3 of 22

Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A - 169F)
Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1

Sample ID HC169B1BAA HC169B1BAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169B1CAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA

Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002

Method Analyte SW8270 1,3-DIETHYL-1,3-DIPHENYL UREA D2216M MOISTURE IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC {ND on all 78} analytes MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM

Concentration 18 J 13.7 *

Units UG/KG PERCENT

SSL

PRG

S-1/GW-1

RCS1

14800 4.3 15.6 0.3 2.5 368 15.4 4.6 6.1 16600 55.2 1800 104 0.7 9.3 596 1.3 24.8 19 15.8

J

J

J

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG PERCENT

16019 5.5 24 0.38 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6

54006 0.009 120.35 2.60 9.52 X X 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92

X

7614.20 0.39 537.49 15.44 1600 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32

X X

30 1000 0.7

30 1000 0.7

X

1000

1000 500 1000 300

X

X X X X

X X

300

300 400 400 2500

300 400 400 2500

X

*

8280 4 3.1 10.6 0.28 0.29 12600 13.5 3.8 41.6 9810 394 1440 72.4 0.86

J

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG

16019 1.9 5.5 24 0.38 0.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2

X

54006 0.27 0.009 120.35 2.60 0.40 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18

X X

7614.20 3.13 0.39 537.49 15.44 3.70 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11

X X X

10 30 1000 0.7 30 1000

10 30 1000 0.7 30 1000 500 1000 X 300 X

X X

X X

X X X X

X X

300

SSL- MMR Soil Screening Level PRG- Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD- MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 - MCP Method 1 value RCS1- MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil

*=not validated J - Estimated value

Page 4 of 22

Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A - 169F)
Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1

Sample ID HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1AAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1BAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA

Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002

Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB

Analyte NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC {ND on all 78} analytes MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON

Concentration 7.1 543 0.42 J 16 24.4 11.3 *

Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG PERCENT

SSL 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92

PRG 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32

S-1/GW-1 300 400 400 2500

RCS1 300 400 400 2500

X

10100 1.3 2.4 10.2 0.25 720 11.3 4.1 5.7 10100 123 1380 62.4 0.73 7.9 479 0.47 16 14.6 27 12.1

J

J *

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT

16019 1.9 5.5 24 0.38 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6

54006 0.27 0.009 120.35 2.60 X X 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92 72016

X X

7614.20 3.13 0.39 537.49 15.44 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32 34741

X X 10 30 1000 0.7 1000 10 30 1000 0.7 1000 500 1000 300

X

X

X X X X

X X

300

300 400 400 2500 100000

300 400 400 2500 100000

X

11800 1.3 2.8 14 0.28 2460 11 6.3 12.3 15000

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG

16019 1.9 5.5 24 0.38 288 19 4 11 17800

54006 0.27 0.009 120.35 2.60 X X X 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92

X X

7614.20 3.13 0.39 537.49 15.44 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32

X X 10 30 1000 0.7 1000 10 30 1000 0.7 1000 500 1000

X

X

X

SSL- MMR Soil Screening Level PRG- Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD- MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 - MCP Method 1 value RCS1- MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil

*=not validated J - Estimated value

Page 5 of 22

Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A - 169F)
Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6 > Bkgd X X X > SSL X X X > PRG X > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1

Sample ID HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169C1CAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1AAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA

Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002

Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB

Analyte LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC {ND on all 78} analytes MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1,3-DIETHYL-1,3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM

Concentration 189 3130 165 0.52 J 8.1 608 0.7 J 22.2 30.2 9.9 *

Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG PERCENT

SSL 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92

PRG 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32

S-1/GW-1 300

RCS1 300

300 400 400 2500

300 400 400 2500

X

X

9030 3.3 13.8 0.23 3.7 379 10.8 2.6 4.1 9830 12.5 970 59.5 0.84 5.2 541 19.2 15.6 1100 46 23 18.3

J J *

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT

16019 5.5 24 0.38 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 28.8 25.6

54006 0.009 120.35 2.60 9.52 X 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 260.05 2201.92

X

7614.20 0.39 537.49 15.44 1600 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 7.82 2346.32 1.0E+08 34741

X X

30 1000 0.7

30 1000 0.7

X

1000

1000 500 1000 300

X X X X

X 300

300 X 400 2500

300 400 2500 1.0E+06 100000

72016

100000

8850 0.45 3.3 13.5 0.24

J

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG

16019 1.9 5.5 24 0.38

54006 0.27 0.009 120.35 2.60

X X

7614.20 3.13 0.39 537.49 15.44

X X 10 30 1000 0.7 10 30 1000 0.7

SSL- MMR Soil Screening Level PRG- Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD- MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 - MCP Method 1 value RCS1- MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil

*=not validated J - Estimated value

Page 6 of 22

Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A - 169F)
Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.2 10 766 1.7 28.8 25.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1

Sample ID HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1BAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA HC169D1CAA

Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002

Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M

Analyte BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1,3-DIETHYL-1,3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM, TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1,3-DIETHYL-1,3-DIPHENYL UREA MOISTURE

Concentration 3.4 270 10.8 3.1 5.7 9640 11.3 1060 68.6 0.79 6 539 0.48 J 18.2 17.4 160 J 37 J 18 J 37 J 36 J 14.9 *

Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT

SSL 9.52 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 0.18 292.13 2.76 260.05 2201.92

PRG 1600 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 39.11 156.43 39.11 7.82 2346.32 1.0E+08 34741 611031 99261

S-1/GW-1

RCS1

X

1000

1000 500 1000 300

X X X X

X 300

300 400 400 2500

300 400 400 2500 1.0E+06 100000 50000 100000

X

72016 150832 7.77

100000

X

8050 2.5 11.8 0.31 3.1 181 10.7 4.2 4.4 9240 5.5 1420 81.4 7 671 14.9 16.1 57 10.5

J *

MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT

16019 5.5 24 0.38 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 28.8 25.6

54006 0.009 120.35 2.60 9.52 7.02 132.38 45.73 2421.92 4.05 44.15 292.13 260.05 2201.92

X

7614.20 0.39 537.49 15.44 1600 210.68 902.89 312.86 2346.32 40 176.24 156.43 7.82 2346.32

X X

30 1000 0.7

30 1000 0.7

X

1000

X

1000 500 1000 300

X X X

X 300

300 X 400 2500

300 400 2500

SSL- MMR Soil Screening Level PRG- Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD- MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 - MCP Method 1 value RCS1- MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil

*=not validated J - Estimated value

Page 7 of 22

32 34741 X 30 1000 0.38 45.92 4.5 24 0.2 13.86 2346.8 10.32 40 176.65 5.02 132.24 156.4 955 68.49 15.13 260.6 54006 0.02 132.43 7.32 X 30 1000 0.52 7.7 MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 5.2 0.73 2421.009 120.Estimated value Page 8 of 22 .60 9.1 556 15.2 10 766 28.15 292.29 3.05 44.2 5.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.3-DIPHENYL UREA BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.7 1400 23 15 J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 5.11 156.35 3.35 2.8 8750 11. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1AAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.05 44.2 569 16.89 312.5 24 0.4 297 9.6 54006 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.52 X 7.35 2.60 9.8 25.92 72016 X 7614.43 7.3-DIETHYL-1.15 0.4 14.44 1600 210.20 0.20 0. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC Concentration Units SSL PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS1 7160 3.82 2346.68 902.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 28.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.7 30 1000 0.86 2346.8 4.44 1600 210.49 15.7 30 1000 0.5 2.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X 300 300 X 400 2500 100000 300 400 2500 100000 7120 1.18 292.5 9430 6.92 4.24 39.38 45.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X 300 300 X 400 2500 300 400 2500 SSL.82 2346.6 0.1 0.8 25.92 X 7614.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .3 1470 77.38 9.39 537.13 260.39 537.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .32 40 176.6 192 8.05 2201.7 3.009 120.38 9.73 2421.68 902.2 17.05 2201.89 312.4 3.

52 7.9 3.1 10 0.43 7.05 X 7614.6 54006 0.38 45.7 734 14.35 2.32 X 30 1000 0.39 537.52 X 7.4 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 5.05 44.05 2201.7 294 9.32 40 176.05 44.3-DIETHYL-1.6 J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 5.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1BAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169E1CAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method Analyte SW8270 1.7 30 1000 0.26 2.5 24 0.8 3. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM Concentration 110 J 19 J 13.6 5.68 902.3-DIPHENYL UREA SW8270 BENZOIC ACID D2216M MOISTURE IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.6 200 7.5 7740 5.82 2346.6 1190 97.7 11 0.38 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 28.28 3.39 537.7 49 17.73 2421.15 292.009 120.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .49 15.20 0.3-DIPHENYL UREA MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.38 9.5 2.38 45.92 4.86 2346.49 15.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .8 25.3-DIETHYL-1.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 28.9 1170 93.60 9.0E+08 S-1/GW-1 RCS1 1.02 132.5 5.89 312.0E+06 5330 2.20 0.3 619 11. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.92 X 7614.8 54006 0.73 2421.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.5 24 0.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X 300 300 X 400 2500 300 400 2500 6000 3.7 30 1000 0.44 1600 210.24 156.32 40 176.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.86 2346.89 312.02 132.5 13.5 * Units UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL PRG 1.15 292.13 260.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X 300 300 X 400 300 400 SSL.92 4.35 2.82 X 30 1000 0.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.13 260.009 120.24 156.1 7340 4.8 4.Estimated value Page 9 of 22 .43 7.60 9.68 902.44 1600 210.

6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 54006 0.8 8060 4.7 * Units MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 2201.68 902.32 34741 X 30 1000 0.02 132. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.0E+08 34741 S-1/GW-1 2500 100000 RCS1 2500 1.49 15.05 44.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 25.0E+06 100000 5140 3.1 13.Estimated value Page 10 of 22 .73 2421.5 210 10.5 24 0.82 2346.44 1600 210.39 537.02 132.9 1140 86.52 7.13 2.86 2346.6 3.7 30 7.44 1600 210.49 15.38 9.60 9.38 9.89 312.38 45.4 0.43 X 30 1000 0.2 5.5 24 0.1 3.43 39.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .32 1.52 7.68 902.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.92 72016 PRG 2346.15 292.28 2.86 2346.7 30 1000 0.9 J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 5.24 156.7 30 1000 0.20 0.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X 300 300 300 SSL.05 2201.73 2421.76 260.25 2.9 5.9 3.4 11 0.15 292.1 1210 87.35 2.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .05 44.92 4.8 7630 4.20 0.24 156.92 4.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.11 7.92 72016 X 7614.38 45.3 3.009 120.6 54006 0.89 312.1 625 0.1 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 5.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 1.39 537.35 2.32 40 176.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X 300 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 100000 X 5600 3.13 X 7614. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL Concentration 14 17 J 22 J 9.5 9.8 25.009 120.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1AAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1BAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte ZINC BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.60 9.41 12.4 262 8.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.7 28.32 40 176.

44 1600 3.2 10 766 0.92 4.13 0.1 3.3 40.49 J 12 12.52 0.02 132.38 45.7 30 1000 X 10 30 1000 0.86 2346.70 210.40 7.20 3.13 0.26 2.39 537.27 0.13 16.7 30 1000 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X X 300 X 300 X 300 100 400 2500 700 100000 7000 1.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .6 0.05 2201.3 J J J J J J J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 1.35 2.82 2346.23 260.92 72016 PRG 39.32 34741 S-1/GW-1 400 400 2500 100000 RCS1 400 400 2500 100000 X 6820 11.15 0.3 24.8 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 1.76 260.4 7710 757 995 54.5 0.5 24 X 54006 0.009 120.8 11.9 5.39 537.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.59 16500 11.6 0.11 156.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.38 9.27 0.5 24 0.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.0E+06 700000 X 460 460 460 6600 5.2 3.20 3.32 40 176. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SILVER VANADIUM ZINC BENZO(A)PYRENE BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE CHRYSENE FLUORANTHENE PYRENE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM Concentration 664 0.11 7.Estimated value Page 11 of 22 .73 2421.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 766 1.68 902.0E+08 34741 62146 229361 231595 X X 10 30 1000 0.32 62.96 108129 19028 X X X X 7614.8 25.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.74 28.35 X X 7614.05 2201.89 312.57 12.49 X X 10 30 1000 10 30 1000 SSL.0E+06 700000 300 100 400 2500 700 1.8 0.01 72016 3403.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .49 15.009 120.11 7.82 2346.9 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 2.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HC169F1CAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3AAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.05 44.8 2.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .0E+06 100000 7000 1.15 1.92 203.9 5.8 17 J 7.7 28.4 17 21 20 20 24 35 11.24 39.1 529 0.9 10.43 39.60 9.18 292.8 25.49 4.6 460 X 54006 0.

59 17100 12.Estimated value Page 12 of 22 .MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.32 40 176.92 X X PRG 15.5 24 0.60 9.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3BAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.92 4.73 2421.38 45.13 2.32 1.39 537.7 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 2.43 39.68 902.2 10 766 1.13 0.4 607 0.27 2.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.82 2346.38 45.6 0.49 15.11 7.2 24.4 14.52 0.02 132.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.40 7.7 28.3 3.44 1600 3.6 27 J 10.0E+06 X 8040 91.35 2.44 1600 3.8 25.05 44.70 210.60 9.7 30 1000 X 10 30 1000 0.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .13 2.6 0.70 210.2 J J J J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 1.5 0.15 0.5 0.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.34 7260 11.27 2.43 39.38 9.89 312. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SILVER VANADIUM Concentration 0.0E+08 S-1/GW-1 0.05 44.24 39.8 7750 600 J 1190 65.9 0.11 156.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .11 39.86 2346.009 120.9 520 0. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BENZOIC ACID MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.05 X X 7614.7 30 1000 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X 300 X 300 X 300 400 400 2500 300 400 400 2500 1.68 902.05 2201.11 7.59 J 4.32 40 176.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .4 0.02 132.2 9510 5800 1230 76.18 292.7 0.9 23.9 5.27 0.8 X X 54006 0.73 2421.84 0.20 3.92 4.15 0.38 9.89 312.11 156.18 292.76 260.23 260.40 7.86 2346.6 39.2 20.76 16.52 0.3 2.53 J 12.82 X X X 10 30 1000 0.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 0.24 39.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.7 30 1000 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X X X 300 X 300 X 300 400 100 400 300 400 100 400 X SSL.48 5.7 30 1000 RCS1 0.2 10 766 1.43 14.6 0.74 28.

0E+08 34741 S-1/GW-1 2500 100000 RCS1 2500 1.2 9640 345 1380 84.86 2346.40 7.32 1.27 3.35 9220 12.9 J J J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 1.7 30 1000 500 1000 X 300 X X X X X X X X X X X 300 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 100000 X 14500 15.9 5.39 537.5 20 J 23 J 12.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.3 21.68 902.7 79 12.6 X 54006 0.11 7.6 0.20 3.18 292.8 0.009 120.32 34741 X X 10 30 1000 0.49 15.32 40 176.2 0.38 9.8 25.7 28.7 30 1000 1000 0.13 2.24 39.3 0.68 902.5 0.05 2201.6 0. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD Concentration 19.92 72016 PRG 2346.92 4.7 30 1000 10 30 1000 0.20 537.6 8.5 24 0.70 210.0E+06 100000 8650 2.52 0.7 14.Estimated value Page 13 of 22 .89 312.91 16.92 4.35 2.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .65 5.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.02 132.73 2421.05 X 7614.7 * Units MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 2201.89 312.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.13 1390 16.4 26.60 9.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .1 0.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 54006 120.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 25.49 15.2 10 766 1.40 X X 7.11 156.92 72016 X X 7614.73 2421.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169A3CAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3AAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte ZINC BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.32 40 X 1000 0.7 30 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X 300 SSL.27 0.44 1600 3.05 44.82 2346.86 2346.76 260.38 45.70 210.44 1600 3.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .15 0. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.7 14400 111 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 24 0.60 9.8 3.2 3.3 4.02 132.38 9.43 39.13 0.38 45.52 0.6 719 0.35 2.31 2.

0E+06 100000 X 20400 1.0E+08 34741 S-1/GW-1 RCS1 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 1.49 X X 10 30 1000 10 30 1000 SSL.70 210.7 30 1000 10 30 1000 0.98 14 692 1.4 MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 1.7 28.52 0.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 2010 134 1. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM Concentration 1630 121 0.5 24 X 54006 0.05 2201.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .9 5.11 156.05 2201.Estimated value Page 14 of 22 .15 589 21 7 6.2 10 766 1.7 30 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X X X X X X X 300 X X X 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 100000 X 6530 4 2.5 24 0.82 2346.009 120.5 4.6 19300 20.38 45.2 10 766 1.11 7.1 20 J 32 J 13.009 120.24 39.02 132.3 736 1.40 7.92 72016 PRG 176.8 10.32 1.68 902.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.24 39.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.8 25.13 2.8 29.32 40 176.8 19.81 9.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .39 537.44 1600 3.92 72016 X X 7614.39 537.86 2346.1 0.18 292.76 260.05 44.1 25 15.27 0.6 0.6 X 54006 0.43 39.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.8 25.92 4.5 21.43 39.11 156.7 2490 123 0.15 0.38 9.9 5.35 X X 7614.38 3.3 24.73 2421.15 0.11 7.89 312.20 3.6 > Bkgd > SSL X X > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3BAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169B3CAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.18 292.60 9.1 23.13 2.13 0.20 3.5 0.49 15.7 28.82 2346.8 J J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 1.76 260.32 34741 X X 10 30 1000 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .13 0.35 2.27 0.9 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 44.

3 2.73 2421.11 156.3 5.13 537.35 2.05 44.3 11300 31.18 292.2 10 766 1.76 260.8 25.0E+08 62146 229361 231595 S-1/GW-1 0.26 540 16.92 4.76 260.47 J 12 25.92 X 7614. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC {ND on all 78} analytes Concentration 0.72 3.8 25.9 1640 56 0.8 565 0.38 45.11 7.7 28.3 7490 493 1060 64.44 3.96 108129 19028 PRG 15.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.7 6. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BENZOIC ACID CHRYSENE FLUORANTHENE PYRENE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.15 0.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .70 210.89 312.43 39.13 2.05 44.86 2346.82 2346.92 4.68 902.7 1000 10 1000 0.1 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 2.15 0.6 54006 0.4 0.18 292.27 120.86 2346.60 0.13 2.38 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.73 2421.0E+06 700000 X 9850 0.11 7.44 210.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.32 40 176.1 0.0E+06 7000 1.60 X X 7.32 X 10 1000 0.6 460 460 460 > Bkgd > SSL X X > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3AAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA HD169C3BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 Analyte BERYLLIUM CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.6 15.92 3403.2 10 766 1.49 15.5 18 J 42 J 18 J 46 J 11.02 132.89 312.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.05 2201.43 39.11 156.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .68 902.24 39.Estimated value Page 15 of 22 .38 0.27 0.24 39.56 16.7 28.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .4 10.32 40 176.8 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 1.46 16500 11.32 1.02 132.7 30 1000 RCS1 0.82 2346.05 2201.20 3.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 0.9 537 0.38 45.5 38.9 24 0.40 7.68 14.7 30 1000 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X 300 X 300 X 300 400 400 2500 7000 1.0E+06 700000 300 400 400 2500 1.7 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X X 300 X 300 400 400 2500 300 400 400 2500 X SSL.

6 54006 120.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.82 2346.05 44.92 4.1 529 15 18.27 120.32 X 10 1000 0.92 X 7614.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.6 54006 0.38 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.92 4.82 2346.32 X 1000 0.1 726 46.13 260.4 7350 10.7 1000 1000 0.4 11.72 3.86 2346.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169C3BAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169C3CAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method D2216M MOISTURE IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 Analyte Concentration 11.8 25.89 312.5 10.92 X 7614.89 312.18 292.17 277 8 2.73 2421.05 2201.7 10 1000 0.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X 300 X 300 X 400 2500 300 400 2500 6690 12.38 45.73 2421.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .9 * Units PERCENT SSL PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS1 {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.44 210.8 25.2 3.43 7.32 40 176.20 3.6 4680 12.32 40 176.60 9.02 132.02 132.1 820 MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG 16019 24 0.7 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X 300 300 400 2500 300 400 2500 SSL.15 0.13 260.1 0.3 14 10000 136 1720 70.86 2346.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.11 156.5 0.05 44.11 156.38 9.2 10 766 28.68 902.15 0.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .43 7.13 537.26 3.52 X X X X 7.24 39.76 10.68 902.20 537.3 4.05 2201.44 1600 210. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC {ND on all 78} analytes MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.3 * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG PERCENT 16019 1.5 10.1 0.38 45.7 420 14.24 39.3-DIPHENYL UREA 10200 1.60 7.35 2.18 292.9 24 0.9 0.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.49 15.49 15.3-DIETHYL-1.Estimated value Page 16 of 22 .35 2.2 10 766 28.

4 3.6 3.43 39.8 1180 84.38 45. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.0E+08 1000 0.1 0.8 235 10.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.7 28.11 156.60 9.18 292.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .7 180 7.24 39.0E+06 X 5370 2.35 2.38 9.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.1 592 0.68 902.60 9.15 0.11 7.13 X 7614.27 3.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .3 9060 7.6 0.24 39.73 2421.38 9.8 25.82 2346.2 0.2 10 766 1.6 54006 120.7 4.92 4.15 0.0E+08 S-1/GW-1 RCS1 1.6 7070 3.05 44.20 0.89 312.5 24 0.7 1000 0.67 7.18 292.52 7.8 1450 81.02 132.86 2346.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.86 2346.1 0.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X 300 X X 300 300 SSL.2 10 54006 0.02 132.89 312.3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZOIC ACID MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.0E+06 7380 12.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .92 X 7614.Estimated value Page 17 of 22 .05 2201.27 3.52 7.43 X 30 1000 0.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169D3AAA HD169D3AAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3BAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method Analyte SW8270 BENZOIC ACID D2216M MOISTURE IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.92 4.8 15.7 10.35 2.49 15. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL Concentration 50 J 14.32 1.38 45.20 537.4 * Units UG/KG PERCENT SSL PRG 1.32 40 176.05 44.76 260.13 2.7 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X 300 300 400 400 2500 300 400 400 2500 1.11 156.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.44 1600 210.49 15.8 3.56 5.7 J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 24 0.68 902.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.7 30 1000 0.7 92 30 12.3 J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 5.39 537.009 120.44 1600 210.74 15.32 40 176.73 2421.3-DIETHYL-1.

32 S-1/GW-1 400 2500 RCS1 400 2500 8670 0.82 2346.7 3.1 8.15 0.73 2421.35 2.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J . TOTAL COBALT COPPER Concentration 673 10.22 194 7 2.02 132.3-DIETHYL-1.11 7.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 766 28.0E+08 34741 611031 X X 10 30 1000 0.05 2201.68 902.32 40 176.11 156.05 2201. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE MOISTURE 1.92 4.89 312.05 44.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.38 45.02 132.1 8880 16.86 2346.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG X > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169D3CAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3AAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M SW8270 IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC {ND on all 78} analytes MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.7 3 MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 5.7 0.39 537.9 872 62.3 18 0.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .Estimated value Page 18 of 22 .8 6200 J J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT UG/KG 16019 1.32 1.5 449 0.92 PRG 7.2 232 9.8 14.60 7.35 2.009 120.51 3.76 260.4 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG PERCENT SSL 260.3 36 18 31 8.86 X 30 1000 0.7 10 30 1000 0.68 902.6 54006 0.5 24 0.5 24 0.20 3.92 72016 150832 X X 7614.9 5.44 1600 210.8 0.1 8.38 9.85 4.13 0.39 537.89 312.13 2.8 25.38 288 19 4 11 54006 0.7 1000 30 1000 0.49 15.73 X 7614.8 25.2 10 766 1.18 292.7 X 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X 300 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 1.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.21 3.0E+06 100000 50000 X 4880 2.009 120.3-DIPHENYL UREA {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.82 2346.43 39.27 0.7 2.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .7 1000 500 1000 SSL.20 0.86 16.38 45.60 9.52 7.24 39.7 28.8 14.49 15.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.44 210.

46 231595 5080 2.2.0E+06 700 700000 300 400 2500 700 700 700 7000 7000 1.32 40 176.43 7.35 2.32 X 30 1000 0.57 62146 229361 621.8 12 100 11 J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 5.3-DIETHYL-1.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.73 2421.82 2346.86 2346.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .49 15.15 0.48 3403.D)PYRENE PYRENE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.7 1000 30 1000 0.96 108129 316.15 292.46 6214.02 132.Estimated value Page 19 of 22 .7 3.5 0.3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE BENZO(A)PYRENE BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE CHRYSENE FLUORANTHENE INDENO(1.82 2346.1 2.24 201 8.92 36.32 S-1/GW-1 300 RCS1 300 X 300 X 400 2500 700 700 700 7000 7000 1.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.5 24 0.4 5.0E+06 700 700000 X 621.6 820 100 J 47 J 110 J 96 J 140 J 180 J 18 J 240 J 7.20 0.8 25.8 25.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .24 39.3-DIETHYL-1.05 2201.15 621.3 8.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 28.009 120.4 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 2421.3 10.89 312.11 156.92 4.7 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X 300 300 X 400 2500 300 400 2500 IM40HG {ND on all 1} analytes IM40MB ALUMINUM 8160 MG/KG 16019 54006 7614. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.05 44.43 7.38 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.3 958 70.3-DIPHENYL UREA MOISTURE Concentration 5550 4 924 51.39 537.6 54006 0.68 902.3 519 10.92 4.48 114.99 19028 PRG 2346.6 6360 4.32 40 176.24 156.2 10 766 28.20 X SSL.44 210.9 0.46 62.18 292.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .6 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 > Bkgd > SSL X > PRG X > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3BAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169E3CAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M Analyte IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.5 4.13 260.92 X 7614.01 114.60 7.38 45.93 203.05 44.13 260.3-C.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.1 503 10.05 2201.

35 2.7 2.44 1600 3.4 611 0.3 11.7 6730 3.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.4 0.49 15.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.0E+06 100000 X 72016 100000 4560 9.60 9.32 34741 1000 0.18 292.7 28.38 9.86 2346.64 J 17.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3AAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA HD169F3BAA Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 Analyte BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM CHROMIUM.1 0.14 J 305 9.61 10.4 213 7.24 3 0.6 34 J J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG 16019 24 0.32 40 176. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC 1.05 44.60 9.7 * Units MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 120.05 44.7 30 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X X X X 300 300 400 400 2500 300 400 400 2500 1.3-DIPHENYL UREA BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.8 25.24 2.11 156.02 132.92 4.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .38 45.32 1.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 1.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.68 902.38 9.92 4.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .20 537.6 54006 120.32 40 176.40 7.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 24 0.7 1020 76 4.13 2.11 7.35 2.13 2.7 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X 300 X 300 400 400 2500 100000 300 400 400 2500 100000 X SSL.7 601 0.38 45.9 3.3-DIETHYL-1.5 J 928 64.15 0. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE Concentration 14.7 0.70 210.05 2201.1 180 J 31 J 41 J 13.73 2421.73 2421.51 J 4.02 132.52 7.Estimated value Page 20 of 22 .05 2201.15 292.92 72016 X 7614.6 3.7 28.76 260.49 15.43 39.6 0.2 10 766 1.7 30 1000 RCS1 1000 0.92 PRG 537.7 1000 0.89 312.82 2346.86 2346.52 0.82 2346.24 39.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .1 13.68 902.43 39.1 2.11 7.89 312.0E+08 34741 S-1/GW-1 1000 0.76 260.24 156.44 1600 210.6 9200 12.94 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.8 25.

7 1000 0.38 45.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 1.6 54006 120.32 40 176.4 1230 101 5.20 537.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) > Bkgd > SSL > PRG > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169F3BAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAA HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method D2216M MOISTURE IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 SW8270 D2216M IM40HG IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB IM40MB Analyte Concentration 6.9 0.86 2346.Estimated value Page 21 of 22 .74 28.02 132.18 292.60 9.76 X 7614.8 25.43 39.5 13 38 52 8.38 9.15 292.44 1600 210.26 11.5 215 8.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .13 2.05 2201.20 537.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .92 4.Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.7 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X X X 300 300 400 300 400 SSL.4 4.8 225 8 3.73 2421.8 658 0.3 4 7310 4 1150 78.24 39.92 72016 X 7614.49 15.7 1000 0.3-DIPHENYL UREA BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.7 0.52 7.05 44.13 2. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SILVER VANADIUM ZINC 1.86 2346.9 * Units PERCENT SSL PRG S-1/GW-1 RCS1 {ND on all 1} analytes ALUMINUM BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CALCIUM CHROMIUM.32 40 176.1 7800 4.6 288 19 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 10 766 1.7 1000 1000 500 1000 300 X X 300 X X 300 400 100 400 2500 100000 300 400 100 400 2500 100000 X 5610 11.15 0.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.5 J J MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG 16019 24 0.92 4.05 44.23 260.9 0.68 902.60 9.3-DIETHYL-1.25 2.34 4.9 0.44 1600 210.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.89 312.11 1000 0.73 2421.38 45.52 7.11 7.2 10 766 1.89 312.49 15.32 34741 1000 0.5 3.35 2.43 39.11 156.76 16.7 54006 120.3 J J J J J J * MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG UG/KG PERCENT 16019 24 0.24 156.5 707 0.82 2346.11 39.27 2.35 2. TOTAL COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM 5290 9.46 0.38 9.68 902.02 132.

Peliminary Remediation Goal BKGD.1 * Units MG/KG MG/KG UG/KG PERCENT SSL 260.82 2346.Estimated value Page 22 of 22 .MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil *=not validated J .05 2201.MMR Backfround Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .7 14 140 J 8.32 34741 S-1/GW-1 400 2500 100000 RCS1 400 2500 100000 SSL.Table 3-2 T Range TM 02-2 Soil Analytical Results (Grids 169A .8 25.169F) Bkgd Outwash (0-1 Foot) 28.6 > Bkgd > SSL > PRG X > S-1/GW-1 > RCS1 Sample ID HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD HD169F3CAD Date Sampled 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 4/12/2002 Method IM40MB IM40MB SW8270 D2216M Analyte VANADIUM ZINC BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE MOISTURE Concentration 11.MCP Method 1 value RCS1.92 72016 PRG 7.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG.

1 0.> PRG 13 No.94 SSTR1CN01 288 12 SSTR1CS01 4 1 SSTR2C01 11 14 SSTR2W01 17800 SSTR1CN01 19 16 SSTR1CS01 2010 SSTR1CS01 134 SSTR3E01 0.20 3.92 4.14 7360 5.1 29.9 22.39 537.43 39.6 SSTR3W01 0.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J.9 742 16100 467 1910 125 0.52 0.49 15.32 34741 16 1 400 2500 400 2500 50000 SSL .40 132.9 1 SSTR2W01.86 2346.72 0.05 2201.35 2.6 935 0.60 9.23 No.38 45.82 2346.12 SSTR1CN01 1.74 SSTR2W01 196 1 SSTR2C01 SSTR3E01 28.8 2 SSTR1CS01 25.8 47000 2300 Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg J J J J J Location of Bkgd Maximum Outwash No.11 No.15 0.> SSL 6 16 PRG 7614.3 0. SSTR3E01 5.38 1 SSTR2W01 9.> Detection (0-1 foot) Bkgd SSTR1CS01 16019 SSTR1CN01 1.92 1.6 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSL 54006 0.35 39.> S-1/GW-1 S-1/GW-1 10 RCS1 10 30 1000 0.033 2 12.5 SSTR1CS01 24 SSTR1CS01 0.89 312.3-DIETHYL-1.27 0.2 16 SSTR1CS01 10 4 SSTR1CS01 766 6 SSTR2C01 1.3 20.4 1.Estimated value Page 1 of 1 .70 902.Table 3-3 T Range Project Note Data Summary Table Analyte ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SILVER SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC NITROGLYCERIN 1.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .11 156.7 30 5 16 16 16 12 16 2 16 16 300 3 300 3 20 300 400 100 20 300 400 100 260.7 30 500 1000 No.32 40 176.73 2421.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .02 0.13 2.13 0.009 120.44 1600 3.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .05 44.76 16.25 197 77.11 39.3-DIPHENYL UREA Frequency of Detections 16 of 16 6 of 16 16 16 16 6 8 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 6 5 16 22 16 16 3 2 of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 28 16 16 6 2 Maximum Detected Concentration 14100 2 J 3.24 2.> RCS1 16 30 1000 0.18 292.02 3 7.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .7 SSTR1CS01 0.

014 0.7 357.24 X 400 2500 400 2500 50000 X X X X 10 30 1000 0.74 196 28.5 24 0.02 0.05 44.7 500 1000 X X 300 X 300 X 16019 1.68 14.22 J 0.71 mg/Kg 18.8 14.86 2346.29 mg/Kg 2.8 359.71 mg/Kg 0.71 mg/Kg 0.5 0.39 537.8 0.20 3.39 537.32 mg/Kg 3 0.19 0.21 3.072 1.5 24 0.39 mg/Kg 0.07 mg/Kg X X X 50000 X X 10 30 1000 0.4 14.014 0.73 2421.92 4.11 156.79 mg/Kg 10800 2.Estimated value NJ .15 0.009 120.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .2 10 766 0.0072 0.24 2.013 0.7 500 1000 16019 1.02 54006 0.1 0.15 X 7.35 2.88 mg/Kg 900 32.7 50000 10 30 1000 0.38 45.32 34741 7821 34741 7614.80 mg/Kg 12100 2.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .92 4.2 359.29 mg/Kg 0.29 mg/Kg 467 0.92 1.38 45.5 0.8 0.13 16.4 0.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 X X X X X X X X X X 300 X 300 X SSL .8 ug/Kg 26000 660 2500 ug/Kg 8330 2.23 X X X X 20 300 100 20 300 100 X X X 260.14 1.9 5.71 mg/Kg 3.018 J 0.3 J 0.82 2346.7 10 30 1000 0.13 0.8 0.36 mg/Kg 7360 24.02 3.14 mg/Kg 2.093 0.46 1.27 0.39 mg/Kg 461 0.08 mg/Kg 0.73 2421.72 mg/Kg 10.49 15.05 44.7 J 0.60 mg/Kg 19.32 40 176.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .44 902.8 25.03 mg/Kg 2 0.16 0.5 0.60 132.071 1.29 J 0.12 1.8 ug/Kg 47000 660 2500 ug/Kg 7330 2.6 X X X 132.5 4.009 120.31 J 0.35 2.43 39.9 357.16 2.13 0.16 1.86 2346.57 mg/Kg 30.3-DIPHENYL UREA NITROGLYCERIN Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE NITROGLYCERIN ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE Result Qual DL RL Units > Bkgd SSLs 3.9 J 0.27 0.71 mg/Kg 97.35 39.TIC Page 1 of 10 .12 0.8 0.60 mg/Kg 31.21 3.05 2201.49 15.14 1.72 mg/Kg 132 J 40.86 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .14 mg/Kg 19.39 mg/Kg 1.24 3.32 40 176.7 0.3-DIETHYL-1.11 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 > RCS1 Area 1 Center North (0-3") ND U 0.2 0.14 mg/Kg 90.67 14.60 > SSL PRG 7821 34741 7614.16 1.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .44 mg/Kg 800 41.29 mg/Kg 2 J 0.5 4.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') Location SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 Sample ID SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 Test E331.9 14.6 390 ug/Kg 460 NJ ug/Kg Area 1 Center North Replicate (0-3") ND U 0.36 mg/Kg 7020 25 359.6 359.89 312.0 SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW8270C SW8270C E331.6 0.19 0.20 3.71 mg/Kg 1120 19.89 312.44 902.9 5.17 0.4 14.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.72 mg/Kg 1220 19.72 mg/Kg 20.02 54006 0.18 292.0 SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B Analyte Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE NITROGLYCERIN ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SILVER SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC 1.

82 2346.TIC Page 2 of 10 .0 SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B Analyte MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC 1.14 17.94 3.46 1.35 39.51 3.3-DIPHENYL UREA NITROGLYCERIN Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE NITROGLYCERIN ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SILVER SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE Non-Detect on all 19 analytes ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC Result Qual DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd X X SSLs 0.14 0.76 > SSL X PRG 2.9 5.20 3.24 2.0 SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B E331.76 110 0.8 25.17 0.18 292.9 J 0.75 8.7 10 30 1000 0.74 196 28.11 X 400 2500 400 2500 50000 X X X 50000 X X 10 30 1000 0.11 156.51 3 0.76 19.39 X 400 2500 400 2500 16019 1.24 2.05 44.Estimated value NJ .3-DIETHYL-1.11 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 20 300 400 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 20 300 400 > RCS1 0.94 0.35 39.16 2.2 0.6 20 300 100 20 300 100 X 260.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .86 2346.2 375.86 797 32 357.92 1.89 312.57 20.15 18.23 X X X X X X X 7.32 7821 7614.7 0.4 0.2 0.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .3 357.13 0.35 2.7 0.03 1.43 39.9 5.43 2300 39.22 3.14 1.8 ND U 14100 2.009 120.25 J 0.71 15.14 7.02 54006 0.6 0.02 0.20 3.27 0.53 4.38 6260 26.7 500 1000 X X 300 X 300 X 16019 1.48 1.50 109 J 40.43 39.04 0.18 292.24 3.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .023 J 0.04 386 0.38 45.8 0.8 25.92 3.02 3.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .50 Area 1 Center South (9-12") ND U 0.2 0.7 375.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 0.82 2346.12 0.13 0.17 3.098 0.8 0.88 11900 3 15.03 1.32 34741 7821 34741 7614.53 4.25 3.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.2 10 766 0.11 156.39 537.1 J 0.2 0.12 1.92 4.018 J 0.2 10 766 1.14 0.5 24 0.94 89.6 Location SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CN01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 Sample ID SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CN01_C (REP) SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS01_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 Test SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW8270C SW8270C E331.4 375.75 127 J 42.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .27 0.015 0.05 2201.6 15.12 1.014 0.009 X X 10 30 10 30 X X SSL .0071 0.5 0.73 2421.71 7.02 0.04 0.5 0.075 1.04 1.49 15.05 2201.01 751 33.6 0.94 3.21 J 0.15 0.93 J 0.13 0.8 0.7 375.014 0.44 902.75 17.75 1120 20.75 260.60 X X X 132.093 0.0075 0.17 1.7 196 28.8 3200 660 2500 8950 2.6 0.8 370 1100 NJ Area 1 Center South (0-3") ND U 0.13 2.3 J 0.5 54006 0.32 40 176.3 0.9 0.6 15.13 16.

49 15.89 312.44 902.015 0.73 22.009 7.13 1.4 964 5.05 2201.82 2346.01 33.15 0.014 0.22 J 0.3 0.11 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 1000 0.009 120.12 1.04 0.25 3.20 0.1 0.71 15.2 0.86 2346.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .2 0.02 1.4 0.04 0.22 3.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .11 156.20 0.13 119 J 42.098 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .94 0.76 0.32 7614.7 375.4 0.16 2.93 2.18 292.04 0.7 30 1000 0.75 954 20.6 373.7 12.13 2.92 4.6 16019 5.0075 0.025 J 0.12 0.17 0.25 3.74 196 28.35 39.38 45.1 0.8 25.24 2.72 X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 100 20 300 100 X X X 260.44 902.9 41.1 0.13 93.92 4.7 0.13 16.75 0.93 0.73 2421.1 0.50 Area 1 East (0-3") 6700 2.0075 0.49 15.99 25 20.86 2346.75 J 42.39 X 400 2500 400 2500 X X 30 30 SSL .7 500 1000 > RCS1 SW6010B ALUMINUM SW6010B ARSENIC 0.76 0.92 54006 0.73 2421.8 DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd X X X X X SSLs 120.16 1.43 X 400 2500 400 2500 X X 30 1000 0.38 26.60 X X X 132.89 312.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.6 935 0.48 1.17 1.7 14.23 > SSL PRG 537.4 373.05 44.35 2.015 0.75 7.32 7614.75 15.49 Area 1 East Replicate (0-3") 7250 2.13 7.88 3 15.Estimated value NJ .43 39.12 1.35 2.9 J 0.73 15.37 1500 26 373.94 J 0.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.7 375.92 54006 0.2 375.24 2.11 156.25 159 0.94 0.8 25.93 87.48 1.097 0.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .60 132.7 500 1000 X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 20 300 X 260.15 16.32 40 176.05 2201.39 537.12 0.2 0.015 0.5 24 0.5 Location SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1CS01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 Sample ID SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1CS02_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) Date 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/27/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 Test SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B Analyte BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SILVER SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Result Qual 22.6 0.03 1.6 16019 5.82 2346.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .4 375.35 39.7 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 1000 0.15 0.38 45.32 40 176.05 44.4 15900 100 1910 125 0.2 0.13 J 0.5 14.17 3.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 24 0.22 3.99 645 33.6 0.15 0.075 1.02 0.17 0.075 1.75 20.TIC Page 3 of 10 .49 2.87 9580 3 14.2 10 766 196 28.02 0.1 373.18 292.94 0.5 14.2 10 766 0.

2 10 766 1.19 0.7 0.0072 0.49 15.5 7.16 1.7 0.39 0.16 2.62 0.38 45.92 4.32 0.13 0.5 4.02 0.6 0.11 39.4 14.9 5.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.72 0.09 J 0.82 2346.6 16019 1.21 3.72 9.71 0.39 180 0.7 0.8 359.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .72 1200 19.89 312.24 2.14 0.39 537.25 J 0.22 1100 2.92 54006 0.016 0.3 J 0.76 16.49 15.5 J 0.5 24 0.026 1.32 0.72 20 362.74 196 28.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .05 7.11 X 400 2500 400 2500 X X 10 30 1000 0.81 2.16 1.7 0.23 7.21 3.80 13500 2.17 0.16 2.73 2421.Estimated value NJ .72 111 J 40.02 J 0.60 42.11 156.0072 0.08 0.89 312.71 3.83 J 0.49 0.20 3.32 J 0.7 500 1000 X X 300 300 X X X X X X 20 300 400 100 20 300 400 100 X X 260.6 0.32 40 176.46 1.05 44.36 3270 25 359.44 902.093 0.23 X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 400 100 20 300 400 100 X 260.04 0.7 0.81 16.35 2.54 J 0.14 21.11 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 1000 0.009 120.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .88 786 32.9 362.2 359.43 39.13 2.2 362.72 18.32 40 176.11 39.15 J 0.44 902.12 1.8 9 9640 117 862 75.32 3 0.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 24 0.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.015 0.71 1 0.24 2.7 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 1000 0.4 362.43 39.68 14.52 0.86 2346.8 0.39 0.014 0.73 2421.04 1.60 X 132.7 11.05 44.9 14.8 0.2 10 766 1.8 Location SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1E01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 Sample ID SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1E01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 Test SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B Analyte BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SILVER SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SILVER SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM Result Qual 13.60 > SSL PRG 537.32 J 0.072 1.24 3.8 25.11 156.9 14.49 0.18 292.12 1.68 14.016 0.36 25.05 2201.62 0.60 X X X 132.90 32.8 J J DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd SSLs 120.7 10 30 1000 0.072 1.24 3.18 292.6 359.12 0.5 590 0.15 0.14 82.27 0.TIC Page 4 of 10 .71 91.86 2346.35 39.92 4.32 0.15 0.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .72 J 40.45 Area 1 West (0-3") 10300 2.82 X 400 400 SSL .12 0.4 0.25 2.7 0.38 45.35 2.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .02 0.32 7614.76 16.17 0.094 0.74 196 28.35 39.24 2.13 2.7 500 1000 > RCS1 0.

6 J 41.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 25.17 3.8 J 0.32 7614.46 1.79 18.43 39.40 335 J 27.064 0.17 1.32 40 176.TIC Page 5 of 10 .2 10 766 1.5 367.35 2.29 J 0.65 1.86 2346.4 0.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .096 0.7 500 1000 X X 300 300 X X X X X 132.12 1.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .6 396.89 312.74 1100 20.17 X X 10 30 1000 0.21 3.51 4.19 0.74 8.73 2421.6 Location SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR1W01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 Sample ID SSTR1W01_C SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR1W01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C Date 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/26/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 Test SW6010B ZINC SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B E331.04 1.40 X X X 132.4 0.3 J 0.5 0.12 1.21 0.9 5.11 156.1 0.7 30 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 20 300 X SSL .8 0.44 3.94 726 32.71 243 0.83 76.079 1.92 4.5 14.015 0.87 123 0.16 1.38 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.10 0.18 292.44 902.43 X 400 2500 400 2500 16019 5.71 0.8 25.65 82.87 3.38 45.20 0.7 10 30 1000 0.75 15.35 39.5 24 0.85 J 0.2 15.15 19.04 1.8 0.82 2346.009 120.32 40 176.015 0.98 14500 3.39 537.11 156.32 7821 7614.11 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 2500 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 2500 > RCS1 ALUMINUM ANTIMONY ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE Non-Detect on all 19 analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL 17.25 2.37 3060 25.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .73 2421.9 0.92 3.13 2.0074 0.6 16019 1.20 3.02 0.24 2.24 2.2 10 54006 0.9 367.009 120.79 8.71 0.Estimated value NJ .35 2.97 742 0.35 39.4 J 0.13 X X X 30 1000 0.13 0.8 0.6 0.44 Area 1 West Replicate (0-3") 8900 2.015 0.49 15.13 J 0.17 0.23 3.15 0.14 7.05 44.83 2.05 2201.8 0.89 312.65 0.0 SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B Analyte Result Qual DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd SSLs 2201.84 11900 2.7 196 28.7 902.92 54006 0.1 0.41 2.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.8 ND U 12900 2.76 X X X X X 20 300 400 20 300 400 X 260.27 0.5 0.15 0.27 J 0.5 24 0.073 1.05 44.49 15.016 0.3 367.47 Area 2 Center (0-3") ND U 0.38 0.92 4.68 42.9 0.02 0.60 0.87 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .65 3.18 292.16 2.9 14.24 3.025 J 0.69 14.60 > SSL PRG 2346.027 J 0.2 0.57 79.38 45.7 15.8 0.39 537.68 16 0.2 0.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .86 2346.18 0.6 367.47 1.74 16.9 396.79 1150 21.8 0.7 30 30 1000 0.40 0.

7 15.43 39.8 396.73 15.6 15.9 0.02 0.35 2.40 132.5 24 0.39 537.39 260.3 0.27 2.26 3.82 2346.76 X X X 30 1000 0.3 0.077 1.13 2.8 25.009 120.21 0.71 110 J 43.38 0.60 2.37 7.78 137 J 44.7 J 0.32 0.5 1.50 3.89 312.10 691 34.016 0.14 Area 2 East (0-3") 10100 2.82 2346.015 0.5 396.60 0.0 SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6020 SW6020 SW6020 SW6020 SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B POTASSIUM SELENIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Analyte Result Qual DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg ug/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd SSLs 2.76 > SSL PRG 39.2 10 766 1.6 54006 0.7 387.Estimated value NJ .14 7.7 SSL .75 0.92 3.009 120.1 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .38 45.35 39.86 2346.78 17.1 0.11 X 400 2500 400 2500 16019 5.52 0.32 ND U 0.83 77.29 J 0.15 0.7 0.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .17 0.78 8.92 4.41 25.015 0.7 387.20 0.83 0.8 25.18 292.51 1.4 0.TIC Page 6 of 10 .22 3.44 3.7 30 1000 0.17 3.7 30 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 400 20 300 400 X 260.32 X 400 2500 400 2500 16019 5.1 15.9 0.17 ND U 0.38 54006 0.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .49 15.94 13800 3.12 0.73 2421.4 387.88 355 0.0074 0.05 2201.21 0.92 7.50 0.1 0.60 0.7 902.16 0.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .6 Location SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2C01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 Sample ID SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_C (REP) SSTR2C01_PE SSTR2C01_PEREP1 SSTR2C01_PEREP2 SSTR2C01G_PE SSTR2C01G_PEREP1 SSTR2C01G_PEREP2 SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 Test SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B E331.062 0.97 16.88 14.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 766 1.11 156.0072 0.72 J 0.60 46.5 24 0.45 J 0.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .44 X X 30 1000 0.59 Area 2 Center Replicate (0-3") ND U 0.11 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 400 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 400 > RCS1 Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE Non-Detect on all 19 analytes ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SELENIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Non-Detect on TUNGSTEN Non-Detect on TUNGSTEN Non-Detect on TUNGSTEN TUNGSTEN TUNGSTEN TUNGSTEN ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM 706 35.60 X 7614.79 15.47 0.16 0.04 1.75 2.37 7.15 0.35 2.20 0.78 1110 21.4 0.39 537.05 2201.18 0.23 J 0.39 243 J 27 387.32 7821 7614.46 27.5 0.32 40 176.7 196 28.6 0.60 65.15 0.26 3.12 1.8 0.8 ND U 12800 2.05 44.031 J 0.0074 0.39 0.3 0.7 0.49 15.50 99.7 196 28.74 15.3 0.1 0.55 ND U 0.26 2.1 J 0.7 30 30 1000 0.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.24 2.17 1.

57 ND U 0.7 30 30 1000 0.5 J 0.3 J 0.1 0.24 2.5 1.92 7.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .5 0.82 2346.92 7.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .35 39.7 0.39 365 J 27 387.Estimated value NJ .78 1370 21.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .031 J 0.11 156.6 0.7 J 0.70 61.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .6 0.05 44.52 0.17 1.013 0.38 45.15 0.4 0.52 0.7 387.40 X X X 132.0074 0.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.16 0.10 826 34.036 0.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.32 40 176.52 0.1 15.7 902.32 X 400 2500 400 2500 16019 5.32 X 400 2500 400 2500 SSL .87 0.23 3.8 25.49 15.53 29.18 0.73 24 0.70 2.50 131 0.38 9.4 0.94 12.73 15.92 4.60 3.47 7.50 0.7 0.18 292.39 537.3 0.13 X 7614.079 1.60 9.2 10 766 196 28.88 312 0.89 312.20 0.6 0.6 54006 0.12 1.78 21.43 X X 30 1000 0.86 2346.55 X X X 132.43 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 30 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 30 500 1000 > RCS1 0.5 24 0.26 3.1 15.60 25.2 10 766 196 28.73 2421.60 197 J 43.03 1.15 622 35.4 393.33 J 0.05 2201.39 329 J 27.062 0.24 2.75 0.4 387.18 0.9 0.94 174 0.15 0.13 J 0.18 0.063 0.2 0.6 15.38 45.13 X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 20 300 X 260.4 0.015 0.015 0.60 91.88 17.15 0.076 1.12 1.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 9.40 > SSL PRG 1600 3.86 2346.78 11.5 1.02 0.02 0.7 393.73 2421.32 40 176.17 3.48 7.009 120.091 J 0.79 833 21.8 25.077 1.94 16100 3.7 902.5 0.35 2.22 3.75 78.05 44.50 3.18 0.39 1.92 4.70 132 J 44.26 3.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .21 0.17 1.6 Location SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2E01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 Sample ID SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_C SSTR2E01_PE SSTR2E01G_PE SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C SSTR2W01_C Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 Test SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B Analyte BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Non-Detect on TUNGSTEN TUNGSTEN ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Result Qual DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd SSLs 9.18 292.70 15.1 0.17 3.7 387.79 7.7 30 500 1000 X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 20 300 X X X X X 260.15 Area 2 West (0-3") 13400 2.97 11500 3.3 0.4 393.11 156.35 39.04 1.9 0.89 312.44 1600 3.2 393.2 J 0.025 J 0.05 2201.TIC Page 7 of 10 .82 2346.4 0.

35 2.52 0.8 10900 2.6 0.15 0.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .03 1.86 2346.2 589 35.49 15.37 0.6 Area 3 Center Replicate (0-3") ND U 0.064 0.8 J 0.2 16 66.3 0.2 0.2 0.8 8.87 14300 3 14.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.75 1020 20.13 X 7821 7614.1 0.4 228 J 27.26 J 0.35 0.18 3.89 312.16 1.29 J 0.2 10 766 196 28.6 0.8 0.7 902.037 0.1 400 87.75 17.6 3.8 16.8 25.20 0.18 2 13200 3.32 40 176.13 76.7 30 30 1000 0.02 0.8 12000 2.26 4 14.4 0.35 2.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .7 902.016 0.14 54006 0.37 213 J 26 373.06 0.32 7821 7614.1 400 3 0.92 3.075 1.2 0.4 0.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') Location SSTR2W01 SSTR2W01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 Sample ID SSTR2W01_PE SSTR2W01G_PE SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) Date 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 Test SW6020 SW6020 E331.4 0.82 2346.8 400 2.85 J 0.7 0.05 44.35 X 400 2500 400 2500 16019 5.40 132.49 8 0.015 0.35 39.5 24 0.009 120.Estimated value NJ .24 2.08 1.7 14.86 2346.14 54006 0.40 132.9 0.46 0.1 0.092 0.89 312.23 4 36 0.18 292.8 400 85 J 45.38 45.05 44.20 0.05 2201.38 9.02 7.39 537.22 0.73 31.60 9.12 1.0074 0.44 1600 3.04 16019 5.2 0.93 97.0 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A Analyte Non-Detect on TUNGSTEN TUNGSTEN Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Non-Detect on PERCHLORATE ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY Result Qual DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd SSLs > SSL PRG > PRG S-1/ GW-1 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 > RCS1 ND U 0.TIC Page 8 of 10 .014 0.6 373.6 0.92 4.32 40 176.93 0.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .009 120.46 7.17 0.17 0.49 15.5 14.93 3.0 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B E331.60 9.44 1600 3.38 9.13 J 0.13 2.24 2.11 156.7 30 500 1000 X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 20 SSL .39 537.51 1.15 0.7 30 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 20 300 X 260.4 0.73 2421.12 0.18 0.92 4.5 24 0.7 J 0.11 J 0.8 934 22.2 0.031 J 0.7 16 3.73 2421.52 0.97 J 0.4 0.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .1 0.12 X X X 30 1000 0.7 30 30 1000 0.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.22 3.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .15 Area 3 Center (0-3") ND U 0.032 J 0.74 24.75 16 0.38 45.8 0.015 0.43 X X 30 1000 0.

11 156.32 40 176.22 3.8 25.27 J 0.013 0.7 30 500 1000 X 132.38 9.05 2201.38 45.4 384.Estimated value NJ .99 33.1 0.6 J 0.52 0.5 8.94 288 4 11 17800 19 Location SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3C01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3E01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 Sample ID SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3C01_C (REP) SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3E01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 Test SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B Analyte MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC ALUMINUM ARSENIC BARIUM BERYLLIUM BORON CADMIUM CALCIUM COBALT COPPER IRON LEAD Result Qual 1.14 J 0.69 0.11 156.32 7614.60 2.73 2421.38 82.38 3.1 373.1 0.7 902.38 9.12 1.6 15.05 X X X X X 300 300 SSL .62 82.13 7.TIC Page 9 of 10 .82 2346.015 0.78 260.39 537.73 2421.22 3.47 7.6 0.17 3.009 120.5 0.85 29.60 9.25 3.13 > SSL X PRG 39.7 30 500 1000 X X X X X X X X X 300 300 20 300 20 300 X X X X 260.13 0.1 0.5 0.16 2.24 2.62 3.3 J 0.05 2201.21 0.49 Area 3 East (0-3") 13400 2.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .38 248 J 26.097 0.5 0.3 0.39 297 J 27 387.7 3.038 0.40 7.50 0.75 0.8 25.35 39.38 1.78 18.6 0.92 54006 0.89 312.4 384.1 15.39 1.82 2346.72 15.92 4.32 40 X 400 2500 400 2500 X X X 30 1000 0.62 11.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .49 15.43 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 300 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 300 > RCS1 0.33 J 0.6 0.6 0.6 16019 5.85 16.62 150 J 43.037 0.4 0.44 1600 3.43 X 400 2500 400 2500 X X X 30 1000 0.50 3.94 288 4 11 17800 19 2010 134 0.35 2.25 3.77 20.9 J 0.15 0.92 54006 0.5 24 0.44 1600 ` 902.077 1.40 132.75 0.54 Area 3 West (0-3") 11200 2.6 16019 5.4 0.38 45.6 15.52 0.77 10.77 29.02 0.3 0.18 0.2 J 0.21 0.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .5 24 0.17 1.86 2346.7 14.8 0.49 1.08 778 34.92 4.92 15600 3.18 0.062 0.20 0.77 1190 21.2 384.13 J 42.2 10 766 196 28.35 2.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 1.32 7614.50 41.2 10 766 196 28.033 0.15 0.18 292.73 0.009 120.49 15.20 0.86 2346.061 0.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .48 1.2 26.88 8.60 9.74 0.4 DL RL Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd X SSLs 0.7 30 30 1000 0.38 0.89 312.9 0.18 292.1 15.8 384.4 373.096 J 0.7 609 84.015 0.17 1.7 30 30 1000 0.39 537.05 44.94 13500 3.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .03 1.73 15.47 7.8 0.

88 1.2 682 132 0.78 3.13 > SSL X X X PRG 176.92 7.Preliminary Remediation Goal BKGD .077 0.17 34.15 0.16 0.02 0.24 2.14 3.Estimated value NJ .43 > PRG S-1/ GW-1 > S-1/ GW-1 RSC-1 > RCS1 J 20 300 20 300 X J 260.7 43.Table 3-4 T Range Project Note Soil Analytical Results Bkgd Outwash (0-1') 2010 134 0.04 0.55 Units mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg > Bkgd SSLs 44.5 RL 387.05 2201.32 X 400 2500 400 2500 SSL .11 156.12 1.MCP Reportable Concentration for S1 Soil J .1 0.6 Location SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 SSTR3W01 Sample ID SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C SSTR3W01_C Date 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 4/21/2006 Test SW6010B SW6010B SW7471A SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6020 SW6010B SW6010B Analyte MAGNESIUM MANGANESE MERCURY MOLYBDENUM NICKEL POTASSIUM SODIUM TUNGSTEN VANADIUM ZINC Result Qual 996 80.MMR Soil Screening Level PRG .35 39.60 1.10 387.69 25.4 0.18 292.6 9.8 25.007 0.2 DL 21.MCP Method 1 value RCS1 .2 0.MMR Background Soil Concentration S-1/GW-1 .015 0.60 387.26 0.2 10 766 196 28.03 1.TIC Page 10 of 10 .82 2346.60 0.8 14.7 0.

75 124.6 373707.75 134.6 373707.9 1.6 373707.75 124.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.75 134.75 124.75 134.6 373707.6 373707.5 1.8 4.3 6.4 0.6 373707.3 4621080.7 2.6 373707.75 134.3 4621080.6 373707.75 134.5 0. estimated value U .3 4621080.75 124.1 2 DL .2 0.4 0.4 0.6 373707.75 124.3 4621080.6 373707.75 134.75 124.75 124.75 124.75 Test SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7470A SW6020 SW6020 SW8270C SW8330 SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW6010B SW7470A SW6020 SW8270C Analyte Non-Detect on all 19 analytes ARSENIC (TOTAL) BARIUM (TOTAL) CADMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (TOTAL) LEAD (TOTAL) SELENIUM (TOTAL) SILVER (TOTAL) MERCURY (TOTAL) TUNGSTEN (TOTAL) TUNGSTEN (DISSOLVED) Non-Detect on all 78 analytes Non-Detect on all 19 analytes ARSENIC (TOTAL) BARIUM (TOTAL) CADMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (TOTAL) LEAD (TOTAL) SELENIUM (TOTAL) SILVER (TOTAL) MERCURY (TOTAL) TUNGSTEN (TOTAL) Non-Detect on all 78 analytes Result ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.4 0.6 373707.3 4621080.75 134.75 124.Non detect at RL.75 124.75 134.3 4621080.3 4621080.6 373707.7 2.6 373707.6 373707.75 124.6 124.75 134.75 124.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.3 6.6 373707.3 4621080.75 124.75 124.3 4621080.75 124.3 4621080.75 124.4 0.75 124.5 1.75 134.75 124.3 4621080.2 ND Qual U U U U UJ U U UJ U J U U U U U UJ U U UJ U U DL 4.Non Detect UJ .75 134.75 124.75 134.75 134.3 4621080.7 2.75 134.6 373707.3 4621080.3 4621080.Instrument Detection Limit RL .7 2.3 4621080.3 4621080.75 124.3 4621080.8 4.2 RL 4.6 373707.6 373707.Table 3-5 T Range Groundwater Analytical Results Location MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S MW-467S Sample ID MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD MW-467S-01 FD Date 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 10/9/2006 Northing Easting Coordinate on Coordinate on Depth to Surface Surface Screen top (N83UTM m) (N83UTM m) (ft bgl) 4621080.5 0.8 4.3 373707.75 124.3 4621080.4 0.3 4621080.2 4.6 373707.75 134.3 4621080.75 134.75 134.75 134.8 4.75 Depth to Screen bot (ft bgl) 134.75 134.6 373707.5 0.Reporting Limit ND .3 4621080.1 2 2 Units μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L μg/L 4.1 0.3 6.75 134.75 134.6 373707.6 373707.5 1.5 1.75 134.3 4621080.Non detect at RL Page 1 of 1 .3 6.75 124.

SSTR3E01. SSTR1W01.213 24.3-diethyl-1. Summary of Sampling Results. 169B.92 17. Conc.8 4/4 4/4 9 / 14 4/4 Area 2 (Post-Excavation) + Area 3 Minimum Mean Maximum Detected Detected Detected Conc. (mg/kg) 8.3 6. SSTR3W01 including Field Replicates. .3 Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern Notes: J = Estimated value Samples used to generate the Exposure Pont Concentrations for Area 1: Includes samples from locations 169A.2 Area 1 Mean Detected Conc.55 29. SSTR2W01 (post-excavation).3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 10.4 3.17 4.190 3.400 Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern 3. SSTR2E01. Field Duplicate samples from Location 169F were averaged. (mg/kg) 20. SSTR2E01 (post-excavation).9 Not a Chemical of Potential Concern 0.4 26.4 1.4 1.09 285.4 Maximum Detected Conc. 169E.560 0.3 1. SSTR1CS01.018 J 3.9 6. Samples used to generate the Exposure Pont Concentrations for Areas 2 (post-excavation) and 3: Includes samples from locations SSTR3C01.449 3. SSTR1CN01.2 3. (mg/kg) 13. SSTR3C01.76 44. SSTR3E01.8 3. Detection (Detects/ (mg/kg) Samples) 9.81 10.875 13. 169C.9 J 23.98 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.400 91.513 19.4 0.4 J 5.51 3.5 29. 169F. SSTR2C01 (post-excavation).83 28. (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Exposure Point Conc.525 11.4 J 1.800 3.27 285.7 0. 169D. Conc.32 16.2 47 Exposure Frequency Point of Conc. SSTR3W01 and post-excavation samples from SSTR2C01. and Calculated Exposure Point Concentrations for the T Range Exposure Areas Contaminant of Potential Concern Frequency of Detection (Detects/ Samples) 44 / 44 23 / 44 36 / 44 44 / 44 8/8 44 / 44 17 / 38 3/4 Minimum Detected Conc. SSTR1E01.3 0.900 11. (mg/kg) 4.8 24. and SSTR2W01 including Field Replicates.3 0.Table 5-1 Contaminants of Potential Concern.

900 .47 Mean Detected Conc.4 J .20.3 .3.6.0 20 100 No Value 30 No Value No Value 10.3 0.29.3.5. (mg/kg) 8.23.5 19 No Value 29 No Value No Value 10.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Notes: J = Estimated value [1] [2] 4.2 .019 1.449 3. (mg/kg) Reference Concentrations MassDEP MMR Outwash Background Background Concentrations in Concentration [1] Natural Soils [2] (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 16.875 Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern 3.81 .2 3.513 19.4 J 3.55 Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern The Background Values listed are the values detected from Outwash 0-1'.2 .11. (mg/kg) Mean Detected Conc. 2002.3-diethyl-1.3 0. Technical Update: Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soils.51 3. .4 .91.400 11.4 Not a Contaminant of Potential Concern 0.4 Area 2 (Post-Excavation) + Area 3 Range of Detected Conc.8 . The Background Values listed are the those reported for natural soils by MassDEP.9 3.800 0.525 24.9 J 1.8 1.000 1.Table 5-2 Comparison of Soil Sampling Results to Natural and Anthropogenic Concentrations for the T Range Exposure Areas Area 1 Contaminant of Potential Concern Range of Detected Conc. (mg/kg) Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.400 0.560 .9 5.3 26.32 16.29.5 10.4 1.27 285.018 J .3 .13.7 .

Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. RAGS Part E.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin References: [1] [2] No Value No Value 0. USEPA.1 [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] USEPA. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment.1 0. Exhibit 3-4.6 No Value 100 Ref. Exhibit 4-1. GastroIntestinal Absorption Efficiency (%) 100 15 95 No Value 100 2. . Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.Table 5-3 Chemical-Specific Properties of the Contaminants of Potential Concern Contaminant of Potential Concern Dermal Absorption Factor (unitless) Ref.3-diethyl-1. RAGS Part E.03 No Value No Value No Value 0. 2004a. 2004a.

7E-02 Ref.epa. http://www. 2007a.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Notes: [A] [B] [C] References: [1] [2] [1] [2] [C] - Converted from the Oral CSF using an Oral-to-Dermal Adjustment Factor of 95% Converted from the Oral CSF using an Oral-to-Dermal Adjustment Factor of 100% Converted from the Inhalation UR using an Inhalation Rate of 20 m3/day and a Body Weight of 70 kg EPA.5E+00 No Value No Value No Value No Value 1.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/ (4/6/2007) . Region III Human Health Risk Assessment Risk Based Concentration Table Home Page. Cancer Guideline Weight of Evidence D A B2 - Remarks Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1. Unit Risk (mg/m3)-1 [A] [B] No Value No Value 4.3-diethyl-1. Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 No Value No Value 1.Table 5-4 Toxicity Values for the Carcinogenic Contaminants of Potential Concern Oral Contaminant of Potential Concern Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 No Value No Value 1.7E-02 Inhalation Ref. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Absorbed Dermal Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 No Value No Value 1.5E+01 No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value Ref.5E+00 No Value No Value No Value No Value 1.3E+00 No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value [1] Ref. On-line database accessed 1/31/2007. 2007b. EPA.

3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Notes: [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 1.htm.Table 5-5 Toxicity Values for the Non-Carcinogenic Contaminants of Potential Concern Oral Contaminant of Potential Concern Reference Dose Chronic (mg/kg-day) Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.0E-02 3.0E+00 6.0E-03 No Value 1. Inhalation Uncertainty Reference Factors Target Organ / Concentration Modifying Critical Effect Chronic Factor Product (mg/m3) Neurotoxicity UFs*MF = 100 Blood UFs*MF = 1000 Pigmentation. UFs*MF = 3 Keratosis UFs*MF = 1000 Tachycardia UFs*MF = 300 4. Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. http://www.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/index. to Ron Marnicio.0E-05 3.4E-03 No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value [E] Ref.0E-04 No Value 2. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Nitroglycerin (CASRN 55-63-0). January 31.0E-04 [1] [2] [2] [3] [4] [5] Ref. October. EPA. . August 22.3-diethyl-1. 2006c. On-line database accessed 1/27/2007. Superfund Health Risk Technical EPA. TetraTechEC regarding Toxicity Factors for Tungsten. EPA. USACHPPM.6% Converted from the Oral CSF using an Oral-to-Dermal Adjustment Factor of 95% Converted from the Oral RfD using an Oral-to-Dermal Adjustment Factor of 100% Converted from the Inhalation RfC using an Inhalation Rate of 20 m 3/day and a Body Weight of 70 kg EPA. 2007a. 2006b.0E-04 3. E-mail correspondence from Larry Cain.epa.0E-05 No Value 1. 2007. Converted from the Oral RfD using an Oral-to-Dermal Adjustment Factor of 15% Converted from the Oral RfD using an Oral-to-Dermal Adjustment Factor of 2. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).0E-02 1.0E-04 No Value 2. Absorbed Dermal Reference Dose Chronic (mg/kg-day) 1. USACE. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5).9E-03 No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value No Value Inhalation Ref. 2006a. Derivation of Subchronic and Chronic Oral RfDs. Reference Dose Chronic (mg/kg-day) [1] 1.0E+00 4.0E-04 [D] [A] [C] [D] [B] [D] Ref.

The site is accessible by vehicle via one road on base. Quantitative trespassers and unauthorized hunters are periodically observed on MMR. The outer perimeter of MMR is fenced and patrolled. trespassing is considered to represent a Quantitative potential current activity across all MMR sites. Current use is small arms range. Page 1 of 2 . [Actual Exposure] Quantitative Not Applicable[A] Access to the site is not completely restricted. There are no physical barriers to access to the site for an individual already on Quantitative MMR. However.Table 5-6 Exposure AssessmentSummary/Conceptual Site Model Scenario Timeframe Exposure Medium Exposure Point(s) Receptor Population Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Receptor Age Adult (aged 18-28 years) Exposure Route Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Current / Potential Soil Surface Soil (0 to 1 ft bgs) Area 1 or Area 2 (post-excavation) + Area 3 Trespasser Adolescent (aged 12-18 years) Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion Analysis of Exposure Pathway Quantitative Quantitative Training activities may be conducted when they are not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. By agreement. Unauthorized hunting also may occur as there are no physical barriers to Quantitative access to the site to anyone already on MMR. [Actual Exposure] Quantitative Hunting may be authorized for the site if it is determined that the action would not be incompatible with the uses and preservation Quantitative objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. although the presence of UXO and corresponding signage warning of such dangers Not Applicable[A] is assumed to severely limit such current use. [Actual Exposure] Not Applicable[A] Hunter Adult (aged 18+ years) Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Notes: [A] No volatile organic compounds have been detected in Tango Range soils or monitoring wells.

residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only. Groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future assessment..g. groundwater is unlikely to infiltrate a future trench or excavation associated with any future military training or construction activities. Residential redevelopment activities may be performed to prepare the site for a new mission or to modify the site for reuse or redevelopment provided they are determined to not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] Indoor Air Volatiles Released at the Showerhead Potential Soil Indoor Air (Volatiles Migrating from Groundwater Up Into Habitable Space) Resident Adult (aged 18+ years) Child (aged 1-7 years) Adult (aged 18+ years) Resident Child (aged 1-7 years) Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Construction Worker Adult (aged 18-28 years) Adult (aged 18-28 years) Adult (aged 18-28 years) Adult (aged 18+ years) Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Ingestion (Drinking) Inhalation of Volatiles Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Groundwater Tap Water Indoor Air (Volatiles Released at the Indoor Air (Volatiles Migrating from Pooled Water in Trench or Excavation Groundwater is not currently used as a source of drinking water or water for general consumptive use (e. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] To Be Determined To Be Determined By agreement. No volatile compounds have been detected in soil or groundwater at the Tango Range. residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only.Table 5-6 Exposure AssessmentSummary/Conceptual Site Model Scenario Timeframe Exposure Medium Exposure Point(s) Receptor Population Receptor Age Adult (aged 18+ years) Exposure Route Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Ingestion (Drinking) Dermal Absorption Ingestion (Drinking) Inhalation of Volatiles Inhalation of Volatiles Inhalation of Volatiles Type of Analysis Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Not Applicable[A] Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Not Applicable[A] Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway Construction activities may be performed to maintain the site or to prepare the site for a new mission or to modify the site for reuse or redevelopment provided they are determined to not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. Therefore. residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only.. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] To Be Determined By agreement.g. No volatile compounds have been detected in soil or groundwater at the Tango Range. washing) at the Tango Range site. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] None None None Groundwater is not currently used as a source of drinking water or water for general consumptive use (e. [Unlikely Future Exposure] Ambient Air In or At a Trench or Excavation Notes: Construction Worker Adult (aged 18+ years) Inhalation of Volatiles None [A] No volatile organic compounds have been detected in Tango Range soils or monitoring wells. Very few residential buildings exist at MMR investigation sites (none at the Tango Range). It is considered to be unlikely that it would be in the future. washing) at the Tango Range site. [Likely Future Exposure] By agreement. No volatile compounds have been detected at the Tango To Be Determined Range. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] Construction Worker All Soil (0 to 10 ft bgs) Area 1 or Area 2 (post-excavation) + Area 3 Resident Adult (aged 18+ years) Child (aged 1-7 years) Adult (aged 18+ years) Tap Water Resident Child (aged 1-7 years) To Be Determined By agreement. Groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future assessment. [Unlikely Future Exposure] Groundwater is at depths generally greater than 100 feet bgs. No volatile compounds have been observed at the To Be Determined Tango Range. The depth to groundwater is generally more than 100 feet bgs and unlikely to represent a source of vapors to indoor air. Residential To Be Determined redevelopment activities may be performed to prepare the site for a new mission or to modify the site for reuse or redevelopment To Be Determined provided they are determined to not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. Potential exposure pathway if volatile compounds are found to be present in the groundwater at site and the groundwater is used for domestic or consumptive purposes. Potential exposure pathway if volatile compounds are found to be present in the groundwater at site that could pose a threat of migration. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] None None Groundwater is at depths generally greater than 100 feet bgs. It is considered to be unlikely that it would be in the future. No volatile compounds have been To Be Determined detected in Tango Range soil or groundwater. Therefore. groundwater is unlikely to infiltrate a future trench or excavation associated with any future military training or construction activities. Page 2 of 2 . residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only.

52 .800 0.51E+09 0.52 0.52 0.78E+06 105 105 1.51E+09 0.52 0.51E+09 0.25 [A] 13 1 100 1 1 190 6 2.51E+09 0.300 0.300 0.25 [A] 5 10 100 1 1 12 6 3.25 [A] 12 6 330 1 1 13 1 3.700 0.2 70 70 70 50 1 1 65 6 5.94E+09 1.52 0.94E+09 1.94E+09 1.07 [A] 65 6 50 1 1 5 10 3.52 9.94E+09 1.51E+09 0.Table 5-7 Exposure Profiles Receptor Trespasser Current / Potential Actual Both Exposure Areas 12-18 years 56 70 Time Frame Potential Location Age Body Weight (kg) Lifetime (yr) Soil Exposure Incidental Ingestion Ingestion Rate (mg/day) Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless) Fraction of Area Contaminated (unitless) Exposure Frequency (day/yr) Exposure Duration (years) Dermal Absorption Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2) Soil to Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm 2) Absorption Factor (unitless) Exposure Frequency (day/yr) Exposure Duration (years) Inhalation and Ingestion of Dust Particulate Emission Factor (m 3/kg) Area 1 Areas 2 (post-excavation) + 3 Particulate Concentration in Air (ug/m3) Area 1 Areas 2 (post-excavation) + 3 Notes: [A] Chemical-specific Military Personnel (Firearms Training) Current / Potential Actual Hunter Current / Potential Actual Construction Worker Potential Resident (Child) Potential Resident (Adult) Potential Hypothetical Hypothetical Hypothetical Both Exposure Areas 18+ years 70 70 Both Exposure Areas 1-7 years 15 70 Both Exposure Areas 18+ years 70 70 Both Both Exposure Exposure Areas Areas 18-28 years 18+ years 67.300 0.52 1.52 1.94E+09 1.262 0.07 [A] 190 24 1.52 1.20 [A] 190 6 50 1 1 190 24 5.52 0.60E+06 7.

7E-04 9.0E-01 1.2E-02 1. and a cancer risk estimate that exceeds the MassDEP but not the CERCLA cancer risk limit.6E-06 Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil 4.1% 1.3E-01 9. (Target Level = 10 ug/dL). (Target Level = 10 ug/dL).5% 5.4E-08 5.7E-04 3E+00 3.8E-06 3E-01 2E-06 2. Prob. Exceeds Target = 0.6 ug/dL (Acceptable).4. Exceeds Target = 1.8E-02 8.6E-03 1.Table 5-8 Risk Characterization Results for Exposure Area 1 Receptor Exposure Medium / Route Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Trespasser Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil Receptor Total Lead Exposure Military Personnel (Firearms Training) Hunter Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil Receptor Total Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil Receptor Total Construction Incidental Ingestion of Surface and Subsurface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface and Subsurface Soil Worker Inhalation of Particulates from Surface and Subsurface Soil Receptor Total Lead Exposure Resident (Child) Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil Receptor Total Lead Exposure (All Sources) 8.1E-09 1E-01 1E-07 1.3%-3.5%-1.7E-08 1.3E-02 2.0E-08 7.7E-02 9.8E-01 9.8 ug/dL (Acceptable).2 .4.6 .7E-04 9.9E+00 8.7E-04 3E-01 Receptor Total Lead Exposure (All Sources) 2.4 .9E-02 1.8E-07 Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 9.8E-08 1.2. (Target Level = 10 ug/dL) Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 1.7E-04 9.1E-09 1E-02 3E-08 2.6E-09 9.0E-01 1.2E-09 9.6E-02 2. (Target Level = 10 ug/dL) Resident (Adult) Resident (Child + Adult) NOTE: 2.6E-09 2.6E-08 9.4 ug/dL (Acceptable).1E-09 4E-02 5E-08 9.1E-09 2E-06 Receptor Total The results shown in bold font indicates an HI that exceeds 1. Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil .2 .6E-03 6.1.2 ug/dL (Acceptable). Prob.

4E-03 8.4E-08 Construction Incidental Ingestion of Surface and Subsurface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface and Subsurface Soil 1.3E-06 Resident Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil 3.6E-09 1.9E-01 Resident Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil 7.8E-01 1.4E-03 8.7E-04 8.0E-08 4.1E-07 Receptor Total Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 5.4E-03 2E-01 Receptor Total 2.1E-02 Resident Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil 1.Table 5-9 Risk Characterization Results for Exposure Areas 2 (Post-Excavation) and 3 Receptor Exposure Medium / Route Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk 8.4E-08 Hunter Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil 1.6E-04 1. Trespasser Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil .7E-06 3E-01 2E-06 Receptor Total 1.6E-09 4E-03 4E-08 Receptor Total 9.4E-03 2E-02 Receptor Total 1.6E-03 (Child) Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 1.6E-04 1.2E-03 (Adult) Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 1.3E-03 1.8E-03 8.6E-03 2.8E-09 Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 1.6E-09 (Firearms Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 2E-03 2E-08 Receptor Total Training) Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil 2.8E-08 1.6E-05 4.1E-09 Worker Inhalation of Particulates from Surface and Subsurface Soil 2.2E-09 Personnel Dermal Absorption from Surface Soil 1.3E-07 (Child + Inhalation of Particulates from Surface Soil 8.6E-09 Adult) 2E-06 Receptor Total The results shown in bold font indicates that a cancer risk estimate exceeds the MassDEP but not the NOTE: CERCLA cancer risk limit.1E-02 1.5E-09 Military 6.5E-04 5.4E-03 8.

95 PbBt P(PbBfetal > PbBt) 1 PbB Equation1 1* 2** X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Description of Exposure Variable Soil lead concentration Fetal/maternal PbB ratio Biokinetic Slope Factor Geometric standard deviation PbB Baseline PbB Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust Weighting factor.7 -0. 1.4 0.3% 2.7 0. 0.95.12 13 90 2.9 0.6 10.12 13 90 2.0 1. . 2 in USEPA (1996).0.4 0.4 0.3% 2.9 0. the equations yield the same PbB fetal.330 1.Construction Worker Version date 05/19/03 Exposure Variable PbS Rfetal/maternal BKSF GSDi PbB0 IRS IRS+D WS KSD AFS. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead.4 2. *Equation 1.D) + PbB0 PbBadult * (GSDi1. Recommendations of the Technical Work Group for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil.4 0.645 * R) Sources: USEPA.0 3.5 0.95 = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS. assuming lognormal distribution Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S.9 0.4 8.D*EFS/ATS. alternate approach based on Eq. 2003a.4 285.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.330 ---0.0.645 * R) **Equation 2. fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil Mass fraction of soil in dust Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) Averaging time (same for soil and dust) PbB of adult worker.g.2 6.0 1.7 0. and A-19 in USEPA (1996). D PbBadult PbBfetal.12 13 90 2. 10 ug/dL) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt.330 ---0.1 1. KSD).3 10. PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB 0 PbB adult = PbB fetal. 0.Table 5-10 Area 1 .Values Used and Results for Adult Lead Model . EPA-540-R-03-001.3 1. D ATS. 2.3 10.2 6.4 8. When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1. based on Eq. D EFS.4 285.0 0.1% 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers Target PbB level of concern (e.12 13 90 2.1 1.6 10. 0. PbB adult = PbB fetal.9 0. 1.0 0.1% 2.. geometric mean Units ug/g or ppm -ug/dL per ug/day -ug/dL g/day g/day ---days/yr days/yr ug/dL ug/dL ug/dL % Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2 GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het 285.3 1.5 -0. January.330 1.0 3.4 285.7 0.

0 0. PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB 0 PbB adult = PbB fetal.4 0.7 0. 0. *Equation 1. the equations yield the same PbB fetal.050 1.0 1. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. 2003a.4 2.Table 5-11 Area 1 . based on Eq. PbB adult = PbB fetal. EPA-540-R-03-001.9 0.5 -0. Recommendations of the Technical Work Group for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil.9 0.5% 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers Target PbB level of concern (e.9 10.3 1.1 1. assuming lognormal distribution Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S. and A-19 in USEPA (1996). 1. .0 0.5 0.Values Used and Results for Adult Lead Model .6 4.D*EFS/ATS.4 285.050 1.4 0.5 10. D PbBadult PbBfetal.050 ---0.9 0. geometric mean Units ug/g or ppm -ug/dL per ug/day -ug/dL g/day g/day ---days/yr days/yr ug/dL ug/dL ug/dL % Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2 GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het 285.9 0.7 -0.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.95 = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS.0 0. January.12 65 365 1.7 0.4 285..9 10.1 1.Trespasser Version date 05/19/03 Exposure Variable PbS Rfetal/maternal BKSF GSDi PbB0 IRS IRS+D WS KSD AFS.0 1.0 0.645 * R) Sources: USEPA.645 * R) **Equation 2.4 0.12 65 365 1.050 ---0.8 6.5 10.95 PbBt P(PbBfetal > PbBt) 1 PbB Equation1 1* 2** X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Description of Exposure Variable Soil lead concentration Fetal/maternal PbB ratio Biokinetic Slope Factor Geometric standard deviation PbB Baseline PbB Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust Weighting factor. KSD).D) + PbB0 PbBadult * (GSDi1.4 285.5% 2. When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1.8 6.95. 1.0.5% 2. D ATS.12 65 365 1. 0. 0.4 0.7 0. alternate approach based on Eq. 2.12 65 365 1. 2 in USEPA (1996). D EFS.0.5% 2.g. 10 ug/dL) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt. fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil Mass fraction of soil in dust Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) Averaging time (same for soil and dust) PbB of adult worker.3 1.6 4.

and dermal contact with soil. Environmental Protection Agency.173 1. Washington. .4 Associated Outdoor Air Concentration (mg/m ) 1.Table 5-12 Input Parameters and Results from the All-Ages Lead Model for the Adult Resident in Area 1 All Sources Lead Resident Age (yr) 19-40 40-65 65-82 82-90 Notes: Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) 50 50 50 50 Concentration in Soil (1) (mg/kg) 285. 2005. drinking water. soil ingestion.169 Target Blood Lead Level (ug Pb/dL) 10 10 10 10 Maximum Blood Lead Level (2) (ug Pb/dL) 4.4 285. Environmental Protection Agency.47E-07 1.05 (External Review Draft). plus site-related sources. (2) Sources include air (outdoor. school.395 (1) See Table 1 for soil exposure point concentrations.47E-07 3 Site-Related Maximum Blood Lead Level (3) (ug Pb/dL) 1.4 285.602 2.S. occupational). 2005. residential.47E-07 1. diet. Sources: U.878 1.S. (3) Sources include air (outdoor and residential only).160 2.477 2.47E-07 1. EPA/600/C-05/013. DC. U.169 1.4 285. dust. All-Ages Lead Model (AALM) Version 1.

47E-07 1.4 285.6 3.47E-07 1.4 285.8 3. October .47E-07 1.47E-07 1.1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) NA 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lead Concentration in Soil (1) (mg/kg) 285.1 2. User’s Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK).4 285. inhalation of particulates coupled with maternal baseline of 2. 2001b.4 Outdoor Air Concentration (mg/m 3) 1.47E-07 1.4 4 3.4 285.3 2.4 2.1 2.0 Target Blood Lead Level (ug/dL) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Notes: (1) See Table 1 for soil exposure point concentrations.47E-07 All Sources Blood Lead Level (ug/dL) 4. Sources: EPA.6 2.742. EPA9285.4 285.4 3.Table 5-13 Input Parameters and Results from the IEUBK Child Lead Model for the Child Resident in Area 1 Associated Child Age (yr) 0.5 ug Pb/dL.4 285.5 . (2) Site-related sources include soil and dust ingestion. Windows Version.9 2.47E-07 1.6 4.2 Site-Related Blood Lead Level (2) (ug/dL) 3.

APPENDIX A HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 2007-O-JV04-0019 .

Army Environmental Command Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Camp Edwards. Massachusetts Prepared by: Tetra Tech EC. DACW33-03-D-0006 . Inc.S.Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) for Tango Range Massachusetts Military Reservation Cape Cod. MA 02110 Contract No. Massachusetts May 2007 Prepared for: U.S.. 133 Federal St. Boston. Army Corps of Engineers New England District Concord. Massachusetts for U.

Massachusetts May 2007 Prepared For: U. 6th Floor Boston.S.S. 133 Federal Street. Massachusetts Prepared By: Tetra Tech EC. Army Environmental Command Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Camp Edwards. Massachusetts 02110 2007-O-JV04-0019 . Inc. Massachusetts U. Army Corps of Engineers New England District Concord.IMPACT AREA GROUNDWATER STUDY PROGRAM Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) For Tango Range Camp Edwards Massachusetts Military Reservation Cape Cod.

Gleason. This Document has been prepared in accordance with USACE Scope of Work and is hereby submitted for Government approval.Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) For Tango Range Camp Edwards Massachusetts Military Reservation Cape Cod. is that proposed to be incorporated with Contract Number DACW33-03-D-0006. Ph.E. TtEC Program Manager _________________ Date _________________ Date _________________ Date 2007-O-JV04-0019 .D. Prepared by: ______________________________________ Elizabeth Ubinger TtEC Senior Risk Assessor ______________________________________ John Schaffer TtEC Senior Risk Assessor _________________ Date _________________ Date Approved by: _______________________________________ Ronald J. PE TtEC Consulting Risk Assessor ________________________________________ Charles Collet. P. TtEC Project Manager ________________________________________ Richard J. Marnicio.. Massachusetts May 2007 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the enclosed Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) for Tango Range.G. shown and marked in this submittal. P.

............... 12 2..1 Oral/Dermal Carcinogenic Effects....... 3 2........ 16 2.......................2 1.2.............................................1.....................2....................2...............1 Oral/Dermal Non-Carcinogenic Effects ......1..............................2....................................................3 2007-O-JV04-0019 i ................................... 33 2............... 27 2...2..................................................................................................1........ 1 Site History ....... 23 2..............................................6........1 Data Sources.....................5..................7....................................... 26 2..............1.............................1............................. Inc........5 Exposure Parameters ..3...........................Tetra Tech EC........................ 27 2........... 29 2.......... 18 2..........2...............................2.. 8 2............................3 2........................... Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................8 Exposure Point Concentrations .........2......................1..........5 Compound-Specific Issues.......................................................... 24 2....................................... 17 2.......................... 2 Data Evaluation................................................................. 7 2....................................2............2 Dermal Absorption from Soil ..............................................................6........................................ 1 1............ 4 2............2 Summary of the Data Collected at Tango Range .......7 COPC Selection by Area of Interest .2...2.. 32 2.................................................3.......................................1 Non-Carcinogenic Effects .............1.....1...........................3 Hunter ........................................................................1..3 Special Cases............................2....2 2.. 25 2...........0 2...............................2..1 Exposure Setting and Land Use ...........................................2. 28 Toxicity Assessment ......7......1................1.............................................1....................3.........................2 Military Personnel...............................................................3 Inhalation Exposure to Dust Particulates and Volatiles.................................... 12 2...........3 Summary of the Detected Compounds by Environmental Medium and Chemical Group ......................................6...............2 Inhalation Non-Carcinogenic Effects .................. 21 2..............................................................3 Groundwater Screening Based on Groundwater Monitoring Data12 2...............6 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ......................................................1 1....................................3....................................................2... 12 2.............................. 9 2........................................................0 Introduction......... 30 2........................................................................2 Carcinogenic Effects .................... 25 2........................1 Trespasser ..3........... 13 2........... 16 2......................................... 4 2......4 Receptors and Exposure Routes................2 Conceptual Site Model ...................5....................................... 19 2.......5...............................1.......................5................................ 1 1..............2 Inhalation Carcinogenic Effects........ 24 2... 13 Exposure Assessment ...........................................2.................................................................1................2 Soil Screening Criteria Based on Direct Contact/Inhalation Pathways .......3............................4 Construction Worker......... 31 2..........1 Soil Particulates to Ambient Air .... 2 Areas of Interest..............................................................6......................... 6 2.........................................................1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil..............5.............1 Site Description..................4 Data Usability..........2 Area 2 (post-excavation) & Area 3 ...2...................................6 Estimation of Average Daily Dose or Chronic Daily Intake.... 29 2................ 31 2........6....................................................1 Incidental Ingestion of Soil.................................3 Potential Source Areas and Release Mechanisms...................................... 11 2.................. 33 Human Health Risk Assessment............................................5 Future Resident (Hypothetical).... 4 2...................................................................1 Area 1..........3.............. 23 2.6.........................................................................3...............................1......

................5 Toxicological Information and Models.........................................1 Risk Estimation and Characterization .....3........2 Risk Description............................................................1............. 56 Potential Human Health Risks .......................................................4.............................................4...................... 35 2........... 45 3....................2......5 2..................4....... 46 3.....................4 Development of Assessment and Measurement Endpoints ................................................... 35 2..............5......................................................................1 Calculation of Non-Cancer Health Effects ... 59 4.......... 34 2.........4..........................................................................4..................3 Screening Process for Identification of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern ....................2 Conceptual Site Model ............2.................................................4 Weight-of-Evidence ......... 36 2............................5 Threatened and Endangered Species.............4........ 46 3..................................................... 41 2........1 Uncertainty in the Data and COPC Selection Methodology ........................................................................3 Exposure Point Concentrations ........................ 45 3...........................................3............... 55 3....................... 47 3.............................................2.......4 4............. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 2...........5.......................2.....................................4......6 Risk Description..............................1 4................4.............................................. 38 2.3.0 Summary .......................................................................2.............................................0 Ecological Risk Assessment ......................1 Topography ............................................4.........5......................................... 45 3......................................2 3.. 56 3..............................................5.......................................2.......4...................................................................... 48 3........................... 60 2007-O-JV04-0019 ii ........................................................................... 33 Risk Characterization............... 50 3.............................................0 References....... 40 2............. 34 2......................Tetra Tech EC......4..........1 Identification of Representative Wildlife Receptors ........................... 50 3.....1 Risk Characterization Methods ...................3......3 3.................................2 Soils................................1..........................3 Evaluation of Lead...............4..........2 4.3..........................................................................3 5...................................... 46 3........ 59 Summary Potential Ecological Risks for the Tango Firing Range ...................................................4 Exposure Frequency and Exposure Duration......... 36 2..............................................2........................................................................ 59 Summary Potential Ecological Risks.3......... 45 3.............................................4 Wildlife Observations ..................3 Vegetation ..................... 39 2.2 Exposure and Intake Uncertainties.............................2 Results .............................................................................................................................. 53 3.......... 38 2.................. 59 3................ Inc..................................................................................................................................5..2 Calculation of Cancer Health Effects ................................................................2.....4................................................................................................... 37 Uncertainty Analysis.............................................................4 2. 39 2.........................1 3... 45 3...... 53 3............................................... 37 2..3 Summary of HazardQuotients and Hazard Indices .....................6 Risk Characterization ...............................................5 Ecological Significance and Relevance .................... 49 Ecological Risk Characterization.................................... 45 Environmental Setting .............................................................2 Cancer Risk Estimates ........................1 Evaluation of Lead................................... 43 Introduction............................................ 46 Problem Formulation ................1 Hazard Indices ......5.....

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Process Ecological Health Risk Assessment Conceptual Site Model LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D USEPA RAGS Part D and Supporting Tables for the Human Health Risk Assessment ProUCL Outputs for the Derivation of Soil Exposure Point Concentrations for the Human Health Risk Assessment Site Sketch and Photographic Log for Tango Range Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) Tables 2007-O-JV04-0019 iii . Inc.1 Figure 3.Tetra Tech EC.

Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center Fahrenheit degrees United States Food and Drug Administration Frequency of detection Feasibility Study iv . 2-. and Liability Act Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Central Limit Theorem Centimeter Chemical of concern Chemical of potential ecological concern Chemical of potential concern U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Experimental Laboratory Trivalent chromium Hexavalent chromium Cancer slope factor Conceptual Site Model degree of freedom deciliter Environmental Chemical Corporation Ecological Soil Screening Levels Exposure duration Environmental Data Management System Exposure frequency Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Exposure point concentration Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund U. Compensation. Inc. Air National Guard Base Administrative Order Area of concern Army Risk Assessment Modeling System Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement Analytical Transient 1-.S. Inc. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation ACRONYM LIST AALM ADD AF AFCEE ALM AMEC ANGB AO AOC ARAMS ARAR AT123D atm ATSDR AUF BERA bgs BW CA CDC CDI CERCLA CHPPM CLT cm COC COPEC COPC CRREL Cr III Cr VI CSF CSM df dL ECC Eco-SSLs ED EDMS EF ELCR EPC ERAGS ERDC ºF FDA FOD FS 2007-O-JV04-0019 All Ages Lead Model Average daily dose Adherence factor Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Adult Lead Model AMEC Earth and Environmental. and 3-Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System atmosphere Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Area use factor Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Below ground surface Body weight Concentration of contaminant in air Centers for Disease Control Chronic daily intake Comprehensive Environmental Response.Tetra Tech EC.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation ft g GC/MS GI GIS GSC Ha HEAST HERA HERD HHRA HI HPLC HQ hr HSDB IAGWSP IEUBK IR IRIS kg km L LD50 LOAEL m MAARNG MassDEP MCP MDC MDFW mg mm MMR mol MVUE NCEA NGB NOAEL PAH PEF pH PPRTV PRG RA RAGS RD RfC RfD RI RME feet gram Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry Gastrointestinal Geographic Information System General Sciences Corporation hectares Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Human Ecological Risk Division Human Health Risk Assessment Hazard Index High Performance Liquid Chromatography Hazard Quotient hour Hazardous Substances Data Bank Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model Ingestion rate Integrated Risk Information System kilogram kilometer liter Lethal dose for 50 percent of a study population Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level meter Massachusetts Army National Guard Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Contingency Plan Maximum detected concentration Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife milligram millimeter Massachusetts Military Reservation mole (chemical quantity) Minimum variance unbiased estimater National Center for Environmental Assessment National Guard Bureau No observed adverse effect level Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Particulate emission factor Acidity measurement Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value Preliminary Remediation Goal Remedial Action Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Remedial Design Reference concentration Reference dose Remedial Investigation Reasonable maximum exposure 2007-O-JV04-0019 v . Inc.Tetra Tech EC.

RAGS Part D Format) Soil Screening Level Seasonal use factor Semivolatile organic compound Toxicity reference value Technical Review Workgroup Tetra Tech EC.Tetra Tech EC.e.. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation SDWA s SESOIL SLERA SOP SQL SRF SSL SUF SVOC TRV TRW TtEC UCL µg UR USACE USACHPPM USCG USFWS USEPA VF VOC WHO yr Safe Drinking Water Act second Seasonal Soil Compartment Model Screening level ecological risk assessment Standard Operating Procedure Sample quantitation limit Standard Reporting Format (i. Upper confidence limit microgram Unit risk United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine United States Coast Guard United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Environmental Protection Agency Volatilization factor Volatile organic compound World Health Organization year 2007-O-JV04-0019 vi . Inc. Inc.

2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-1 . Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part D (USEPA. Tango Range (collectively referred to as the “Site” in this risk assessment) was divided into three contiguous areas: Area 1 . and Risk Characterization.The area from the top of the machine gun firing points to the 25 meter targets across the entire width of the range. The HHRA approach follows a four step process comprised of: • • • • Data Evaluation. Exposure Assessment. and Part E (USEPA. Finally. 2001a). The objective of the HERA is to identify any chemicals of concern (COCs) in soil and groundwater from impacts associated with small arms training and other activities that occurred within Tango Range (also referred to as the “Site”). 2004b). This objective is a requirement of the Administrative Orders that exist for Camp Edwards. 1989). located on Camp Edwards at the MMR. COCs represent contaminants that contribute to an excess risk of harm to potential human and environmental receptors. COCs identified in this risk assessment will be further evaluated as the basis for the identification and evaluation of remedies. EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA. Data Evaluation Based on the site history and the site investigations conducted to date. 1997) and in accordance with the established MMR risk assessment protocols. The HERA consisted of a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA).Tetra Tech EC. The MMR risk assessment protocols have been developed in an attempt to maintain a consistent technical approach that adhered to the relevant USEPA and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) risk assessment protocols and policies as interpreted for MMR and the IAGWSP. Inc. Human Health Risk Assessment The site-specific HHRA was conducted in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS). sources or uncertainty associated with each of these steps are reviewed with emphasis on their implications relative to interpreting the results of the risk assessment. Toxicity Assessment. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) was performed for the Tango Range. Part A (USEPA.

This approach is considered conservative because. arsenic. Inc.9 μg/L. and vanadium. arsenic. The available sampling results were evaluated to assess data quality and usability (in consideration of the analytical methods used. and Aluminum. 2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-2 . and inhalation) and migration to groundwater used as a source of drinking water. a database of the qualified analytical results was developed and the COPCs for the potential exposure media at the site were selected for the different areas of interest. • Combined Areas 2 and 3 Groundwater monitoring results were also compared to risk-based screening criteria.The remainder of the range. antimony. the magnitude of the sample quantitation limits achieved. potential exposure pathways. ingestion. or metals were detected in MW-467S. and the presence of indicators of either field or laboratory contamination). which employed conservative exposure assumptions for each identified receptor (USEPA 1999.n’-diethylcarbanilide (also known as 1. lower potential risks associated with those exposures. Compounds in soil were identified as COPCs based on separate evaluations of direct exposure (i. Samples collected from Area 2 prior to construction of the backstop berm were not used in this HHRA because this area was excavated to a depth of 6 inches in preparation for berm construction. There are no risk-based screening criteria for tungsten. lead.The area of the planned new berm (approximately 45 x 220 feet) behind the 25-meter targets. Areas 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 were combined into a single area of interest for the chemicals of potential concern (COPC) screening process. vanadium. This area was subsequently excavated to a depth of 6-inches prior to construction of the berm.3diphenylurea). in reality. The soil COPCs for direct exposure based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations to risk-based screening criteria protective of direct exposures were: • Area 1 Aluminum. and quantification of the magnitude and frequency of receptors’ potential exposure to COPCs. and Area 3 . tungsten. 1997b). the assignment of data qualifiers.9 μg/L and dissolved tungsten was detected at a concentration of 1.3-diethyl-1. resulting in lower potential exposures to constituents and. Total tungsten was detected at a concentration of 2. Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenarios are evaluated in this risk assessment.e. most individuals will not be subject to all the conditions that comprise the RME scenario. Thereafter. n. and nitroglycerin. tungsten. Exposure Assessment The exposure assessment identifies the potential human receptors. down range (south) of Area 2 and Area 1. No explosives compounds. The approach to COPC selection was based on USEPA guidance and followed established MMR risk assessment protocols. exposure points for the various media. SVOCs. therefore. dermal absorption.Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Area 2 .

2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-3 . Given the characteristic depth to groundwater. incidental ingestion. Inc. inhaling volatiles released during water use. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation The following receptors and exposure pathways were considered in the HHRA: Current / Potential Receptors: • Military personnel (adults aged 18-28 years) conducting small arms training activities with potential exposures to COPCs in surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site (surface soil is defined as soil in the depth range of 0 to 1 ft bgs). incidental ingestion. A hunter (aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. The routes of exposure for the hunter are dermal absorption. incidental ingestion. These construction workers are not likely to contact or be exposed to groundwater at the site in any manner as the depth to groundwater is greater than 100 feet. groundwater is not likely to pool up in near surface trenches or excavations. The routes of exposure for the non-intrusive military trainee are dermal absorption.Tetra Tech EC. Hypothetical residents (a child aged 1-7 years and an adult aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in both the surface and subsurface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. and inhaling vapors released from groundwater that may migrate up through the soil into indoor air. A trespasser (aged 12-18 years) with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. A full assessment of groundwater-related risks is to be performed at a later date. Construction workers (adults aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in both the surface and subsurface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the site. The routes of exposure for the trespasser are dermal absorption. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. • • Future Potential Receptors: • Intrusive activities by military trainees that would involve exposure to deeper soils are not anticipated under the foreseeable future land use at this small arms range. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. incidental ingestion. The routes of exposure for the hypothetical child and adult residents are dermal absorption. • • Exposure pathways considered for the Site included drinking or ingesting the groundwater. and the inhalation of particulates related to soil. incidental ingestion. These last two pathways were not likely to be significant for Tango Range due both to the lack of detected volatiles in the overlying soil and the relatively deep depth to groundwater. The routes of exposure for the construction worker performing excavation and other intrusive activities are dermal absorption.

Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment summarizes the toxicological data (cancer unit risk or slope values. The HI for each receptor or target endpoint (total HI) was compared to a HI of 1 (USEPA 1991). The preferential hierarchy of sources from which toxicological information and toxicity values were: • Tier 1: IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-4 . the ATSDR minimum risk levels. which is an on-line USEPA database containing current toxicity values for many chemicals that have gone through a rigorous peer review and USEPA consensus review process (USEPA. combined Areas 2 and 3) were used in deriving exposure point concentrations and considered representative of current and future potential exposures (see Appendix C). Total ELCR and total HI for a constituent that does not exceed these risk/hazard limits for a given receptor would indicate that no adverse health effects are expected to occur as a result of that receptor's potential exposure to COPCs. Results of the HHRA At each of the two soil exposure areas. Tier 2: Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) developed by the USEPA Office of Research and Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment/Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (NCEA). including but not limited to the CalEPA toxicity values.. 1997a).e. 2002) using USEPA’s ProUCL software (USEPA. and non-cancer reference doses or concentrations) for the identified COPCs. and Tier 3: Additional USEPA and non-USEPA sources of toxicity information. Potential health risks were calculated for baseline conditions and address exposures to contaminant levels at the Site as they currently exist. a value equal to one-half the limit of detection reported by the laboratory was used as a surrogate concentration for those constituents that were not detected in any particular sample. cumulative Estimated Lifetime Cancer Risks (ELCRs) and non-carcinogenic hazards (expressed as Total Hazard Index (HI)) were estimated. and future construction workers are within or less than USEPA’s allowable risk range (i. In calculating exposure point concentrations for soil. The ELCR for each receptor was compared to ELCR limit range of 1 x 10-4 (one in ten thousand) to 1 x 10-6 (one in one million). Inc. For each receptor. 2006a). All soil data representing current soil conditions in each of the two exposure areas (Area 1. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation The soil exposure point concentrations at each exposure point were based on the 95% upper confidence limit on the mean in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA. 2004). and toxicity values published in HEAST (USEPA. current and future military personnel engaged in small arms training or other non-intrusive activities. the Total ELCRs for current and future trespassers.Tetra Tech EC. current and future recreational hunters. • • Risk Characterization The risk characterization was performed by inputting site-specific data and assumptions into formulae developed by USEPA for calculation of cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. 1x10-6).

The total HI from potential soil exposures by current and future trespassers. the associated 2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-5 . and future hypothetical residents do not exceed 1.002 Military Personnel – Small Arms 0. 2001b). The associated probability that fetal blood lead levels would exceed 10 μg Pb/dL is approximately 2% (i.2 Resident .1 0.004 Hunter 0. future construction workers. the ALM-estimated adult blood lead level concentration associated with exposure to Area 1 soil is less than 2. Summary of Calculated Hazard Indices by Area and Receptor Exposure Scenario Area 1 Areas 2 and 3 0. Inc.2 μg Pb/dL even when non-site related sources were included. The blood lead level concentration due to exposure to lead in soil for adult residents as estimated by the AALM is less than 4.8 μg Pb/dL. a hypothetical residential scenario was evaluated in the risk characterization.3 Construction Worker 0.01 Trespasser 0. and.04 0. The results of the IEUBK modeling were compared to this level and were determined to not present a significant risk to children’s health even when non-site related sources (e. the fetus of a pregnant female construction worker would most likely have a blood lead level less than 10 μg Pb/dL). For the adolescent. and the IEUBK Child Lead Model for children (USEPA. For the construction worker. The total ELCRs for the hypothetical future resident exposed to the soil exposure points are within USEPA’s allowable risk range. EPA has determined that childhood blood lead levels at or above 10 μg Pb/dL present risks to children’s health (USEPA. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Summary of Calculated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks by Area and Receptor Exposure Scenario Area 1 Areas 2 and 3 1E-07 1E-07 Trespasser 3E-08 2E-08 Military Personnel – Small Arms 5E-08 4E-08 Hunter 2E-06 2E-06 Construction Worker 2E-06 2E-06 Resident (Hypothetical) To assess the need for institutional controls and to provide information for evaluating all futureuse options in a Feasibility Study. 1994). current and future recreational hunters.02 Resident .3 0.01 0.4 μg Pb/dL.g.3 0. dietary) were included..Tetra Tech EC.. the ALM-estimated blood lead level is less than 1. current and future military personnel involved with small arms or other non-intrusive training activities.e. the AALM for adult residents.adult 3 0.child Lead was selected as a COPC for the Area 1 exposure point Potential hazards associated with exposure to lead are evaluated using the ALM (USEPA. 2003b) for adult construction workers and the adolescent trespasser.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation probability that the fetal blood lead level exceeds 10 μg Pb/dL is 1%. Other than several common songbird species.5 to 1. The ALM does not explicitly consider other sources of lead exposure such as dietary. no direct wildlife observations were made at the Site. Human Health Chemical of Concern Chemicals of concern (COCs) are COPCs that were found to contribute most significantly to site risks. military personnel engaged in small arms training or other non-intrusive activities. These estimates assume that neither personal protective equipment nor dust suppression or other industrial hygiene is utilized. 25 species listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act have been observed in the habitats found across the entire area of MMR. but it does assume a non-zero baseline blood lead concentration of 1.7 μg Pb/dL. COPCs with incremental cancer risks of greater than 1 x 10-6 are reported below for each highlighted receptor (Note: The associated ELCR for a given COC is included parenthetically): • • Construction Workers: Area 1 – arsenic (ELCR 2x10-6).4 mg/kg arsenic in SS169A 0. The implication for risk management purposes is that the observed levels of arsenic in soil may not warrant any need for a remedy. However. In order to determine any such instances.5 to 1. chemicals with cancer risks less than 1 x 10-4 may contribute to a carcinogenic risk of greater than 1 x 10-4 for a particular receptor and may be judged to “contribute significantly” to site cancer risks. The purpose of the BERA is to identify contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) in surface soils which may pose potential risk to terrestrial ecological receptors utilizing habitat present at the Site. In some cases. Inc. There appear to be no COCs identified for the trespasser soil exposures. ES-6 2007-O-JV04-0019 . Ecological Risk Assessment A BERA was performed for the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) Tango Firing Range (the Site) located in Cape Cod. Habitat at the Site included field and forested areas with sandy soils. Hypothetical Residents: Area 1 – arsenic (ELCR 2x10-6) and nitroglycerin (child HI 3). or the hunter. Problem formulation for estimating ecological risk included: • • Review of available data on ecological communities and selection of representative ecological receptor species.Tetra Tech EC. Development of a CSM for ecological receptors for application at the Site. Massachusetts.0 bgs). and arsenic (ELCR 2x10-6). the concentrations of arsenic measured in Tango Range soil samples are comparable to background as measured in the outwash sample and as established by MassDEP “natural levels” for soil. It should be noted that with the exception of one soil sample (23. Areas 2 and 3 – arsenic (ELCR 2x10-6).

however. As note previously. The risk characterization identified NOAEL HQs > 1 for the chipping sparrow and American robin. Based upon a NOAEL HQ >1 potential risk may exist for avian receptors from antimony at the Site. Based upon a NOAEL HQ >1 potential risk may exist for avian receptors from lead at the Site. and carnivorous trophic guilds. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation • • Review of existing data on chemical concentrations in soil and selection of chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs).Tetra Tech EC. These species represented herbivorous. A site-specific conceptual site food web model was developed to identify the exposure pathways and routes through which the identified wildlife receptors may be exposed to contaminants associated with historical range uses. the 2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-7 . LOAEL HQs <1 suggests this risk is minimal. This process identified eight COPECs for the Site: • • • • • • • • Nitroglycerin Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium The ecological risk characterization evaluated exposure of six representative wildlife receptors to the nine COPECs identified using the hazard quotient (HQ) method. These exceedances were for lead (chipping sparrow and American robin) exposure in the Site. Site COPECs were identified utilizing a three step soil screening level assessment consistent with the comprehensive BERA Site assessment process at MMR ranges. Exposure to vanadium resulted in NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1 for all mammalian receptors. The risk characterization identified NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1 for all three mammalian receptors. and Develop assessment and objective measurement endpoints for use in the ecological risk assessment. The primary exposure media was surface soils and the primary exposure pathways and routes included ingestion of dietary items that have bioaccumulated contaminants from surface soils and incidental ingestion of surface soils. NOAEL exceedances included antimony (red fox) exposure. NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1 for vanadium suggest potential risk for mammalian receptors in the Site. This risk however is considered minimal given the concentrations of vanadium in on-site soils are comparable to MADEP background concentrations for natural soils. LOAEL HQs <1 suggests this risk is minimal. omnivorous. Risk to mammals from soil could not be evaluated for nitroglycerin or tungsten as TRVs were unavailable for these constituents. Inc. Three avian species and three mammalian species were selected as representative ecological receptor species for the Site. Risk to birds from soil could not be evaluated for nitroglycerin or tungsten as TRVs were unavailable for these constituents. however.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation implication for risk management purposes is that the observed levels of arsenic in soil may not indicate the need for a remedy. Inc.Tetra Tech EC. 2007-O-JV04-0019 ES-8 .

Any identified COCs from this risk assessment will be further evaluated within the FS and RA phases. to which this HERA is appended. This work represents efforts completed pursuant to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Administrative Orders under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 1-97-1019 (AO1) and 1-2000-0914 (AO3).Tetra Tech EC. Contaminants of Concern (COC) are to be identified for evaluation within the FS and RA phases under AO3.0 Introduction A Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) was prepared for Tango Range Area of Concern (AOC) located at Camp Edwards at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). Remedial Design (RD) and Remedial Action (RA) in AOCs identified by the USEPA. the National Guard Bureau (NGB) is required to complete investigations of the Impact Area and Training Ranges at MMR. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 1. and A site-specific human health and/or a site-specific ecological risk assessment. 1. COCs represent contaminants that contribute to an excess risk of harm to potential human and environmental receptors.1 Site Description MMR is a 21. The Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) conducts training operations at Camp Edwards under the direction of the NGB.000-acre facility located at the western end of Cape Cod (Figure 2-1 of the RI Report) and includes Camp Edwards. As specified in the administrative order. This HERA was prepared using the available data as part of the Remedial Investigation (RI) performed for Tango Range. and indirect exposure via drinking and inhalation of volatile contaminants that may leached from that soil into the groundwater. Under AO1. The identification of human health-related COCs in soil is based on the potential risk of harm from two possible routes: direct exposure to that soil by people associated with both current and potential future uses (including hypothetical future residential use). Both the initial screening and the more site-specific follow-up risk assessments were performed for the human health and ecological components for Tango Range. The human health-related COCs were identified using a different process and criteria than was used for the ecological-related COCs. the objective of this HERA is to identify the COCs in soil and groundwater from impacts associated with training and other activities that occurred within Tango Range AOC (also referred to in this Appendix as the “Site”). An HERA risk assessment may consist of two separate components that are performed in successive phases when and as warranted: • • A screening level human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA). The human health risk assessment methodology and results are presented in Section 2. and under AO3 the NGB is required to conduct a Feasibility Study (FS). while the ecological risk assessment methodology and results are presented in Section 3. Inc. 2007-O-JV04-0019 1 . Information about the Site history and a description of the Site vicinity is based on information presented in Section 2 of the RI.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

Tango Range is an active combination .50-caliber machine gun and pistol range located in the northern portion of MMR. It is located on the southern side of Gibbs Road just west of the Sierra East and Sierra WesTango Ranges within Camp Edwards. Records indicate that ammunition used has included 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, .50-caliber ammunition, and several types of pistol ammunition. The most densely populated area surrounding Camp Edwards is within the Town of Sandwich, which is roughly 2 miles north and east of Tango Range. The Town of Sagamore lies approximately 2 miles north of Tango Range, and the Town of Bourne is located approximately 3 miles due west of the Site. These distances are characteristic of the distances to the nearest residences and schools in these communities. 1.2 Site History

Tango Range was constructed sometime between 1986 and 1989 at what was formerly P Range. Former P Range was used first in 1967 as a night defense course (where only blank ammunition was used) and continued to be used as such until the mid-1970s when it was converted to a squad and platoon attack course. At that time, no ammunition was used. In the late-1980s, the range name was changed to Tango Range designation and continued to be used as an assault course. Only blank ammunition was used during this period. In 1990 or 1991, Tango Range was converted to a .50-caliber machine gun range and pistol range. There are currently six elevated .50-caliber firing points separated by intervals of approximately 50 feet along a 250-foot long firing line. There are rows of targets downrange at 25 meters from the pistol firing line and approximately 45 meters from the .50 cal firing line. Numerous plastic .50-caliber projectiles were observed throughout the range. In September, 2006 a backstop berm and bullet collection system was installed as part of the MAARNG’s initiative to return to firing lead bullets at the range. There was previously no backstop berm at this range. Surficial soils were removed from the footprint of the berm by MAARNG prior to construction. 1.3 Areas of Interest

Pursuant to the 2006 Project Note investigation, the range was divided conceptually into the following three areas of interest based on the known past use of the Site: • • Area 1 - The area from the top of the machine gun firing points to the 25 meter targets across the entire width of the range, Area 2 - The area of the planned new berm (approximately 45 x 220 feet) behind the 25-meter targets. This area was subsequently excavated to a depth of 6-inches prior to construction of the berm; and Area 3 - The remainder of the range, down range (south) of Area 2 and Area 1.

2007-O-JV04-0019

2

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

2.0 Human Health Risk Assessment
This site-specific HHRA was conducted in accordance with the USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A (USEPA, 1989), Part D (USEPA, 2001a), and Part E (USEPA, 2004b), and in accordance with established MMR protocols. The Draft Work Plan and the subsequent comment resolution instructions were developed and issued in an attempt to maintain a consistent technical approach that adhered to the relevant USEPA and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) risk assessment protocols and policies as interpreted for MMR and the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP). The risk assessment methodology involved a four-step process: (1) data evaluation; (2) exposure assessment; (3) toxicity assessment; and (4) risk characterization (Figure 2.1). The HHRA is divided into the following sections and supporting attachments: • Section 2.1: Data Evaluation – Evaluates the analytical investigation data, identifies the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), and calculates appropriate exposure point concentrations (EPCs) in each impacted medium; Section 2.2: Exposure Assessment – Identifies the potential receptors and complete pathways of exposure in terms of a conceptual site model and establishes the basis for quantifying those exposures (i.e., develops the receptor-specific exposure parameters); Section 2.3: Toxicity Assessment - Evaluates the toxicity of the identified COPCs relative to the identified exposure routes for both carcinogenic and non-cancer health endpoints; Section 2.4: Risk Characterization – Quantifies the various contaminant intakes for each receptor, calculates the corresponding estimates of health risks, and identifies COCs that contribute most to the projected risks; and Section 2.5: Uncertainty Analysis - Analyzes the principal uncertainties associated with the various components of the risk assessment and their implications relative to interpreting the results of the risk assessment.

• •

A brief summary of the findings of both the HHRA and the SLERA (i.e., the HERA) is provided in Section 4, and the references cited in the HERA are listed in Section 5. Risk assessment data summaries and calculations are presented in USEPA’s Standard Reporting Format (SRF) RAGS Part D tables. These tables are referred to as “SRF Table (number)” when cited within this report. It should be noted that the numbering of tables follows the RAGS-D format. Consequently, there are no tables numbered as “SRF Table 8” as SRF Table 8 is reserved for radiological risk characterization, which is not applicable to this HHRA. Non-RAGS format tables with calculations to support RAGS Part D Table 4 series are presented after the RAGS Part D 4 series tables in Attachment A. These tables (i.e., Tables 4.7 – 4.13) are labeled without the SRF prefix for distinction. In addition, nonRAGS format tables presented within the text are also labeled without the SRF prefix and are numbered in sequential order, starting with Table 2.1.

2007-O-JV04-0019

3

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

2.1

Data Evaluation

This section summarizes results of the data evaluation step of the risk assessment process performed for Tango Range. In this step, the existing sampling results were evaluated to assess data quality and usability (in consideration of the analytical methods used, the magnitude of the sample quantitation limits achieved, the assignment of data qualifiers, and the presence of indicators of either field or laboratory contamination). Thereafter, a database of the qualified analytical results was developed and the COPCs for the potential exposure media at the Site were selected for the different areas of interest. The approach to COPC selection was based on USEPA guidance and followed the established MMR protocol. 2.1.1 Data Sources

As specified in the Final Supplemental Phase 2b Work Plan (AMEC, 2002), Tango Range was one of33 supplemental Phase 2b sites evaluated for current and future potential impacts. The investigation was designed to characterize the nature and extent of possible soil and/or groundwater contamination resulting from historical releases associated with past training activities. Investigation results were reported in the Final Technical Team Memorandum 02-2 Small Arms Range Report (AMEC, 2003). Additional site characterization was proposed and completed at Tango Range under a Project Note in 2006 in an effort to support MAARNG’s priorities and range construction plans. Groundwater downgradient of Tango Range also was sampled and analyzed in 2006. Laboratory analytical data for the Site characterization and additional investigation were uploaded electronically into an Access© database from the MMR Environmental Data Management System (EDMS). The Access© database was used by TtEC remedial investigation and risk assessment personnel to create output files, prepare summary statistics tables using Excel© and MiniTab©, and calculate exposure point concentration estimates using ProUCL Version 3. 2.1.2 Summary of the Data Collected at Tango Range

The HHRA for Tango Range made use of the available soil and groundwater data collected previously at the range. These prior sampling events, and the data produced, are summarized below. Supplemental Phase 2b Soil Sampling As part of the second round of Phase 2b investigations in April of 2002, the IAGWSP established three 5point soil grids on Tango Range at selected firing points along each of the two firing lines to determine if residual propellant compounds exist in soil there. Central grids were positioned near the center of both firing lines and the remaining grids were positioned down range of firing points located near the eastern and western limits of both firing lines. The center nodes for each grid were positioned approximately eight feet down range of the firing line and two feet to the right of their respective lane markers. The grids were sampled at three depth intervals: surface (0 to 3 inches below ground surface (bgs)), intermediate (3 to 6 inches bgs), and deep (6 to 12 inches bgs). One 5-point composite and one discrete soil sample (obtained from the center grid node) were collected at each depth interval. Samples were submitted for analysis of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (Method 8270) and metals.

2007-O-JV04-0019

4

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

June 2006 Project Note Soil Sampling Investigation Areas 1, 2, and 3 (as defined in Section 1.3) were divided into three equal sample areas across the width of each Area. The three sample areas are identified as West, Center, and East. This delineation provided for the collection of samples from the most heavily used central portion of the range and separate samples from the less frequently used flanks. The center area is likely to have experienced the most intense loading of contaminants because, historically, most of the rounds are fired from the center lanes of a range. In addition, the center section of Area 1 was divided into north and south sub-sections (Area 1/Center/North and Area 1/Center/South) to determine if there is any difference in contaminant concentrations immediately in front of the firing points and somewhat further down range. Samples were collected from each of these ten sub-areas as follows: • Area 1/West - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten. A replicate sample was collected from this area and analyzed for the same constituents; Area 1/Center/North - One 50-point sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals, tungsten, explosives (Method 8330), SVOCs (Method 8270), and perchlorate. A replicate sample was collected from this area and analyzed for the same constituents; Area1/Center/South - One 50-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade. Another composite sample was collected from 9-12 inches below grade from the same 50 locations. Both samples were analyzed for metals, tungsten, explosives and perchlorate; Area 1/East - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten. A replicate sample was collected from this area and analyzed for the same; Area 2/West - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten; Area 2/Center - One 100 point composite was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals, tungsten, explosives, and perchlorate. A replicate sample was collected and analyzed for the same constituents; Area 2/East - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten; Area 3/West - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten; Area 3/Center - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals, tungsten, and perchlorate. A replicate sample was collected and analyzed for the same constituents; and

• •

• • •

2007-O-JV04-0019

5

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

Area 3/East - One 100-point composite sample was collected from 0-3 inches below grade and analyzed for metals and tungsten.

All samples were collected using the approach developed by ERDC/CRREL (USACE, 2004). Samples were collected using a plug extractor except for the deep samples in Area 1/Center/North which were collected using a hand auger. A systematic sampling approach was used to collect representative samples from each grid. Care was taken to ensure that samples were not concentrated in one portion of the sampling area. Samples for SVOC analysis were sent directly to STL Laboratory in Burlington Vermont for analysis. All samples for explosives, perchlorate, metals and tungsten were shipped to ERDC/CRREL in Hanover, New Hampshire and ground in a steel puck mill grinder. The samples were then shipped to STL Laboratory in Burlington Vermont for analyses. The samples from Area 2/West, Area 2/Center, and Area 2/East were not used in this HHRA because this area was excavated to a depth of 6 inches prior to construction of the backstop berm. Areas 2 (postexcavation) and Area 3 were combined into a single area of interest. Groundwater Investigation In September, 2006 a groundwater monitoring well (MW-467S) was installed downgradient of the range (Figure 3-3). MW-467S was located and screened at a depth to intercept groundwater that originated as precipitation falling on the range. The monitoring well was sampled and analyzed for explosives (Method 8330), 8 total RCRA metals (Method 6010B), total and dissolved tungsten (Method 6020), and SVOCs (Method 8270C). 2.1.3 Surface Soil: Explosives: Explosives were detected in multiple surface soil samples from Area 1. Specifically, there were 3 detections of nitroglycerin. There were no explosives detected in the Area 2 (post-excavation) or Area 3 samples. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs were detected in Area 1. The maximum detected concentration for each PAH compound was associated with soil samples collected from grid location SS169E. However, for point of comparison, the PAH concentrations detected in the soil samples from Area 1 were less than those detected in the outwash surface soil sample (an indicator of local background levels) and established concentrations for natural soils in Massachusetts (MassDEP, 2002). Metals/Inorganics: Several metals were detected in excess of the cited background levels, particularly the central portion of Area 1. Antimony, calcium, and lead all were detected in this area at concentrations more than two times greater than those reported in the outwash sample or MassDEP “natural soils.” Summary of the Detected Compounds by Environmental Medium and Chemical Group

2007-O-JV04-0019

6

but was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit (SQL). matrix spike accuracy. “U” means “Not Detected. and n-nitrosodiphenylamine. laboratory duplicate precision. surrogate recovery.9 μg/Land dissolved tungsten was detected at a concentration of 1. Based on this data quality review. There is. For practical purposes.n’diethylcarbanilide. and field duplicate precision.Tetra Tech EC. it is highly unlikely that lead can migrate to groundwater and result in detectable concentrations at small arms ranges. Groundwater: No explosives compounds. based on a literature search. This finding is consistent with a recent study of the behavior of metallic lead in the environment conducted by the CRREL.9 μg/L. This review consisted of a combination of automated data review and supplemental manual review. the following qualifiers were assigned to the data (as appropriate): Data Qualifier Codes Related to Identification: “U” – The analyte was analyzed for. Lead was not detected in the groundwater sample collected at MW-467S. a review of geochemical properties and existing site data. currently some uncertainty in the ability of the various laboratory methods to reliably detect tungsten at these low concentrations. analyte not detected substantially above the level reported in laboratory or field blanks. Other detected SVOCs include benzoic acid. however. Phthalates as well as n-nitrosodiphenylamine are considered propulsive. 2007-O-JV04-0019 7 . Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Semivolatile Organic Compounds: Phthalate esters were detected in Area 1. explosive or pyrotechnic compounds. That study concluded that. blank spike accuracy. Total tungsten was detected at a concentration of 2.4 Data Usability The site characterization soil sampling results used in this HHRA were submitted to a data quality review by Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC) via the MMR EDMS database. n. The following quality control elements were evaluated during this review: • • • • • • • • • • technical holding times. 2. SVOCs. method blank contamination. or metals were detected in MW-467S. matrix spike precision.1. field blank contamination.” “B” – For organic data. Inc. blank spike precision.

The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified. Laboratory replicates are not included in the frequency tally or range of detected concentrations presented in SRF Tables 2. When only one of the paired primary and duplicate samples had a detected value. 2007-O-JV04-0019 8 . “R” data is generally considered to be unreliable. the lower reporting limit was used as the sample result.1 and 2.” Data Qualifier Codes Related to Quantitation: “J” – The “J” qualifier denotes that the analyte was identified.5 Compound-Specific Issues Nitorglycerin was detected by both Method 8270 (SVOCs) and Method 8330 (Explosives). Because High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) methods such as Method 8330 are known to generate false positive results. For purposes of this risk assessment pursuant to USEPA guidance (1989. Based on the data quality review performed. all data were acceptable for use (as qualified). 1992). the detected value was used as the data point. the analyte may be present. 2. The result can be used to document non-detects in background samples under certain conditions. However. “UJ” – The analysis was not detected above reported sample quantitation limit. Other Data Qualifier codes: “NJ” – The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been “tentatively identified” and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration. When paired primary and duplicate samples had detected values. the results were averaged and treated as one data point. “B” – For inorganic data.2 in Attachment A.Tetra Tech EC. the HPLC is coupled with a Photo Diode Array detector for more accurate identification of the explosive compounds. “UJ” non-detects are not definite. The associated numerical value is the estimated concentration of the analyte in the sample. The Method 8330 results were utilized in the HHRA as the quantitation using this analytical method is more accurate. Inc. Duplicate samples are generally obtained at the same time and location as the original sample. it was also detected by Method 8270. the reported value is less than the reporting limit but greater than the instrument detection limit. In all instances where nitroglycerin was detected by Method 8330.1. “N” – The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a “tentative identification. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Method 8270 can be used as a confirmation of the presence of the explosive. In addition. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation “R” – The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria. the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample. When the results from both samples were reported as non-detect. and were analyzed via the same laboratory method(s). Duplicate samples were taken periodically for sampling quality control purposes. Rejected data were not used in the risk assessment. analytical values reported as “Not Detected” were assigned a value of one-half the SQL for that constituent.

. only when certain criteria were met. Constituents that are not “mission-related” should not be screened out of the HHRA (i. no organic compounds were B qualified. Data reduction is an option when identifying COPCs for larger data sets. chemicals were eliminated. iron.e.e. and sodium) were evaluated as follows. A detected constituent should not generally be eliminated as a COPC on the basis of low frequency of detection (FOD) for HHRAs. 1989). These criteria were as follows: Field and Laboratory Contamination: Chemicals attributable to field or laboratory contamination (e. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 2. all detected constituents should be considered as COPCs for an HHRA. phosphorous. Inc.6 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern COPCs are defined as those compounds that are potentially related to the Site and whose data are of sufficient quality for use in the quantitative risk assessment (USEPA. surface soil) for each exposure area of interest. However. Exceedances of promulgated standards identified during comparisons made during the COPC selection process should be flagged and discussed (as appropriate). prior to the feasibility study). organic chemicals qualified as B) based on guidance in the Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (USEPA. magnesium. Essential Nutrients: Chemicals that are essential nutrients may be eliminated from the COPC list if on-site concentrations were consistent with naturally occurring levels or were below safe nutritive levels.. Detected chemicals are those constituents that were detected above the SQL. Working from this initial list. The process for selecting COPCs is defined in USEPA RAGS Part A (USEPA. The MMR risk assessment protocols modify the standard USEPA COPC selection process in some significant ways.. If FOD is used as a justification for screening out a constituent. media-. potassium. calcium. consistent with the previously noted instructions. copper. Naturally occurring elements considered essential for human nutrition (i. but should not be used as a justification for deciding if a constituent is or is not a COPC. 1999e) may be eliminated because these are not indicators of site-related contamination. The candidate COPC list was first generated as the list of all chemicals detected in each exposure medium (in this case.1. no chemicals were eliminated as possible COPCs using this criterion.g. Consequently. it should be used in conjunction with other lines of evidence as well and only after a checking for hot spots of that constituent. The following summarizes the key elements of the MMR protocol instructions relative to COPC selection: • • • Unless it is impractical. 1999a). Compound-. This process was applied for Tango Range. including those that were reported with selected qualifiers that imply uncertain concentration but not uncertain identity. provided the screening or filtering is done in a transparent manner. 1989). and pathway-specific risk-based criteria are used as a screening tool to identify COPCs for baseline risk assessments and eliminate chemicals that pose insignificant risk or hazard to human health. An essential nutrient was eliminated as a COPC only 2007-O-JV04-0019 9 . COPCs are identified as compounds that are detected in an exposure medium at concentrations greater than their respective risk-based screening criteria (USEPA.Tetra Tech EC. • • In accordance with USEPA guidance.

construction worker): The expression is: Acceptable Soil Concentration = Acceptable Dose *((70)(106)/(330)).000 >1.850 >1.1 and 2. phosphorus. 2001b) and 2007-O-JV04-0019 10 . For the other three essential nutrients (i. sodium value is 1/10th the Recommended Dietary Allowance Conversion uses highest soil ingestion rate at the Site (i. copper and potassium).Tetra Tech EC.000. and no further evaluation of these compounds is necessary. The background levels are based on the results from an outwash surface soil sample described as “Moraine background” (AMEC.1.000 121. Conversion of Essential Nutrient Doses to a Associated Soil Concentration Assuming a High Soil Ingestion Rate Chemical Calcium Phosphorous Magnesium Iron Copper Sodium Potassium Notes: 1 Essential Nutrient Acceptable Daily Dose1 (mg/kg-day) 14 14 5.037 7..750 42. it should be noted that this information was not used to eliminate or screen out any possible COPCs. As a result. Although this evaluation considered only ingestion of soil and does not consider potential dermal absorption or inhalation exposures. magnesium.14 0.220 2. Background: Information is provided in the SRF Tables 2. 965 980 Not Applicable 356 2 USEPA 1994b. The published safe nutritive level was converted to an equivalent maximum acceptable soil concentration as shown in Table 2. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation if its maximum concentration was below the safe nutritive level..630 720 Average Site-Wide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 10.000. iron. but rather on taste and odor thresholds in water.26 0.490 75. the intake of these essential nutrients due to exposure to the soil at Tango Range is unlikely to contribute significantly to total risk.000.2 (Attachment A) regarding background soil concentrations that may be associated with the Site. (106) = 106 mg/kg.000 >1. This evaluation indicates that no physically possible concentration of calcium. In general.e.000 7. and (330) = 330 mg/day soil ingestion rate.000 55. the Acceptable Daily Doses correspond to maximum acceptable soil concentrations that are physically possible but that are greater than the highest concentration for that chemical measured anywhere at Tango Range.000.6 1. the only potential inhalation exposure would be from particulates. dermal absorption and inhalation exposures are not likely to be significant for these chemicals.e.57 Corresponding Maximum Acceptable Soil Concentration2 (mg/kg) >1. these compounds are not readily absorbed through the skin and as they are not volatile.152 7. and sodium in soil could lead to an intake that exceeds the Acceptable Daily Dose of even assuming the relatively high soil ingestion rate of 330 mg/day.000 Maximum Site-Wide Soil Concentration (mg/kg) 3. Although USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) do exist for iron and copper. Inc. Where 70 = 70 kg body weight. the iron PRG is based on provisional toxicity information that is not approved for use in USEPA Region I and the copper PRG is not based on toxicity / risk thresholds. However.7 0.

1 (USEPA. MassDEP. 2002. The screening process to identify COPCs was conducted in accordance with CERCLA guidance (e. Region 9 PRGs are conservative risk-based concentrations reflecting current USEPA toxicity values. 1999a). conservative residential exposure factors (adult and child).6.2 and detailed in Appendix B. This evaluation initially involved comparing the maximum detected concentrations of the constituents in soil to site-specific Phase I MMR Soil Screening Levels (SSLs). To identify the COPCs in soil based on their potential to migrate from soil to groundwater.Tetra Tech EC. 1999a. when a Region 9 PRG to be used for screening in this evaluation was based on a non-cancer health effect the published value was first divided by 10 to obtain a value reflective of a more stringent HQ of 0. direct contact (ingestion and dermal absorption) or inhalation exposure to groundwater potentially impacted by constituents that may leach from contaminated soil. 1994b)). 2006b). 2007-O-JV04-0019 11 . For MMR in general. Those constituents whose maximum detected values exceeded this criterion were retained as COPCs. 1995). This information on background levels will be utilized in future risk management decisions. the risk-based criteria used for this screening were the USEPA Region 9 PRGs for residential soil (USEPA. and inhalation of both particulates and volatiles. In general. The MMR SSLs were developed specifically in consideration of the conditions present at MMR for the USEPA by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 2002a). The Region 9 PRG values for residential soil assume exposure via incidental ingestion.1. an evaluation was conducted of both soil and groundwater conditions at the Site. and for Tango Range specifically. Inc. 2004a). RAGS Part A (USEPA. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation background “natural” soil data from across Massachusetts (MassDEP. and Region 8 guidance (USEPA.7. such as reflecting a dilution-attenuation factor of one. 2002). Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels (USEPA. 1989). and USEPA regional guidance (Region I guidance (USEPA. remedial efforts are typically not required for naturally occurring COPCs with concentrations at or below background levels (USEPA. USEPA recommends using onetenth of the PRG for non-carcinogens to protect against underestimation of non-cancer hazards from exposure to multiple non-carcinogens potentially impacting the same targer organ or system (USEPA. and conservative risk goals (non-cancer hazard quotient [HQ] of 1 or an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-6).g. 2004a). 1995. In accordance with MMR risk assessment protocols.1. 2004a). 2. the identification of COPCs relative to the direct exposure and inhalation pathways should be accomplished by comparing the maximum detected concentrations of the constituents in soil to risk-based criteria developed to be protective of these exposures. COPCs for the soils in the areas of interest were identified for this HHRA based on consideration of multiple possible exposure pathways: 1.. In accordance with USEPA Region I guidance. The MMR SSLs are based on site-specific measurements and conservative assumptions. Region 3 guidance (USEPA. Region 9 guidance (USEPA. Those soil constituents that were detected at a concentration greater than their respective Phase I MMR SSL were further evaluated using the phased approach described in Section 2. direct contact (ingestion and dermal absorption) or inhalation exposure (particulates or volatile vapors) to contaminants in soil.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil In accordance with established MMR risk assessment protocols. dermal absorption. MassDEP 2003). and 2.

2. • Of these 126 target analytes.1.1 Area 1 There were 126 target analytes for the surface soil in this exposure area of interest.7 COPC Selection by Area of Interest The following sections summarize the results of the COPC screening process for each of the exposure areas of interest. the chemical was retained as a COPC. there were 39 detected compounds: Of the 39 detected compounds.1 prior to being used in this evaluation. the USEPA Region 9 PRGs developed to be protective of residential exposures to soil (i. The following compounds were identified as COPCs in Area 1 surface soil based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations to risk-based screening criteria protective of direct exposures: aluminum. Cancer and non-cancer risks associated with all COPCs were quantified in the HHRA. 2004a). and inhalation of particulates or volatiles) were used for this screening (USEPA.1. vanadium. incidental ingestion.e. n.1. dermal absorption.. Of the 39 detected compounds. arsenic. Constituents with maximum detected concentrations exceeding the risk-based screening criteria for either depth interval were retained as COPCs for both surface and subsurface soil.e. their maximum detected concentration exceeded their respective MMR SSL).6. Inc. antimony. 2. 2. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation The soil COPCs identified from these two separate considerations are presented in the following subsections. or metals were detected in MW-467S. No surrogate relationships were adopted for the COPC screening process. tungsten. including those present at concentrations consistent with background. 13 were COPCs for leaching from soil to groundwater based on the Phase I evaluation that should be further evaluated in the groundwater RI (i.1).Tetra Tech EC.2 Soil Screening Criteria Based on Direct Contact/Inhalation Pathways The maximum detected concentrations of each compound in surface soil (0 to 1 ft bgs) were compared to the risk-based screening concentrations. and nitroglycerin (see Attachment A SRF Table 2.3 Groundwater Screening Based on Groundwater Monitoring Data No explosives compounds.. appropriate surrogate values were utilized for COPC screening or in the absence of an appropriate surrogate. SVOCs. Risk-based criteria based on a non-cancer health effect were adjusted by dividing by 10 to obtain a screening criterion that was representative of an HQ of 0. lead. 2.9 μg/L and dissolved tungsten was detected at a concentration of 1.3diethyl-1. Total tungsten was detected at a concentration of 2. As was noted above.7. For these chemicals.n’-diethylcarbinalide (also known as 1. 9 were selected as COPCs for direct contact to be evaluated in the risk assessment.3-diphenyl urea).e.. arsenic and vanadium) 2007-O-JV04-0019 12 .1. No federal or state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) were used to select COPCs for soil. Two of the 9 COPCs for direct contact exposure (i.9 μg/L. Several detected constituents in soil did not have published Region 9 PRGs.6.

Of the 22 detected compounds.1. arsenic.e. tungsten.. ProUCL (Version 3. The five parametric UCL computation methods include (USEPA. 4.Tetra Tech EC. Student’s-t UCL. and vanadium (see Attachment A SRF Table 2. In addition. 2004c): 1.1. It is used in conjunction with other exposure factors to calculate the daily intakes or absorbed doses of the COPCs.e. as listed below. The following compounds were identified as COPCs in Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 surface soil based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations to risk-based screening criteria protective of direct exposures: aluminum.e. 5 were selected as COPCs for direct contact to be evaluated in the risk assessment. Land’s H-UCL.0 USEPA. the outwash surface sample and the MassDEP published “natural soil” values (MassDEP. Three of the 5 COPCs for direct contact exposure (i. the concentrations of the identified COPCs in the exposure media must first be estimated from the available applicable data..7. 2002). and 2007-O-JV04-0019 13 . • Of these 27 target analytes. aluminum. 2. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation were detected at maximum concentrations that were comparable to background (i. The UCL is an upper-bound estimate of the average or mean concentration of a data set. The EPC is the estimated concentration of the COPC in a medium to which a receptor would be exposed. 7 were COPCs for leaching from soil to groundwater based on the Phase I evaluation that should be further evaluated in the groundwater RI. the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean was calculated for each COPC based on the statistical distribution of its sampling data set.. Several parametric and non-parametric methods are included in ProUCL. One-half the SQL for that constituent was used as the concentration for that constituent in that sample for purposes of statistical evaluation when that constituent was not detected in a particular sample.2 Area 2 (post-excavation) & Area 3 There were 27 target analytes for the surface soil in this exposure area of interest. EPCs were calculated using the USEPA software.8 Exposure Point Concentrations In order to quantify the magnitude of exposure that may be expected to occur to a receptor. 2002). the outwash surface sample and the MassDEP published “natural soil” values (MassDEP. 2004c). 3. Approximate gamma UCL using the chi-square approximation. 2. After the COPCs were identified for each exposure medium associated with the exposure areas of interest at the Site. including those present at concentrations consistent with background. arsenic. there were 22 detected compounds: Of the 22 detected compounds. Adjusted gamma UCL (adjusted for level significance). 2. and vanadium) were detected at concentrations that were comparable to background (i.2. Inc. Cancer and non-cancer risks associated with these 5 COPCs were quantified in the HHRA. samples with field duplicate samples were averaged together to develop the concentration at that location to be used in the statistical evaluations.

6. and gamma. The ten non-parametric methods for calculating a UCL included in ProUCL are (USEPA.05 for a 95% UCL) and the degrees of freedom (df). and UCL based upon Hall’s bootstrap. 36): S y H 0.95 n 2007-O-JV04-0019 = = = = Arithmetic mean of the transformed values (yi = lnXi). The relationship for calculating the 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean for a normal distribution is as follows (USEPA. 2. 2004c): 1. Standard Deviation of the transformed values. here n-1. 2004c. 10. Modified-t statistic based UCL (adjusted for skewness). or 0. UCL based upon standard bootstrap. Inc. and Number of sample analyses. Chebyshev inequality based UCL (using sample mean and sample standard deviation). UCL based upon bootstrap-t. Equation. Jackknife method based UCL. 3.05. UCL based upon percentile bootstrap. 9. and Number of sample analyses. Student’s t distribution parameter. Adjusted CLT based UCL (adjusted for skewness). depends on the probability confidence level (1 – confidence level. n −1 ⋅ where: x Sx n = = Arithmetic mean of the samples.95 ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎟ Lognormal 95% UCL = exp⎜ y + 0. 7. 14 . 5. t 0. 8.n −1 Sx n = = Standard deviation of the samples. Equation 32): 95% UCL = x + t0. The relationship for calculating the 95% UCL of the geometric mean for a log-normal distribution is as follows (USEPA.Tetra Tech EC. H statistic depends on Sy and n for the 95% confidence level. UCL based upon bias-corrected accelerated bootstrap. lognormal. 4. 2004c. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 5. The Central Limit Theorem (CLT) based UCL.5S y + ⎜ n −1 ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ where: y Sy H0.05. Chebyshev inequality based UCL (using minimum variance unbiased estimates (MVUEs) of the parameters of a lognormal distribution). Three parametric distributions were most often observed to be associated with the sampling data sets for this Site: normal.

1). Inc. As a result. Finally. and future military personnel involved in non-intrusive small arms training activities. the entire area would need to be re-graded and/or fill material would need to be added to provide a suitable foundation for construction of new buildings or other redevelopment features. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation The algorithms for the calculation of the approximate or adjusted gamma distribution UCLs. Based on this determination.0 User Guide (USEPA.g. and the Chebyshev inequality based UCLs are not as easy to present in a concise manner. EPCs were derived for each of the COPCs in the surface soil data set in the impacted areas of interest for the identified receptors based on the assumed interaction of those receptors with the land. ProUCL recommends a UCL calculation approach based on the standard deviation of the lognormally transformed data set or an approximate non-parametric measure of the UCL (USEPA. If the calculated 95% UCL using the approach recommended by the software was greater than the maximum detected concentration in the data set. The relationships for calculating the 95% UCLs using these approaches are presented in the ProUCL Version 3. 2004c). future recreational users (e. However. two soil exposure points (strata) are defined for current and future exposures—surface soil and the combined surface and subsurface soil. COPCs include inorganics.Tetra Tech EC. lognormal. the maximum detected concentration was used as the EPC. a statistical test was performed to determine if the distribution of the sampling data for a COPC exhibited a normal. Therefore. to accommodate a future hypothetical resident at the Site. 2004c) in reference to the following Equation numbers: • • • • Approximate Gamma Distribution Adjusted Gamma Distribution Modified-t Statistic for Asymmetrical Distributions Chebyshev Theorem (Using Sample Mean and Standard Deviation) Equation 34 Equation 35 Equation 37 Equation 46 Additional details on these approaches are presented in Appendix A of the ProUCL User’s Guide (USEPA. the modified-t Statistic UCL. the 95% UCL was calculated by one of the above equations. or gamma distribution. In summary.2 (presented in Attachment A) summarize the EPCs for each COPC identified in the surface soil (0 to 1 foot bgs) of Area 1 (SRF Table 3. Surface soil (0 to 1 foot bgs) was defined as the exposure point at this Site for current and future trespassers. and Area 2 (post-excavation) & Area 3 2007-O-JV04-0019 15 . hunters). given the different COPCs in each of the exposure areas of interest that comprise Tango Range. 2004c). current conditions would likely be altered to a great extent and the current surface and subsurface soil would be mixed.1 and 3. soil from 0 to 10 feet bgs also is defined as the exposure point for the hypothetical future residents. No activity or surface feature has been identified that would suggest preferential use or exposure to any one area within the Site over that of any other under future Site conditions. SRF Tables 3. Using the ProUCL software. If a data set was found to be neither normally or lognormally distributed. the two separate exposure point areas were defined for this risk assessment: • • Area 1 exposure point: Combined Areas 2 & 3 exposure point: COPCs include inorganics and explosives. The exposure point for future construction workers also is the soil from 0 to 10 feet bgs. The outputs from ProUCL for soil data sets are presented in Attachment B to this HERA..

Section 2. lies within the boundaries of Bourne and Sandwich. the amount of COPCs that an individual would be exposed to each day). Camp Edwards.2). Intakes were calculated for each route of exposure using receptor-specific exposure factors. release mechanisms. This section presents the exposure assessment step of the HHRA for Tango Range.3 summarizing the potential source areas. A point of potential contact by humans with the contaminated medium.e. and Mashpee. This assumption is believed to be conservative (i.4 summarizing the receptors and human exposure routes that were assessed. Sandwich. ingestion. The purpose of the exposure assessment is to identify the populations that may come into contact with the COPCs at the Site and the pathways by which they may be exposed.2 Exposure Assessment The exposure assessment describes.e. and duration of exposure for the various receptor populations. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation (SRF Table 3.2. both qualitatively and quantitatively.e. The cantonment area at the southern portion of Camp Edwards borders Otis ANGB. which includes Tango Range.1 Exposure Setting and Land Use The MMR includes both Camp Edwards and Otis Air National Guard Base (Otis ANGB).. therefore. The extent of the exposure is then quantified for each exposure pathway determined to be complete or potentially complete. and An effective route of exposure (i. with Section 2. receptor populations and exposure pathways that were addressed in the risk assessment and Section 2. dermal absorption. 2.2. The predominant land use surrounding the MMR is residential or commercial development. The exposure assessment considers site conditions and receptor behavior associated with both current and reasonably foreseeable future land uses. Section 2. frequency. The MMR as a whole is a wooded area on the Upper Cape that is largely undeveloped.2. 2007-O-JV04-0019 16 . The MMR is located on the western side of Cape Cod. or inhalation) for that chemical.2 presents the conceptual site model of potential human exposures for the Site. Inc. 1998). USCG Housing. 2. homes.. Falmouth. 1989): • • • • A source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment. Massachusetts. Section 2. The MMR is situated within four towns. An environmental transport medium for the released chemical or mechanisms of transfer of the chemical from one medium to another. A complete human exposure pathway is composed of the following elements (USEPA.6 presents the chronic daily intake (CDI) calculations relative to both non-cancer and carcinogenic health endpoints (i..2. and other development (Cape Cod Commission. Section 2. Bourne.2.2. There is no subsurface soil data available for either area.5 discusses the assumptions and parameters used to estimate the extent. the most significant potential exposure pathways through which people may contact contamination in the soil at the Site. the surface soil EPCs were assumed to be representative of the combined surface and subsurface soil exposure point for Area 1 and the combined Areas 2 & 3. and the Veteran’s Affairs Cemetery.1 reviews the environmental setting and land use at Tango Range. United States Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station Cape Cod. not likely to lead to an underestimation of risk) due to the largely durface depositional model of release of the Site contaminants.2.Tetra Tech EC. but fringed with highways.

2. These direct exposure pathways for soil include incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of COPCs from soil. Commercial and industrial development in the area includes service industries. Knowledge of the precise location of these historic sites is restricted to only the Geographic Information System (GIS) Manager and the MAARNG Regional Cultural Resources Manager to prevent damage or looting (MAARNG.” This Act was approved on March 5. The major agricultural land use near the MMR is the cultivation of cranberries.e. SRF Table 1 (Attachment A) shows the potential pathways for contaminant migration to human receptors for the principal contaminant sources. landscaping. Future Site uses and activities must be compatible with those legislated by Chapter 47. a 15. the identification of key exposure pathways requires an understanding of the sources and releases of environmental contaminants and the fate of these substances once released into the environment. wildlife habitat).. 2..000 acre parcel of land reserved for the protection of the natural resources of the sensitive Cape Cod environs (e. A total of one historic site and 26 prehistoric sites were identified within Camp Edwards. an act relative to the environmental protection of MMR. Portions of the MMR are opened for deer and turkey hunting by permit from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.2 Conceptual Site Model Designing an appropriate human health risk assessment that supports site management decision-making requires an understanding of the pathways through which identified receptors are or may be exposed to the Site’s COPCs. This section identifies the key exposure pathways and receptor groups applicable to Tango Range. provided that. An archaeological survey covering 72 percent of Camp Edwards was conducted in 1987 to assess its archaeological sensitivity. 2001). states that: “The Upper Cape Water Supply Reserve shall be public conservation land and shall be dedicated to: (a) the natural resource purposes of water supply and wildlife habitat protection and the development and construction of public water supply systems. 2002). and (b) the use and training of the military forces of the Commonwealth.g. In turn. sand and gravel pit operations. only those pathways with that are complete (i. Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. This aquifer contains zones of contribution for a number of public water supply wells and is a potential future source of drinking water. is within the Upper Cape Water Supply Reserve. and municipal landfills (USACE.000 years ago. As was noted above. water supply. For purposes 2007-O-JV04-0019 17 .Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Land use near the MMR is primarily residential and recreational. such military use and training is compatible with the natural resource purposes of water supply and wildlife habitat protection. Military use and training are allowed within the Central Impact Area to the extent that the activities involved are compatible with those natural resource preservation objectives. where all four elements are present) provide the potential for exposure and risk. A conceptual site model (CSM) is used to identify pathways of contaminant migration and potential exposure. 2002. The Central Impact Area. located south of Tango Range. and secondarily agricultural and industrial. Shawme Crowell State Forest provides camping as well as other recreational activities. Findings from these surveys indicate that humans inhabited the Camp Edwards area up to 10. Inc. The Central Impact Area and Training Ranges (including Tango Range) sit above a sole source aquifer. and potentially the inhalation of airborne particulate-bound COPCs emitted from the soil.

airborne soil dusts are a secondary exposure medium. consists of a suite of explosives and SVOCs produced by the combustion of small caliber ammunition propellants during past training activities. An assessment of these exposures is outside the scope of this risk assessment as potential groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future risk assessment. and in the vicinity of.2.3 Potential Source Areas and Release Mechanisms Potential sources of small arms range contaminants include propellant-related compounds deposited on the surface in the vicinity of firing lines and projectile-related residuals deposited on the surface at. transport from soil to ambient air through volatilization is not considered to be a plausible migration route and exposure pathway. The principal exposure medium is the in-place soil. dermal absorption and incidental ingestion) with groundwater pooling at the surface. These metals (typically lead. Propellant-related contamination. and exposed population to define which combinations are linked and should be quantitatively or qualitatively evaluated. Inc. it is possible that soil particulates containing COPCs could be generated by the intrusive activities and be entrained into the ambient air. None of the COPCs meet the “volatile” criteria of having a Henry’s Law Constant greater than 1x10-5 (atm-m3/mol) and a molecular weight less than 200 g/mol.e. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation of completeness.2. antimony.. 2.Tetra Tech EC. These compounds are released to the environment and are deposited as surface residue via airborne deposition. and copper) are deposited on. Therefore. and near. Projectile-related residues consist mainly of the metallic constituents of various alloys used in the manufacturing of small caliber rounds. and 2007-O-JV04-0019 18 . Groundwater in the vicinity of Tango Range has not been sampled for VOCs.3) and exposure pathways and receptors (Section 2. direct contact (i. Therefore. inhalation of volatiles released from groundwater into the indoor air during consumptive use. The current sources of COPCs are contaminated surface and/or near subsurface soils found within each of the two exposure areas of interest.2. the targets and range backstops. When intrusive activities are not being performed. The following sections discuss the results of the pathway analysis steps in terms of potential source areas and release mechanisms (Section 2. inhalation of volatiles in indoor air due to vapor intrusion from subsurface emissions from groundwater into the soil vapor. These potential exposure pathways include: ingestion of groundwater. and inhalation of volatiles emitted from pooled groundwater into the ambient air. The combinations associated with soil exposure that were addressed in this risk assessment were those that represented currently complete pathways or plausible future pathways. the potential indirect exposure pathways for soil that are associated with the transfer of contamination from soil to groundwater also are shown on SRF Table 1. The pathway screening step involves the systematic examination of each contaminated source medium. the surface as the fragmented remnants of projectiles. contaminant transport pathway. a lesser opportunity and potential exists for soil dust to be entrained into the ambient air by the wind. The potential inter-media transfers of contaminants at the areas of interest of Tango Range were identified to include: • leaching from soil to groundwater. dermal absorption during bathing in groundwater.4). During times of excavation activity when the ground surface may be disturbed and larger areas of exposed soil created. in part.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

particulate transfers from soil to ambient air.

The evaluation of leaching from soil to groundwater is summarized below and discussed more extensively in Section 2.2.3.1. The approaches used to estimate transfers from soil to ambient air are summarized below. 2.2.3.1 Soil Particulates to Ambient Air Soil particles may be released into the ambient air as the result of wind erosion and entrainment where they may then be subsequently inhaled by a person. In order for wind erosion to occur, the soils would need to become exposed for a sufficient length of time such that they would dry out. Wind erosion was modeled using the quantitative approach described in USEPA’s Supplemental Soil Screening Guidance (USEPA, 2002a). This approach uses a particulate emission factor (PEF) to define the relationship between the concentration of a chemical in exposed soil and the concentration of wind-entrained dust particles in the air. The reciprocal of the PEF is coupled with the concentration of the contaminant in soil to estimate a resulting contaminant concentration in air. Consequently, lower PEFs are associated with higher air concentrations. Two types of PEFs were calculated for the Tango Range exposure assessment: a PEF related to wind-generated soil dust and a PEF related to vehicle-generated soil dust. The relationship used to calculate a site-specific PEF related to wind-generated soil dust is the following:

PEFwind =
where: PEFwind Q/Cwind V = = =

Q x Cwind

3,600 sec hr U 0.036 x (1 − V ) x ⎛ m ⎞ x F ( x ) ⎜ U ⎟ t⎠ ⎝
3

Particulate Emission Factor (Wind) (m3/kg); Inverse of the ratio of the geometric mean air concentration to the emission flux at the center of a square source [g/m2-sec per kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3)]; Fraction of the ground surface that is vegetated or paved (i.e., (1-V) is the fraction of the ground surface that has exposed soil) [unitless]; (Values of V were established in consideration of photographs from the site visit and future use scenarios); Mean annual wind speed at that location [m/s]; Equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 10 m [m/s]; and Function dependent on Um/Ut [unitless].

Um Ut F(x) Additionally:

= = =

⎡ (ln ASite − B ) 2 ⎤ Q = A x exp ⎢ ⎥ C wind C ⎣ ⎦
where:

2007-O-JV04-0019

19

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

ASite

=

Areal extent of the Site or contamination [acres] (Area 1 was assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres in size, while the combined Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 were assumed to be 3.95 acres ); and Constants based on air dispersion modeling for specific climate zones [unitless] (Values for A, B and C used to calculate Q/C were based on values for Portland, Maine).

A, B and C

=

Further details on these parameters are presented in (USEPA, 2002a) and Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites (USEPA, 1985). One estimate of PEFwind was developed for the current and future small arms military trainee, trespasser and hunter receptors and the hypothetical future residential receptors for Area 1. Another estimate of PEFwind was developed for these same receptors for combined Areas 2 and 3 (given the difference in their size). Details of the development of these two PEFs are presented in Table 4.7 of Attachment A. USEPA also has provided an approach for estimating a PEF for construction scenario exposures to be applied to risk assessments of construction workers (USEPA, 2002a). The PEF applicable to on-site soil dust concentrations generated by construction vehicle traffic (typically the greatest source of particulate emissions) was judged to be most applicable to Tango Range. The equation for estimating the PEF associated with dust resuspended by construction vehicle traffic on unpaved dirt surfaces is:

PEFRoad =

1 Q x x C SR Fd

T x Ar s W (2.6 x ( ) 0.8 ( ) 0.4 (365 − p) 12 3 x x 281.9 x SumVKT M dry 0.3 365 ( ) 0.2

where: PEFRoad Q/CSR Fd T Ar s W Mdry p SumVKT Lr Wr = = = = = = = = = = = = Particulate Emission Factor (Unpaved Road Traffic) [m3/kg]; Inverse of the ratio of the geometric mean air concentration to the emission flux at the center of a square source [g/m2-sec per kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3)]; Dispersion correction factor [unitless]; Time of construction [s]; Surface area of contaminated road segment [m2]; Road surface silt content [%, default is 8.5%]; Mean vehicle weight [tons]; Road surface material moisture content under dry conditions [%, default = 0.2%]; Days of year with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation [days/yr]; Sum of fleet vehicle kilometers traveled during exposure duration (expressed in terms of Lr and Wr [km]); Length of road segment [ft]; and Width of road segment [ft].

2007-O-JV04-0019

20

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

When the default values for the road surface silt and moisture contents are plugged into this equation, it simplifies to:

PEFRoad =

T x Ar Q 1 x x CSR Fd 556 x (W ) 0.4 x (365 − p) x SumVKT 3 365

Area 1 was conservatively assumed to be approximately 140 feet long and 285 feet wide and the combined Areas 2 and 3 were assumed to be approximately 460 feet long and 375 feet wide for the PEF calculations. Additionally:

⎡ (ln ASite − B ) 2 ⎤ Q = A x exp ⎢ ⎥ C SR C ⎣ ⎦

where: ASite = Areal extent of the Site or contamination [acres]. (Area 1 was assumed to be approximately 0.9 acres in size, while the combined Areas 2 and 3 were assumed to be 3.95 acres); and Constants based on air dispersion modeling [unitless]. (The default constant values for A, B and C used to calculate Q/C).

A, B and C

=

One estimate of PEFRoad was developed for the construction worker for Area 1. Another estimate of PEFRoad was developed for the combined Areas 2 and 3 (given the difference in their size). Details of the development of these two PEFs are presented in Table 4.8. 2.2.4 Receptors and Exposure Routes

A summary of the potential exposure scenarios for current and future conditions, including the exposure areas and receptors, is presented in Attachment A SRF Table 1. Please refer to the CSM presented in SRF Table 1 in relation to the following discussion. Tango Range is currently used for small arms training. Therefore, the typical current receptor is a military trainee involved in small arms training. A trespasser is identified as a current receptor for Tango Range. Access to MMR is controlled by means of a fence. Although warning signs are posted around the perimeter which notes the presence of unexploded ordnance, trespassing is possible, although unlikely. As a result, trespassers are identified as possible current receptors. The trespasser is assumed to represent an older child or adolescent (minimum age 12) who may trespass onto the MMR property and then gain access into Tango Range Site. Recreational use, including hunting, also is considered a current and likely future use for this Site.

2007-O-JV04-0019

21

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

In addition to military personnel, tresspassers, and recreational hunters, potential future receptors include construction workers and hypothetical residents (adult and children). These receptors would primarily be associated with a future redevelopment scenario. However, modifications also could be made to Tango Range involving excavation and new construction to enable it to be used for other military training and mission-related purposes. Although residential reuse is not a likely future land use within Camp Edwards, hypothetical residents are identified as future receptors in the risk characterization to establish a baseline for determining the need for institutional controls and to provide information for evaluating all future-use options in the Feasibility Study. The closest residential homes to Tango Range are located more than 1 mile to the northeast in Sandwich, adjacent to the MMR boundary and outside of the study area. The most densely populated area surrounding Camp Edwards is the town of Sandwich, generally north and east of the MMR and the Tango Range Site. The nearest school is located about 3 miles northwest of Tango Range, along the Cape Cod Canal. Land use in Bourne, which borders Camp Edwards to the west, is primarily residential, but also includes the Bourne Municipal Landfill and the Upper Cape Vocational Technical High School (ECC, 2005). Camp Good News and all the private homes in the area (with a few exceptions) rely on public water sources for potable water. Currently there is no use of groundwater at Tango Range as a source of drinking water (i.e., no private or public water supply wells). The Upper Cape Water Supply Consortium operates a number of public water supply wells in the general vicinity of Tango Range. Two such wells are located approximately 0.5 miles north of Tango Range on the Base. Another public water supply well (the Weeks Pond Well) operated by the Town of Sandwich is approximately 3.5 miles south of Tango Range. A public supply well located off the Base about 3 miles northwest of the Site is no longer in operation. The nearest private water supply wells are believed to be located in the Wings Neck area of Bourne, approximately 9 miles west of the Site. As depicted in SRF Table 1, the soil exposure scenarios addressed in this risk assessment were: Current/Potential Receptors: • Military personnel (adults aged 18-28 years) conducting small arms training activities with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest (surface soil is defined as soil in the depth range of 0 to 1 ft bgs). The routes of exposure for the firearms military trainee are dermal absorption, incidental ingestion, and the inhalation of wind-borne soil particulates. A trespasser (aged 12-18 years) with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the Site. The routes of exposure for the trespasser are dermal absorption, incidental ingestion, and the inhalation of wind-borne soil particulates. A hunter (aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in the surface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the Site. The routes of exposure for the hunter are dermal absorption, incidental ingestion, and the inhalation of wind-borne soil particulates.

Future Potential Receptors: • Construction workers (adults aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in both the surface and subsurface soil of the exposure areas of interest. The routes of exposure for the construction worker performing excavation and other intrusive activities are dermal absorption, incidental ingestion, and the inhalation of particulates during construction activities. These

2007-O-JV04-0019

22

Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation

construction workers are not likely to contact or be exposed to groundwater at the Site, as the depth to groundwater is greater than 100 feet. • Hypothetical future residents (a child aged 1-7 years and an adult aged 18+ years) with potential exposures to COPCs in both the surface and subsurface soil of the exposure areas of interest at the Site. The routes of exposure for the hypothetical child and adult residents are dermal absorption, incidental ingestion, and the inhalation of wind-borne soil particulates.

Exposure pathways associated with direct and indirect potential exposures to groundwater also are shown in SRF Table 1. These include drinking or ingesting the groundwater, inhaling volatiles released during water use (e.g., showering or bathing), and inhaling vapors released from groundwater that may migrate up through the soil into indoor air. These last two pathways are not likely to be significant for Tango Range due both to the lack of detected volatiles in the overlying soil and the relatively deep depth to the groundwater table. Given the characteristic depth to groundwater, groundwater is not likely to pool up in near-surface trenches or excavations. 2.2.5 Exposure Parameters

The calculation of chemical intakes or doses for each of the identified receptors and routes of exposure identified in the CSM requires the specification of parameters that define the scenarios of potential current or future exposure for each receptor. Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) assumptions were specified for the HHRA. The RME assessment parameter values were conservatively selected so that risk estimates were likely to result in an overestimate, rather than an underestimate, of risk. These parameter assumptions are summarized in the sections that follow. Exposure parameter values used in the risk assessment are presented in Attachment A, SRF Tables 4.1 through 4.6, for the identified receptors. A discussion of the exposure parameter values adopted for this risk assessment is presented below. 2.2.5.1 Trespasser For the purposes of this assessment, the current and future trespasser was defined as an adolescent or young adult (aged 12 to 18 years) who may reside in an area near MMR. The trespasser was assumed to be potentially exposed to surface soil (0-1 ft bgs) via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of soil dust particulates. For the purposes of this evaluation, trespassing was assumed to occur 1 to 2 days per week over an exposure duration (ED) of six years (based on the trespasser’s age range). It was assumed the trespasser would access Tango Range 2 days per week from June through August and 1 day per week from September through May. This scenario results in an exposure frequency (EF) of 65 days per year (see Attachment A SRF Table 4.1). An incidental soil ingestion rate (IR) of 50 mg/day was assumed for the trespasser. This is the incidental soil IR recommended by USEPA (1997b; 1999b) for older children and adults. It was also assumed the trespasser's head, forearms, hands, and lower legs would be exposed to soil at the Site, representing an age-adjusted surface area of 5,262 cm2 (USEPA, 2004b, 1997b; 1999b). A soil adherence factor (AF) of 0.07 mg/cm2 was used for the trespasser. This value represents the AF for adult residents (USEPA, 2004b). The trespasser was assumed to weigh 56 kg, representing age-adjusted 50 percentile values for males and females in this age range (USEPA, 1997b; 1999b).

2007-O-JV04-0019

23

2005). the USEPA age-adjusted value for male and female adults 18 to 25 years old (USEPA. archery and primitive) For the purposes of this risk assessment. The hunter was assumed to be an adult who resided off-site and off-MMR. A hunter was conservatively defined (relative to potential exposure) as an avid sportsperson who would hunt all types of seasonal wild game during permitted hunting seasons. it was assumed they would contact only the surface soil (0 to 1 ft bgs). an incidental soil IR of 50 mg/day was assumed (USEPA. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 2.2. It was assumed that the hunters head. Inc.5. Site-specific assumptions modify the frequency of exposure at the small arms ranges to a more realistic five days per year because a trainee does not spend all of their annual training time on small arms ranges. The exposure parameters for the military trainee involved in firearms training are presented in SRF Table 4. dermal contact.2 kg.Tetra Tech EC.25 based on the cited data. 1999b). most likely for purposes of hunting. which represents 7 days/year for turkey season and 21 days/year during deer season (7 days/year each for shotgun. 1999b). which normalize annual exposures relative to lifetime or part of a lifetime.2 Military Personnel Tango Range is an active combination . and face were exposed during training activities. 2002a). dermal contact. which represents the default value for 2007-O-JV04-0019 24 .25) were used for both of these receptors (USEPA.5. The MMR default EF for the hunter is 28 days. Averaging times were 70 years for carcinogens and 6 years for non-carcinogens. For military personnel engaged in firearms training activities.650 days) for noncarcinogenic compounds and 70 years (25. for a total of 12 days per year due to the limited size of Tango Range.2.550 days) for carcinogenic compounds. The hunter was assumed to weigh 70 kg. Therefore military personnel engaged in small arms training are current and future recptors that could involve the following activity: • Small arms training that would entail non-intrusive activities involving little disturbance of the ground surface and the soil (e. The military personnel were assumed to weigh 67. were 10 years (3. The default surface area (3. Averaging times. 2. forearms.300 cm2) defined by USEPA for the Outdoor Worker (USEPA. 1997b.. 1997b. A back-stop and bullet collection system were recently installed (Fall 2006) in an effort to support the continued use of Tango Range for small arms training.2 (see Attachment A).3 Hunter The current and future uses anticipated for Tango Range includes recreational use. forearms and hands would be exposed while hunting. The correct adherence value is 0.50-caliber machine gun and pistol range.g. walking). It was assumed that the surface area of the hands. For the military personnel conducting small arms training. and the inhalation of soil dust particulates. respectively (see SRF Table 4.4 in Attachment A). 2002a).300 cm2/event) and AF defined for an outdoor worker (0. Potential exposure pathways for this group of military personnel included incidental ingestion. which corresponds to the default surface area (3. 2002a) was assumed for the recreational hunter. The default incidental soil IR for an outdoor worker of 100 mg/day (USEPA. and the inhalation of soil dust particulates. It was assumed that a local resident would hunt for a total duration of 6 years (MDFW. the EF was modified to 3 days for each season. It was assumed that the hunter receptor would contact the COPCs in the surface soil (0 to 1 ft bgs) via incidental ingestion. It is noted that the AF presented in USEPA (2002a) is incorrect as presented.

The construction worker was assumed to weigh 70 kg (USEPA.25 mg/cm2 representing Outdoor Workers (USEPA. 1997b. The exposure parameters for the construction worker are presented in SRF Table 4. which normalize annual exposures relative to lifetime or part of a lifetime. In reality. which is the scenario associated with the default surface area of 3. While children may play outdoors throughout the year. It was assumed that the surface area of the hands.5 (see Attachment A). this receptor represents the receptor with the longest potential duration of exposure to the Site soils. The default construction worker incidental soil IR of 330 mg/day was assumed for the future construction worker (USEPA. In addition. and the inhalation of fugitive dust from soil released into the air by construction vehicle traffic. each with an EF to soil of 190 days/year. This represents the minimum frequency and duration of exposure for the Adult Lead Model (ALM). Inc. for a total EF of 13 days.. Direct exposure would be prevented on other occasions by protective clothing (rain gear or heavy winter clothing) and the fact that the soil is either frozen or snow covered. should future residential development occur in this area. The correct adherence factor value of 0. the ED was limited to 90-days with an associated EF of 1 day per week. 2. Averaging times. exposure to all soil in the depth range of 0 to 10 ft. Nonetheless.2. significant cut and fill work would need to be performed and the eventual surface soil available for contact would likely be landscape fill. It is noted that the AF presented in USEPA (2002a) is incorrect as presented. during excavation and regrading activities).Tetra Tech EC.g. it is neither likely that they will play outdoors or come into contact with the soil on days of heavy precipitation or when the ground is frozen. this hypothetical future scenario was evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison for other scenarios that may incorporate use or access restrictions as an aid to site management decision-making.5. 2002a) was applied to this receptor.. the recommended soil AF of 0. 2.5 Future Resident (Hypothetical) This future use scenario is not anticipated to occur at Tango Range Site. were 1 year (365 days) for non-carcinogenic compounds and 70 years (25.g.25 was applied. The MMR default EF for the construction worker is 130 days with an associated ED of 1 year. 2002a). 1999b). This value was selected based on climactic data for Cape Cod. day care centers). Due to the small size of the two exposure areas of interest at Tango Range. 2007-O-JV04-0019 25 .300 cm2/event.4 Construction Worker It is assumed that a future construction worker in Tango Range would be exposed to both the surface and subsurface soils should the Site be redeveloped (e. Potential exposure pathways relative to the COPCs identified for these soils were incidental ingestion. their activities are likely to be in areas other than their primary residence on some of those days (e. As such. The default AF defined for an outdoor worker was used for construction worker (USEPA. school and/or public playgrounds.2. 1999b). The assumption is that a hypothetical child resident would contact surface soil at Tango Range during the course of their outdoor play activities. residential redevelopment would likely involve considerable paving and vegetative ground cover that would reduce the potential for direct contact exposure. and face are exposed during excavation work. However. friends’ homes.5. For dermal exposure.550 days) for carcinogenic compounds. 1997b. dermal contact. In addition. 2002a). Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation male and female adults (USEPA. forearms. based on the cited data. The hypothetical future residential scenario considers both a 15 kg child and a 70 kg adult receptor. bgs was considered to be possible.

2004b). 2004b). a lifetime) for the assessment of carcinogens (see SRF Table 4. An incidental soil IR of 50 mg/day was assumed for the future adult resident and a value of 100 mg/day was assumed for the future child resident (USEPA.. 1996). Although not evaluated in this HHRA. Massachusetts. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Based on general climactic conditions across Massachusetts. By extension. Individuals who do 2007-O-JV04-0019 26 . the precipitation statistics from this same time period for Hyannis. 1999b. 1997b). For the child. It was assumed that children play outdoors and have access to surface soils at their homes 5 days/week (USEPA. it is reasonable to assume that the ground may be frozen and the soil inaccessible relative to direct contact and inhalation exposure routes for approximately 2 months of the year. The potential exposure pathways addressed in this risk assessment were selected as the most likely mechanisms of exposure based on observations made at the Site. These values correspond to the 50th percentile surface area value published for both children and adults.3 weeks/month). 2.. it is assumed that climatic conditions at the Cape (including MMR) limit contact with outdoor soils for a total of 3 months of the year.700 cm2/event (USEPA. 1999c). This was also the EF value used by USEPA Region I to develop Residential Protectiveness Standards in Pittsfield. while for the adult the exposed skin surface area assumed was 5. SRF Table 4. 1991.2. This scenario. outdoor exposures to soil were assumed to be likely to occur at MMR (and the Cape) for only a total of 9 months per year based on these considerations. the default age-adjusted exposed skin surface area of 2. 2004b). 2004a). the relevant exposure pathways for groundwater at this Site could include potential contact with groundwater used as a potable and/or domestic water supply. Inc. Massachusetts (USEPA.5 inches occurs 28. Inc. Averaging times were 6 years for evaluating non-carcinogenic health effects (representing the cumulative exposures of a child from 1 to 7 years of age) and 70 years (e.6).Tetra Tech EC. This is based on the assumption that exposure will occur 5 days/week during the months of April through October (30 weeks) when the soil is not frozen or covered with snow. Meteorological and climatic data for Hyannis. Temperature data representing May 1999 through April 2004 (Weather Underground. The ED was assumed to be 6 years for a child and 24 years as an adult (USEPA.7 weeks of the year (or 9 months x 4. 1991).07 were assumed for the child and adult residents.8 days per year or approximately 1 month of the year during the warmer part of the year. The child receptor BW was assumed to be 15 kg and the adult resident was assumed to weigh 70 kg representing 50th percentile values for males and females (USEPA. Most individuals who may be actually exposed at the Site would not likely be subject to all the conditions that comprise the RME scenario. equates to an EF of approximately 190 days/year (see Attachment A. The rationale for the selection or exclusion of an exposure pathway for this assessment is presented in SRF Table 1 in Attachment A. soil AFs of 0. upper bound (90th or 95th percentile) values were used for exposure variables for the RME scenario (USEPA.6).800 cm2 per exposure event was used (USEPA. Therefore. Conservative exposure assumptions were used to construct a RME scenario for this risk assessment (USEPA.g.2 and 0. respectively (USEPA. indicate. In general. 2004b). the use of 150 days/year is often used to evaluate residential exposures to outdoor soils (MassDEP. Therefore. For dermal exposure. however. 1997b. that the ground may not be frozen or snowcovered for as many months of the year as it is in other regions of Massachusetts. Massachusetts indicate that precipitation in amounts greater than or equal to 0. 1999b).6 Estimation of Average Daily Dose or Chronic Daily Intake Exposure pathways are the means by which potential receptors may be exposed to and impacted by COPCs in the Site soil. In addition. 1999a) for 38. 2005) indicate that the average temperature in Hyannis is at or below 32°F for 60 days of the year.

For COPCs with potential carcinogenic effects.6b presented in Attachment A (Note: The letter “a” signifies a table relating to Area 1.6. The equations for estimating a receptor's potential intake (both lifetime and chronic daily) of COPCs from soil are presented and the exposure parameters used are discussed in the following paragraphs. 2004b) and are presented in the following subsections.1a to 7.1 Incidental Ingestion of Soil The equation that was used to calculate intakes associated with the incidental ingestion of soil was: CDI = where: CDI CS IRing FA CF EF ED BW AT = = = = = = = = = (CS x IR ing x FA x CF x EF x ED ) (BW x AT ) Chronic Daily Intake due to soil ingestion (mg/kg-day). Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg/kg). According to USEPA (1989).Tetra Tech EC. The average CDI of a COPC over the period of the ED was calculated for compounds with potential non-carcinogenic effects. Inc.6.. A summary of the exposure parameters and equations used to estimate intake for the exposure pathways for each receptor are provided in SRF Tables 4.6. Exposure Duration (years). 2. It should be noted that the cancer risks for the hypothetical future child and adult resident also were combined to estimate a total residential cancer risk for a combined 30-year exposure period. Exposure Frequency (days/year). Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day). Unit Conversion Factor (1x 10-6 kg/mg). 2. therefore. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation not meet all conditions in the RME scenario would have lower potential exposures to the COPCs and.1 through 4.2. and Averaging Time (days). the intake or dose should be calculated as an average over the period of time for which the potential receptor is assumed to be exposed.2 Dermal Absorption from Soil The equation that was used to calculate intakes associated with dermal absorption from soil was: 2007-O-JV04-0019 27 . The CDI equations that were used in this risk assessment were consistent with equations presented by USEPA (1989. 2002a. the CDI was averaged over the course of a lifetime (e. Fraction of area contaminated (unitless). while the letter “b” signifies a table relating to the combined Areas 2 and 3). 70 years). lower potential risks relative to the RME levels.g. The calculations of CDI for all receptors evaluated in this risk assessment are presented in the series of SRF Tables 7. Body Weight (kg).2.

Body Weight (kg). Skin Surface Area Exposed (cm2/event).Tetra Tech EC. Inc. For the construction worker. hunter. 2007-O-JV04-0019 28 .3. Event Frequency (events/day).6. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation CDI = where: CDI CS SA AF ABS FA CF EV EF ED BW AT = = = = = = = = = = = (CS x SA x AF x ABS x FA x CF x EV x EF x ED ) (BW x AT ) Chronic Daily Intake due to dermal absorption from soil (mg/kg-day). Chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg). Chemical Concentration in Soil (mg/kg). military personnel (firearms training /non-intrusive). Unit Conversion Factor (1x10-6 kg/mg).2. Dermal-Soil Absorption Adjustment Factor (unitless). As was described in Section 2. A separate PEF was developed to account for the additional dust generated from these construction-related activities.2. and = Averaging Time (days). respirable soil particulates may be generated by wind as well as by construction vehicle traffic and other construction activities such as excavation. and the adult and child residents. and Particulate Emission Factor (if applicable to COPC) (m3/kg). 2. Exposures to respirable soil particulates generated by wind were quantitatively evaluated for the trespasser. Exposure Duration (years).3 Inhalation Exposure to Dust Particulates and Volatiles The equation that was used to calculate exposure (expressed as an equivalent airborne concentration) to airborne COPCs associated with soil was: ⎛ 1 ⎞ Exposure = CA = CS x ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ PEF ⎠ where: Exposure CS PEF = = = Inhalation dose expressed as an effective airborne concentration (CA) of the COPC in particulate or vapor form (mg/m3). Exposure Frequency (days/year). Fraction of area contaminated (unitless). Soil to Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm2).2. two types of PEFs were derived: a PEF related to wind-generated soil dust and a PEF related to vehicle-generated soil dust.

. many authorities consider organisms to have repair and detoxification capabilities that must be exceeded by some critical level (threshold) before the health effect is manifested.2 presents the information regarding the carcinogenic toxicity values used in this HHRA. The non-carcinogenic toxicological factors are based on this assumption that there is a level of chemical dose or intake below which no adverse health effects would be expected. the USEPA publishes RfDs that are the chemical-specific doses below which no significant adverse health effects are expected. 2. lead).3 Toxicity Assessment This section describes the process used to identify intake route-specific toxicity criteria for each COPC selected for evaluation relative to Tango Range.Tetra Tech EC. This threshold view holds that a range of exposures from just above zero to some finite value can be tolerated by the organism without an appreciable risk of adverse effects. Inc.1 presents information regarding the non-carcinogenic toxicity values and Section 2. and carcinogenic slope factors (CSFs) and unit risk factors (URs) for evaluating the carcinogenic health effects associated with exposure. Toxicity values are used in conjunction with the information presented in the exposure assessment to calculate the risks presented in the risk characterization. and 6. USEPA has performed toxicity assessments for numerous chemicals and has published the corresponding toxicity values that have undergone peer review. 2003a: • Tier 1: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).2. 6. respectively. 5.3.1 Non-Carcinogenic Effects For non-carcinogens.1. the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimum risk levels.3 addresses some special cases and considerations that are relevant to the Site (i. • • A summary of the toxicity data for each identified non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPC is presented in SRF Tables 5. and toxicity values published in Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (USEPA.e. These toxicity values include reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs) for evaluating the non-carcinogenic health effects associated with exposure. 2006a).3. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 2. Tier 2: Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) developed by the USEPA Office of Research and Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment/Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center (NCEA). For example. and Tier 3: Additional USEPA and non-USEPA sources of toxicity information.3. 1997a). For chemicals that have non-carcinogenic effects. RfDs and RfCs that are associated with threshold effects provide the estimate of the daily dose of the chemical to which an 2007-O-JV04-0019 29 .2 (Attachment A) for oral/dermal and inhalation exposures. an organ can have a large number of cells performing the same or similar functions that must be significantly depleted before an effect on the organ is seen. Section 2. The preferential hierarchy of sources from which toxicological information and toxicity values were drawn from USEPA.3. including but not limited to the California EPA toxicity values. Section 2. which is an on-line USEPA database containing current toxicity values for many chemicals that have gone through a rigorous peer review and USEPA consensus review process (USEPA.1.

Therefore. The purpose of the RfD is to provide a benchmark value against which estimated doses (e.e.3. The adjustment accounts for the absorption efficiency in the critical clinical or epidemiological study forming the basis of the published toxicity factor. The oral-to-dermal adjustment factor is based on chemical-specific gastrointestinal absorption efficiencies listed in USEPA RAGS Part E. The methodologies developed for evaluating dermal absorption are based on an estimation of absorbed dose. Uncertainty and modifying factors are applied to the NOAEL and LOAEL to account for interspecies differences. then the chronic RfD is adopted as the subchronic RfD (USEPA. those projected for human exposures to various environmental media) might be compared. There are. The chronic RfD and RfC are derived from either an available No Observable Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL) or the Lowest Observable Adverse Effects Level (LOAEL). Chronic RfDs apply to lifetime or other long-term exposures and may be overly protective if used to evaluate the potential for adverse health effects resulting from substantially less-than-lifetime exposures. As the absorption efficiency decreases the difference between the absorbed dose and administered dose 2007-O-JV04-0019 30 .1 (Attachment A). 1989). Doses that are higher than the RfD may indicate that an inadequate margin of safety could exist for exposure to that substance and that an adverse health effect could occur. to adjust exposures from animals to humans and to protect sensitive sub-populations) to ensure that it is unlikely to underestimate the potential for adverse non-carcinogenic effects to occur. hunter. The chronic dermal RfD values also are listed in SRF Table 5. protection of sensitive subpopulations.1 Oral/Dermal Non-Carcinogenic Effects The chronic oral/dermal RfD values selected for use in this risk assessment were compiled from the hierarchy of sources listed above. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation individual may be exposed without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects. If suchronic toxicity data is not available or is insufficient to develop a subchronic RfD. expressed in units of mg chemical/kg body weight-day. Exhibit 4. The IRIS-verified RfDs are typically based on an administered dose.. including organ damage or reproductive effects. Subchronic RfDs are typically applied to exposure durations of 2 weeks to 7 years. Dermal RfDs were calculated from the oral RfD value using an oral-to-dermal adjustment factor. The magnitude of the toxicity factor adjustment is inversely proportional to the absorption fraction in the critical study. Inc. for the trespasser. The RfD is derived using uncertainty and modifying factors (e. The chronic oral RfD values are listed in SRF Table 5. These values were checked to insure that the most up-to-date values were used from the primary sources. and any additional uncertainties associated with the principal study on which the toxicological factor was based. For the purposes of this risk assessment chronic RfDs were utilized for all exposure scenarios including those of shorter duration (i. the duration of the critical study. RfDs are expressed in terms of milligrams of compound per kilogram of body weight (BW) per day (mg/kg-day) and are used to evaluate estimated oral and/or inhalation exposures. 2. an adjustment of the oral toxicity value to represent an absorbed rather than an administered dose is necessary.1 (USEPA.. at present.1.. and construction worker.1.Tetra Tech EC.g. subchronic RfDs are considered interim rather than verified toxicity values and consequently are not placed in IRIS. 2004b). An RfD.g. is an estimate of a daily exposure level for humans (including sensitive individuals) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during the period of exposure. EPA’s ECAO develops subschronic RfDs and although they have been peer-reviewed. no USEPA-derived RfDs for the dermal route of exposure.

complete (i..g. This relationship is shown below: 3 ⎤ 20 ⎡m ⎣ ⎦ mg mg ⎤ x ⎢ day ⎥ ⎤ = RfC ⎡ RfDi ⎡ ⎢ kg − day ⎥ ⎢ m3 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ 70 [kg ] The chronic inhalation RfC and RfDi values used in this risk assessment are presented in SRF Table 5.e.1. An inhalation RfD (i. 2.e. In April of 2005. and A scientifically defensible database demonstrates that the gastrointestinal (GI) absorption of the chemical in question from a medium (e. associated with inhalation exposure. These guidelines revise the methods that USEPA has used since 1986 to calculate cancer risks from exposure to chemicals. USEPA assumes that some level of potential risk is associated with any dose of a contaminant. The older guidelines made use of a number of default assumptions and fallback positions to protect public health when applicable data was lacking.e.. at this time.2 Inhalation Non-Carcinogenic Effects Non-carcinogenic toxicity factors for the inhalation route are typically expressed as reference concentrations (RfCs). The new guidelines also address the assessment of childhood cancer and cancer later in life for adults exposed to a carcinogen as a child. the Agency intends to begin to use the new guidelines and supplemental guidance.Tetra Tech EC. As USEPA prepares cancer assessments under the IRIS program.2 (Attachment A).g. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation increases. feed) similar to the one employed in the critical study is significantly less than 100% (i. 2004b). as well as in other USEPA programs. Inc. However. USEPA released new guidelines that it will follow when assessing the risks posed by carcinogenic chemicals (USEPA. Consistent with RAGS Part E (USEPA. delivery in diet or by gavage) in its study design. The inhalation RfC is analogous to the RfD and is an estimate of the air concentration in mg/m3 that an individual can breathe over the period of exposure without a risk of deleterious effects. As such. the assessments summarized in the current IRIS database were almost entirely developed using the prior cancer risk guidelines. an adjustment was made to establish a dermal RfD when the following conditions were met: • • The toxicity value derived from the critical study was based on an administered dose (e. 100%) absorption was assumed and no adjustment of the oral toxicity value was made to obtain a toxicity value to be used for the dermal absorption route. 2005a... <50%). 2.3. 2005b). water.2 Carcinogenic Effects The underlying assumption used by USEPA for regulatory risk assessment for constituents with known or assumed potential carcinogenic effects is that no threshold dose exists. If these conditions were not met. The new guidelines allow for the analysis of all available data before resorting to the use of the default assumptions or fallback positions.. an RfDi) value may be calculated from the RfC using a standardized inhalation rate of 20 m3/day and a standardized body weight of 70 kg. both systemic and portal-of-entry. The inhalation RfC was developed to be protective of all adverse health effects. In other words. the old guidelines provide the framework 2007-O-JV04-0019 31 .3.

This category indicates that there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the absence of data on humans. no USEPA-derived CSFs for the dermal route of exposure. there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. when multiplied by the average lifetime dose. As was previously noted. however. Under the prior cancer risk guidelines. It is noted. 2. Only COPCs with an USEPA weight-of-evidence classification of A. in the absence of data on humans.3. That weight-of-evidence classification system is presented in Table 2. They have traditionally been derived by USEPA (under the old cancer guidelines) by means of a linearized multistage model and reflect the upper-bound limit of cancer potency of that chemical.Tetra Tech EC. 1989).1 Oral/Dermal Carcinogenic Effects A CSF is a numerical estimate of the potency of a chemical. Inc. The actual risk is unknown but is likely to be lower than the predicted risk. This category generally indicates there is at least limited evidence from epidemiologic studies of carcinogenicity to humans. The oral CSFs used in this risk assessment are listed in SRF Table 6.1 (Attachment A). There are. This category indicates that there is evidence of noncarcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in both epidemiologic and animal studies. CSFs are expressed in units of the inverse of milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight per day [(mg/kg-day)-1].2. or B2 were evaluated as carcinogens in this risk assessment. USEPA used a system for classifying chemicals according to their likelihood as a human carcinogen. As a result. the calculated carcinogenic risk is likely to represent a plausible upper limit to the risk. at present. Dermal CSF values were calculated from the oral CSF value using an oral-to-dermal adjustment factor as prescribed by current dermal risk assessment guidance. This system was based on five categories that made up the weight-ofevidence system of carcinogenicity that was used to classify each compound. gives the probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to that chemical. the toxicity values used to evaluate carcinogenicity are CSFs (for oral or dermal exposure) and URs (for inhalation exposure). These values were compiled from the hierarchy of sources listed in Section 4. or no data are available. B1. that adjustment 2007-O-JV04-0019 32 . Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation within which the current cancer toxicity factors and quantitative methods must be interpreted and applied. which. Weight of Evidence System for Classifying Chemicals as to Their Carcinogenicity Group A B1 B2 C D E Classification This category indicates there is sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies to support a causal association between an agent and human cancer. and may be as low as zero (USEPA. This adjustment for the oral CSFs was performed using the same general process applied for the oral RfDs. These values reflect the relative probability that the incidence of cancer is increased in target populations exposed to that chemical. This category indicates that the evidence for carcinogenicity in animals is inadequate.2. as described above. This category generally indicates.

Tetra Tech EC. absorption.1 (Attachment A). For this assessment. The only non-default parameters used were the air lead concentration (calculated using the PEF presented in Table 4.7). The purpose of the AALM is to mathematically provide an exposure. the original model developed for the purpose. This relationship is shown below: −1 −1 ⎡ ⎞ ⎤ = UR ⎡⎛ mg ⎞ ⎤ x 70 [kg ] CSFi ⎢⎛ mg ⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ kg − day ⎟ ⎥ m3 ⎠ ⎥ ⎠ ⎦ ⎤ ⎣⎝ ⎣⎝ ⎦ 20 ⎡m 3 ⎢ day ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ The inhalation UR and CSFi values for the carcinogenic COPCs associated with this risk assessment are listed in SRF Table 6.3.1 Evaluation of Lead Due to the absence of established numerical toxicity values for lead. The URs were compiled from the hierarchy of sources listed previously. 46 of which can be modified by the user. only exposure to lead in Site soil was considered along with default levels for lead in air. 2. and biokinetic infrastructure that allocates. only makes predictions up through age six. The oral and dermal CSF values selected for use in this risk assessment are listed in SRF Table 6. There are approximately 190 input parameters to the AALM. Although this model is only available in draft form. adult and child exposures were assessed via three models. CDC.10. 2. The approach for evaluating exposures to lead is summarized below. The All Ages Lead Model (AALM) was used to evaluate adult residential exposure to lead. soil and water). 1991). Inc.3.2 Inhalation Carcinogenic Effects Carcinogenic toxicity values for the inhalation pathway are typically expressed as URs.3. the simultaneous distribution of absorbed lead in several major body components and thereby predict at any point in time the concentration of lead in these components (USEPA. diet. 1998a. The non-default parameters used in the IEUBK Model for the hypothetical future child resident are presented in Tables 4. The IEUBK model allows for multiple sources of lead exposure to children (i.3 Special Cases The potential risks associated with lead are not assessed in the same manner as the rest of the COPCs in soil. while adjustment of the CSF requires its division by the oral-to dermal adjustment factor. and the adult resident soil ingestion rate (50 2007-O-JV04-0019 33 . 1994a. There are over 100 input parameters for the IEUBK. The IEUBK Model calculates the probability that a child’s blood lead concentration will exceed the benchmark of 10 µg/dL established by the USEPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USEPA.e. and from prenatal exposure.2 (Attachment A).2. the soil and dust lead concentration. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation of the RfD required its multiplication with the oral-to-dermal adjustment factor. the IEUBK.. Inhalation CSF (CSFi) values may be calculated from URs using a standard inhalation rate of 20 m3/day and a standard body weight of 70 kg.3. Young child exposures to lead in Area 1 soil were evaluated using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children. drinking water. 2005c). by simulation. 2.

and toxicity values using methods defined by USEPA to calculate potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with present and future use RME scenarios.e. dermal absorption. exposure scenarios. The results of the IEUBK. as published in a January 2003 Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) Report (USEPA. AALM. future recreational hunters.1 Risk Characterization Methods Quantitative evaluation of risk involves combining exposure point concentrations. and inhalation exposure pathway.2. while intakes for inhalation are expressed as the amount of chemical an individual would be exposed to per volume of air (i. and over the exposure duration for non-carcinogens (USEPA. nor military personnel.4. and future construction workers. 2.1 through 4. Potential health risks were calculated for baseline conditions and address exposures to contaminant levels at the Site as they currently exist.Tetra Tech EC. The CDIs are averaged over a lifetime (70 years) for carcinogens. The TRW believes that this approach will prove useful for assessing most sites where places of employment are (or will be) situated on lead contaminated soils. Formula for each exposure pathway are shown on SRF Tables 4. groundwater exposures are not considered complete exposure pathways.13 for the future construction worker. The blood lead concentration calculated using the ALM is then compared to blood lead concentration of 10 µg/dL.. Quantitative assessment of potential risks to human health associated with present and future use scenarios was performed by calculating intakes for each ingestion. mg/kg-day)..e. the ALM could not be defensibly applied for the hunter. and ALM modeling are discussed in Section 2. 2003b).12 for the adolescent trespasser and in Table 4.3. The non-default parameters used in the AALM for the hypothetical future adult resident are presented in Table 4. Adult non-residential exposures were evaluated (when appropriate) using methodologies established in Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. trespassers.4 Risk Characterization The final step in the risk assessment process is human health risk characterization.6). The ALM focuses on the estimation of the blood lead concentrations in fetuses carried by women exposed to lead contaminated soils (only). The Adult Lead Model (ALM) uses a simplified representation of lead biokinetics to predict quasi-steady state blood lead concentrations among adults who have relatively steady patterns of site exposures. Inc. 2. 2007-O-JV04-0019 34 . chemical intake models.6 and in Section 2. The ALM inputs and outputs for this evaluation are presented in Table 4.6. respectively. Due to an insufficient exposure period and frequency. the ultimate receptor in this model is a potential fetus of a woman exposed to lead in a non-residential scenario. 1989). Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation mg/day as presented in Table 4. Risk characterization is performed by inputting site-specific data and assumptions into formulae developed by USEPA for calculation of cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. Thus.11. Intakes for ingestion and dermal contact are expressed as the amount of a chemical an individual would be exposed to per unit body weight per day (i. The ALM was applied for the future construction worker and the trespasser receptors exposed to lead in Area 1 soil.4. For current and future military personnel involved with small arms training. mg/m3).2.

Potential carcinogenic effects are evaluated as the product of the CDI and the CSF or the product of the CA and the UR. Chronic daily intake for chemical i (mg/kg-day).1a through 7. which are referred to as HQs.2 Calculation of Cancer Health Effects The potential incremental lifetime cancer risk due to exposure to a specific carcinogenic compound is calculated by combining chemical-specific CDIs with their associated CSFs for the oral and dermal pathways and CAs with their associated URs for the inhalation pathways.Tetra Tech EC. Inc.1.1a to 9. SRF Tables 9. intake/air concentration. exposure pathways were evaluated by comparing chemical-specific CDIs to their associated RfDs for the oral and dermal pathways and chemical-specific modeled air concentrations (CAs) to RfCs for the inhalation pathways. exposure medium. An HI less than 1. Air concentration for chemical i (mg/m3). In addition. The sum of all CDI/RfD and CA/RfC ratios. RfD/RfC and individual hazard quotients for each receptor. Reference dose for chemical i (mg/kg-day). and is calculated as shown below: ELCR = ∑ CDI i x SFi i =1 n (oral and dermal pathways) 2007-O-JV04-0019 35 .4.1 Calculation of Non-Cancer Health Effects For non-carcinogens.6b present the HI’s segregated by health effect/target organ. and Reference concentration for chemical i (mg/m3). for the COPCs for each receptor in each medium is called the Hazard Index (HI) and is calculated as shown below: HI = ∑ CDI i i =1 RfDi n CAi HI = ∑ i =1 RfC i n (oral and dermal pathways) (inhalation pathways) where: HI CDIi RfDi n CAi RfCi = = = = = = Hazard Index [unitless]. SRF Tables 7. 2. HIs should not be summed across age groups.4. and pathway combination.0 is unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects and is therefore less likely to be of concern than an HI greater than 1. the health effect/target organ-specific HIs were evaluated (assuming that chemicals that produce adverse effects on the same target organ are dose additive).1.0.6b (Attachment A) present the EPC. Number of COPCs in each medium [unitless]. a conclusion should not be categorically drawn that all HIs less than 1 are “acceptable.” This is a consequence of uncertainties inherent in derivation of the RfD in the exposure assessment and uncertainties associated with adding individual terms in the HI calculation. for HIs greater than 1. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 2. However. The sum of all CDI x CSF products and CA x UR products for the COPCs for each receptor in each medium is called the Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR). Potential non-carcinogenic effects are evaluated as the ratio of the CDI to the RfD or the CA to the RfC.

Chronic daily intake for chemical i (mg/kg-day). and pathway combination. It should be noted that HIs and ELCRs should not be summed across the various exposure areas of interest as intakes were computed for each area as if 100% of the assumed exposure occurred with that area.6b present the EPC intake or air concentration. No other COPCs are associated with cardiovascular effects.4. An ELCR below or within this range is unlikely to be associated with significant risk of cancer effects and is less likely to be of concern than an ELCR exceeding this range.6b summarize the total HQ and ELCR for each COPC for each route of exposure (ingestion.2 Results 2. The oral provisional RfD (p-RfD) for nitroglycerin is based on the LOAEL for acute vasodilatory effects observed at the lowest prescribed oral dose for therapeutic control of angina pectoris in patients.1a to 9. adverse effects related to vasodilation will not occur over the course of subchronic and chronic exposures (USEPA. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation n ELCR = ∑ CAi x URi i =1 (inhalation pathways) where: ELCR = CDIi CSFi n CAi URi = = = = = Excess lifetime cancer risk (unitless). USEPA has determined that the acceptable risk range is between 1x10-6 and 1x10-4. and Unit carcinogenic risk for chemical i (mg/m3)-1. recreational hunters. inhalation. 2. Total HIs that do not exceed 1 indicate minimal potential adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are expected to occur for current or future receptors assuming current Site conditions.Tetra Tech EC. The calculated HI for future hypothetical child residents in Area 1 exceeds 1 primarily due to ingestion of nitroglycerin in soil. and the calculated risks for each receptor. construction workers and hypothetical residents are presented in Attachment A. Summary of Calculated Hazard Indices by Area and Receptor Area 2 (postReceptor Area 1 excavation) & Area 3 2007-O-JV04-0019 36 . Air concentration for chemical i (mg/m3).1 Hazard Indices The estimated hazard indices associated with potential exposures to COPCs in the soil exposure points by current and future trespassers.2. The calculated HIs for each exposure point by receptor are summarized below. dermal absorption). SRF Tables 7. construction workers. CSF or UR. cancer risks for exposure to multiple carcinogenic contaminants were assumed to be additive.1a through 7. According to the PPRTV documentation. Number of COPCs in each medium [unitless]. 2006d). The HI for total non-carcinogenic hazards from potential soil exposures at all soil exposure points by current and future trespassers. military personnel involved with firearms training activities. The p-RfD is based on the LOAEL which is further reduced by a uncertainty factor of 300. For the purposes of this assessment. and hypothetical future adult residents do not exceed 1.4. SRF Tables 9. military personnel involved with firearms training recreational hunters. Cancer slope factor for chemical i (mg/kg-day)-1. exposure medium. Inc.

air. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Trespasser Military Personnel . The IEUBK Child Lead Model (USEPA.2 Cancer Risk Estimates The calculated carcinogenic risk estimates are summarized below and are presented in detail for each receptor in Attachment A. 2001b).Firearms Hunter Construction Worker Resident . The Total ELCRs associated with potential exposures to COPCs in each of the soil exposure points (Area 1. water.Tetra Tech EC.3 3 0.e.2. The results presented in Table 4.01 0. Potential hazards associated with exposure to lead were evaluated using the IEUBK Child Lead Model for Child Residents (USEPA. and the ALM (USEPA.3 0.2 2. The Area 1 soil EPC (285.3 0. USEPA has determined that childhood blood lead levels at or above 10 μg Pb/dL present risks to children’s health (USEPA.10 (Attachment A) presents the results of this analysis.2. Inc. 2001b) is designed to predict the probable blood lead levels for children between six months and seven years of age who have been exposed to lead through environmental media (i. recreational hunters.10 were compared to this level 2007-O-JV04-0019 37 . 2003b) for the trespasser and the construction worker.02 0.002 0.3 Evaluation of Lead Lead was selected as a soil COPC for Area 1. a hypothetical residential scenario was evaluated in the risk characterization. and construction workers are below or within USEPA’s allowable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4. The ELCR for the hypothetical resident exposed to COPCs in each of the soil exposure points is as follows: • • Area 1 – 2 x 10-6 Areas 2 (post-excavation) and 3 – 2 x 10-6 Each of these residential ELCRs falls within the low end of USEPA’s allowable risk range. 1994). recreational hunters.4. military personnel involved with firearms training activities.01 0. Areas 2 and 3) by the current and future trespassers. dust. the Total ELCRs at each exposure point for current and future trespassers. As shown in this table. military personnel involved with firearms training activities.004 0.5 and 7 years.4.. construction workers and hypothetical residents are summarized below.1 0.child 0. soil.04 0. Table 4. and diet). Summary of Calculated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks by Area and Receptor Areas 2 (postexcavation) & 3 Receptor Area 1 Trespasser 1E-07 1E-07 Military Personnel – Firearms 3E-08 2E-08 Hunter 5E-08 4E-08 Construction Worker 2E-06 2E-06 Resident 2E-06 2E-06 To assess the need for institutional controls and to provide information for evaluating all future use options in the FS. the AALM for Adult Residents.adult Resident .4 mg/kg for lead) and the child resident soil ingestion rates (100 mg/day) were entered into the model and blood lead levels were calculated for each age between 0. 2.

Tetra Tech EC.11 (Attachment A). Consequently. Outputs from the AALM for the adult resident are presented in Table 4.6 and 1. a reasonable degree of certainty that actual risks to individuals exposed to contamination from Tango Range will not be higher than those estimated in the human health risk assessment and are likely to be much lower. Specific uncertainties are discussed in subsequent sections. Physical averaging reduces inter-sample variability.5. The associated probability that fetal blood lead levels would exceed 10 μg Pb/dL is approximately 1%. and the potential for dilution of the contaminants in a sample with uncontaminated material. Most assumptions made in developing the baseline risk estimates were biased toward health protectiveness. composite sampling may not provide sufficient detail for delineating the extent of unacceptable contamination that is necessary to determine the volume of material to be remediated. initial screening of COPCs). Inc.1 Uncertainty in the Data and COPC Selection Methodology All of the soil samples were composite samples. Composite samples are essentially a physical averaging of the soil found at each of the grid nodes or points. therefore. which results in increased precision of the resulting estimate of the overall average concentration (or grand mean). toward overestimating rather than underestimating risk. the estimated blood lead level concentration associated with exposure to lead in Area 1 soil is between 2. and therefore. 2. may not be appropriate for situations where maximum exposure is used (e. The principal limitations of sample compositing are loss of discrete information about the individual sample points. The adult blood lead level concentration due to exposure to lead in soil as estimated by the AALM is between approximately 2. Outputs from the ALM for the adolescent trespasser and the adult construction worker are presented in Tables 4. For the construction worker. unless contaminant benchmarks are adjusted..9 μg Pb/dL when considering only Site-related soil sources. that is. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation and were determined to not present a significant risk to children’s health even when non-site related sources are included. while the 2006 Project Note samples were 50-point or 100-point composite samples.5 Uncertainty Analysis All risk assessments contain elements of uncertainty.2 and 1.4 μg Pb/dL. assessing potential acute exposures. hot spots may not be identified or adequately delineated. and between 1.2 and 2. Sources and characteristics of uncertainties are examined in this section to provide perspective on the accuracy and level of conservatism inherent in the risk estimates and the underlying assumptions. and ensuring that concentrations 2007-O-JV04-0019 38 . It also reduces the sampling and analytical costs (ASTM. 2.4 and 4. For the trespasser. both in terms of ensuring that all contaminants have been correctly identified as COPCs.2 μg Pb/dL when considering non-site related sources. The associated probability that fetal blood lead levels would exceed 10 μg Pb/dL is approximately 2%. the estimated blood lead level concentration associated with exposure to lead in Area 1 soil is between 1. Composite samples provide less information on maximum exposure concentrations.8 μg Pb/dL. In addition.13 (Attachment A).g. There is. A major concern of any risk assessment is the reliability of COPC identification.12 and 4. The 2002 Supplemental Investigation samples were 5point composite samples. 2003). The purpose of discussion of uncertainty is to assist in risk management decisions.

average daily doses of COPCs to which receptors are potentially exposed were estimated. including information on contaminant identification. As a result. In other words.n’diethylcarbanilide. tungsten. Such assumptions include location.2 Exposure and Intake Uncertainties Selected exposure parameters are generally designed to be conservative so that no actual exposed population will receive greater exposures than those estimated. there is some degree of uncertainty with regard to the risk estimates presented in this document relative to those associated with actual exposures. many of the samples in the data set are multi-point compositie samples. it was assumed that it was present at a concentration equal to one-half the reported quantitation limit. Uncertainties associated with exposure point concentrations are largely a reflection of limitations in the underlying dataset. During the data evaluation step. In addition. All pathways that could reasonably be complete now or in the future under the land use scenarios were evaluated quantitatively for their potential to be associated with adverse health effects. location. which are effectively a mechanical averaging or smoothing of the spatial variability in contaminant concentrations. which can vary considerably from those considered in this risk characterization. Inc. Conversely. The accuracy of COPC identification is directly related to the quality of COPC characterization data. the screening criteria reflect the more sensitive land use. Eight chemicals (aluminum. and use of an area. Consequently. as if exposure to soil was occurring 350 days per year for 30 years. and concentrations. n. arsenic. This assumption is likely to result in an overestimate 2007-O-JV04-0019 39 . the surface soil EPC was assumed to be representative of the whole 0 to 10 feet interval. There is a high degree of certainty that total exposures are not underestimated for any actual exposed population. The actual concentration may have fallen anywhere between zero and the SQL. The construction worker was assumed to contact soils from 0 to 10 feet bgs. The screening process was designed to identify those constituents that were Site-specific and likely to exceed conservative risk-based criteria for residential use. vanadium. During the exposure assessment. these upper bound estimates of average concentrations are influenced by biased sampling approaches which could overestimate average concentrations for the exposure area. which involves assumptions about how often exposure occurs. All though this method provides an unbiased estimate of the average concentration it will tend to minimize the variability and resulting confidence interval estimates of the average. Potential exposure pathways were evaluated for all identified potential receptors. and nitroglycerin) were considered soil COPCs and were evaluated in the risk characterization. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation are adequately quantified.Tetra Tech EC. lead. 2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations To the extent possible.5. when a COPC was not detected in some samples. The available data extends only to a depth of 1 foot bgs. 2. antimony.5. Conservative screening criteria were selected from the federal and state risk-based criteria. compounds were selected for inclusion in the quantitative risk characterization. exposure concentrations. Exposure parameters were used to bound the upper and best estimate levels of reasonable maximum exposures. exposure point concentrations have been derived in a manner that ensures that concentrations in the media and exposure areas of concern are not underestimated. current and future accessibility. The 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean has been used to derive the EPCs.

The adherence factors were selected based upon similarity of the activities conducted by the study participants to the assumed activities of the receptors evaluated in the risk assessment. 2002). the total area of soil disturbance was very large relative to the size of the exposure areas of interest. the estimated risks would likely be substantially lower. Specifically. Inter-media transfers also were considered. trespassers were assumed to be present at Tango Range 65 days per year for 6 years and a recreational user was assumed to hunt 12 days per year for 6 years. However. actual frequencies of exposure are likely to be much lower than assumed. The values assumed for these parameters were selected such that actual values would likely result in lower dust concentrations than was estimated. Furthermore. For the wind-generated PEF. the receptor's potential exposure would be reduced. use of the maximally affected areas). The conservative assumptions were made to provide assurance that the evaluation of risks from exposure to soil is not understated. In particular. Inc. For example. PEFs were estimated for wind-generated dusts as well as vehicle-generated dust along unpaved roads using default EPA methods (USEPA. It is more likely that individuals might only enter Tango Range area once or twice during a year. therefore. Nearly the entire site is either gravel covered or vegetated. It was also assumed that absorption of 2007-O-JV04-0019 40 .5. Site-specific parameters include the total distance traveled by construction vehicles. For the vehicle-generated dust PEF. Exposure assumptions were based on literature-reported values for upper bound estimates for exposure frequency and duration. roadways. It was assumed. In these cases. the most sensitive site-specific parameter is the fraction of the site-covered by vegetation. as well as incidental soil ingestion rates. Both models used to estimate PEFs include a combination of default and site-specific parameters. 2. mean vehicle weight. If more realistic and reasonable potential exposure assumptions were employed in the risk assessment. potential risks. that the soil adherence for receptors in the risk assessment would be similar to soil adherence observed in the studies. or buildings. Such assumptions certainly do not underestimate actual exposures that may potentially occur at the Site. The potential intake rates and exposure frequencies and durations assumed in the risk assessment were conservative. the locations where certain activities were assumed to take place have been purposely selected because compound concentrations and frequency of exposure are expected to be high (i. and the health risks discussed here would be overestimated. if at all. A value of 75% was conservatively assumed based on site observations. Uncertainty may be associated with some of the assumptions used to estimate how often exposure occurs.4 Exposure Frequency and Exposure Duration The parameters used were conservative default values obtained from USEPA guidance documents and are typically used to estimate “reasonable maximum exposure.Tetra Tech EC.. the soil silt and moisture content are the most sensitive parameters for which default values have been assigned. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation of the subsurface soil concentration as there is little indication that contamination extends much below 1 foot bgs. average vehicle speed.” These conservative values may overestimate the risks for actual receptors. rather than underestimate. and it is highly unlikely that they would sustain trespassing activities for a period of six years.e. Each conservative assumption tends to overestimate. and the total area of soil disturbance. The risk assessment used soil adherence factors derived from studies that measured actual soil loading onto skin during various types of activities.

.2. such studies typically measure absorption by applying enough soil to the skin so that an “infinite source” of compound is available for absorption. however.3. All of these models require both general and site-specific input parameters. this risk assessment used a soil ingestion rate for a resident child based on more current information provided by the authors of the study upon which that estimate is derived. Consistent with EPA guidance.4. then the soil adherence factor assumed in the risk assessment would also need to be decreased to account for the reduced amount of soil assumed to be loaded onto skin. USEPA (1997b. 1999b) recommends an upper bound soil ingestion rate for young children of 200 mg/day. the arithmetic 2007-O-JV04-0019 41 . there is some uncertainty regarding the amount of dermal absorption from soil. it would be possible that dermal absorption has been overestimated because actual soil loading maybe less than assumed and would not achieve the assumption of a “monolayer. However. Attachment A) were not available in the RAGS Part E (Dermal Risk Assessment) (USEPA. 2000). USEPA (2004b) states that dermal absorption from soil tends to increase as the thickness of the soil layer decreases until a “monolayer” (the point where the skin is not uniformly covered by soil). this uncertainty is minimized by the assumption of soil loading thicker than a monolayer. hazards and risks could not be calculated. the approach used in the risk assessment is not likely to underestimate potential exposure because the soil adherence assumed in the dermal absorption factors used in the risk assessment “match” the dermal absorption rates used in the risk assessment.5 Toxicological Information and Models As discussed in Section 2.g. 2. However. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation constituents from soil adhered to skin would be similar to absorption from soil observed in studies used to derive the absorption adjustment factors.. 2004b).9. (1997). It appears that a more reasonable upper bound ingestion rate for young children is 100 mg/day (Stanek et al. transfer factors within the body). Therefore. gastrointestinal absorption rates). Although USEPA (1997b.” Thus. General input parameters include estimates of the baseline blood lead level due to exposure to lead in other media (e. This results in an underestimate of risk or hazard for these chemicals. Because the risk assessment assumed dermal absorption rates for soil loadings that were thicker than a monolayer. exposures to lead were evaluated using biokinetic models.g. and the ALM for the adolescent trespasser and the adult construction worker.. Consequently. However. the AALM for adult residents.Tetra Tech EC. Permeability coefficients and dermal absorption factors for several of the COPCs (Table 4.. indicates that 50 mg/day is a more reasonable upper bound estimate for these age groups. but does recommend an average ingestion rate for these age groups of 50 mg/day.. uptake factors (e. 1999b) does not specifically recommend an upper bound estimate of soil ingestion for older children and adults. although there is some uncertainty associated with the increased dermal absorption that occurs when a monolayer of soil is loaded onto skin. and biokinetic components (e. drinking water).5. at which the absorption remains relatively constant. the IEUBK model for children. This risk assessment assumes that the amount of soil assumed to adhere to receptors’ skin approximates the “infinite source” amount used to estimate dermal absorption of constituents from soil. More current information provided by Stanek et al. Inc. rates of absorption measured in studies may not be representative of absorption that occurs when lower degrees of adherence occur. If the dermal absorption were increased (above the rates assumed in the risk assessment) because a monolayer of soil were assumed to be loaded onto skin. The default values assumed for these general input parameters are typically considered conservative in the sense that they are unlikely to underestimate the resulting blood lead level and associated statistical probabilities. Similarly. Site-specific input parameters include the EPC and soil ingestion rate.g. air.

1989). The child receptor groups included in the risk assessment include a child resident aged 0 to 6 and a child trespasser aged 12 to 18. RfD or RfC calculations). Extrapolation from high doses in animals to the dose range expected for environmentally exposed humans.800 mg/kg at SS169A 0. but it should be noted that in the case of lead in Area 1 there was 1 sample detected at a concentration greater than 1. Uncertainties associated with the estimated EPC were discussed previously (Section 2. so the toxicological evaluations upon which the risk assessment is based contribute no more uncertainty than in comparable CERCLA documents. Key study and database quality. The degree of over-conservatism in the toxicological factors is difficult to estimate because of the number of factors involved. There are many sources of uncertainty in dose-response evaluation of carcinogenic (i. target tissues and type of effects) (USEPA.5. Positive results in animal cancer tests suggest humans may also manifest a carcinogenic response. which represents a subchronic exposure scenario (USEPA. The major sources are: • • • • • • Interspecies extrapolations. Currently. Not all carcinogens that will be “officially” considered mutagens have been identified. 1989. positive animal test results may suggest the nature of possible human effects (i.0) out of a total of 44 samples. Considerable uncertainty can be associated with qualitative (hazard assessment) and quantitative (dose-response) evaluations. Chronic toxicity values were used to evaluate the trespasser. Inc. but animal data cannot necessarily be used to predict target tissues in humans. the level of uncertainty in the toxicological data and models associated with a particular COPC can be substantial.e. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation average soil lead concentration was utilized. which likely results in overestimates in the hazard estimates for these receptors. USEPA has recently released guidance on the need for additional safety factors for children exposed to genotoxic compounds (USEPA. Hazard assessment of carcinogenicity is currently evaluated as a weight-of-evidence determination.000 mg/kg lead (5. USEPA is recommending age-dependent adjustment facts only for carcinogens acting through a mutagenic mode of action. CSF or UR calculations) and noncarcinogenic effects (i. none of the COPCsfor this risk assessment have been identified as mutagens. Hazard assessment characterizes the nature and strength of the evidence of causation or the likelihood that a chemical that induces adverse effects in animals will induce adverse effects in humans.Tetra Tech EC. An estimate of the overall uncertainty contributed by toxicological estimates could be a factor ranging from 10 to 100. hunter. risk estimates for some COPCs may be underestimates. RfDs and CSFs obtained from USEPA were used in this HHRA.. In the hazard assessment of noncarcinogenic effects.5-1.e. 2002a). Therefore. 2007-O-JV04-0019 42 . Both of these receptor groups fall within ages 2 to 15. 2005b).e. This sample had a substantial effect on the EPC. using USEPA (1989) classifications. However. Variability between species and between individuals of the same species. and Wide variation in the quality and amounts of toxicological data for different chemicals.. which is associated with a three-fold risk adjustment for mutagenic agents.3).. Endpoint extrapolation to NOAEL from LOAEL. and construction worker scenarios.

In evaluating these receptor groups assuming many upper-bound exposure assumptions. cancer risks are statistical probabilities. Provisional toxicity values were obtained for aluminum. the elderly. in order not to understate the hazard. As mentioned previously. RfDs assume that sensitive members of the population are a factor of ten times more sensitive than a healthy adult. and if probabilities are assumed to be independent. so as not to underestimate the potential human health risks. 2. Inc. Uncertainties associated with risk characterization include the assumption of chemical additivity and the inability to predict synergistic or antagonistic interactions between COPCs. then the cumulative probability is the sum of the individual probabilities. the estimated dose that both adults and children receive in this risk assessment most likely represent “worst-case” scenarios and therefore calculated values are biased high yet still are unlikely to be associated with adverse health effects. toxicity values from Tier 3 sources were used in this evaluation without review of the basis of the RfD(s). which includes the developing fetus.Tetra Tech EC.5. the total potential hazard posed by potential exposure to site-related COPCs is determined by combining the hazard quotients contributed by each constituent. each of the selected constituents is calculated. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation For compounds without toxicity values from either IRIS or Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). 2004a. Unlike the hazard index approach. Once exposure to. this risk assessment estimates potential risks. children. and likely overstates any actual risks to over 99% of the exposed population. 2006c. current and future recreational 2007-O-JV04-0019 43 . For current and future military personnel engaged in small arms training. therefore. However. nitroglycerin. This HHRA considered only potential risks from soil exposures. and vanadium from USEPA and NCEA (USEPA. 2006d). Where COPCs do not interact. the oral RfD for tungsten is based on an unpublished NOAEL from a CHPPM toxicity study (CHPPM. In addition. The health risks estimated in the risk characterization generally apply to the hypothetical receptors whose activities and locations were described in the exposure assessment. and people with impaired health status. The use of these provisional values contributes to some uncertainty in the overall risk estimates. The risk and hazards of potential adverse human health effects depends on estimated levels of exposure and on dose-response relationships. In addition. Probabilities would not be independent if the exposure to one chemical affects the body’s response to exposure to another chemical. These uncertainties are inherent in any inferential risk assessment. and hazard from. Some people will always be more sensitive than the average person and. 2007). or do not have the same mechanism of action. USEPA-promulgated inputs to the quantitative risk assessment and toxicological indices are calculated to be protective of the human receptor and to err conservatively.6 Risk Characterization The risk characterization bridges the gap between potential exposure and the possibility of systemic or carcinogenic human health effects. do not affect the same target organ. Neither synergism nor antagonism is quantitatively evaluated in this risk assessment due to a lack of developed methods. summing the hazard quotients for multiple COPC results in an overestimate of hazard posed by the Site. current and future trespassers. ultimately providing impetus for the remediation of the Site or providing a basis for no remedial action. will be at greater risk. it was initially assumed that the potential effects of different constituents are additive. the toxicity values used to calculate risk are derived by governmental health agencies specifically to be protective of sensitive members of the population.

Therefore. the risks and hazards for these receptors presented herein represent cumulative risks and non-cancer hazards. 2007-O-JV04-0019 44 . and future construction workers. No evaluation was conducted in this report of potential future exposures to groundwater COPCs used as a source of potable water by hypothetical residents. Inc. groundwater exposures are not considered complete exposure pathways.Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation hunters.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 3. A Site sketch and photographic log are provided in Attachment C. parking.2. The remainder of the access road is dirt with visible tire ruts and some degree of soil compaction. 2007 to identify environmentally sensitive areas and potential chemical migration pathways at the MMR Tango Firing Range (the Site) located in Cape Cod Massachusetts. 3. The access road runs along the perimeter of the firing range and along the southern bank of the berm. Inc.2 Soils The vehicle access road and parking area along the northern end of the Site are constructed of loose gravel. one moderately-sized slab beneath the storage shed and several smaller slabs (approximately 8 in total) beneath support beams and staircase for the tower. 3. The firing range is located immediately south of the firing line and the main berm is approximately 200 feet south of the firing line.3 Vegetation Vegetation within the firing range. potentially due to range construction and periodic road use.0 Ecological Risk Assessment 3. except for an earthen berm constructed near the center. There are six mounds of soil (approximately 6 to 8 feet in height). potentially excavated during range construction. running east to west. unconsolidated soils.Tetra Tech EC.2 Environmental Setting A Site reconnaissance was performed on January 17. The berm measures roughly 220 feet long and 16 feet tall.2. and beside the entrance road consists of mowed grass. just north of the firing line. 3. 3. Substrate on the remainder of the vegetated and un-vegetated portions of the Site consists of sandy. A vehicle access road runs east to west along the northern portion of the firing range adjacent to the firing line.1 Topography The northern portion of the Site consists of an entrance and vehicle access road. Two areas with impervious ground surfaces were identified. and mowed grass areas. The six mounds of soil lying parallel to the access road on the north end of the Site appear to be native soils. that are set adjacent to each other and run along the edge of the access road (one is located in front of the tower).1 Introduction The purpose of the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) is to identify contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) in surface soils which may pose potential risk to terrestrial ecological receptors utilizing habitat present at the Tango Firing Range (the Site). Topography of the entire Site is relatively flat. The cleared area located south of the berm consists of dense underbrush including 2007-O-JV04-0019 45 . the main berm.2.

or mammals are known to inhabit the MMR. 2002).) and juvenile pines (Pinus sp. 3.e. Torrey’s beak-sedge (Rhynchospora torreyana). USACE personal communication).1 Identification of Representative Wildlife Receptors Criteria for the selection of wildlife receptors included two factors specified in USEPA guidance (USEPA. These include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). 3. and Develop assessment and objective measurement endpoints for use in the ecological risk assessment. ovata). however.). Development of a conceptual site model for ecological receptors for application at the Site.) were observed while driving along the MMR access roads.). the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Rare bird species on MMR include the upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). such as Gerhard’s underwing moth (Catocala herodias gerhardi). reptiles. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation sumac (Rhus sp. and Melsheimer’s sack bearer (Cicinnus melsheimeri).3 Problem Formulation Problem formulation included the following steps: Review of available data on ecological communities and selection of representative ecological receptor species. pitch pines (Pinus rigida). Inc. fish.4 Wildlife Observations No direct wildlife observations were made at the Site.). multifora rose (Rosa multifora). or indicative of. 3. the MMR does support a number of animals that are listed by the state as species of special concern. 2007-O-JV04-0019 46 . and aspens (Populus sp. juncos (Junco sp. ovate spikerush (Eleocaris obtusa var. These species are primarily associated with the grassland fields in the southern cantonment area. eastern.3. several flocks of song birds. moths). State-listed plant species documented on the MMR include broad tinker’s weed (Triosteum perfoliatum). green briar (Smilax sp.. the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum).). 1997) for determining “key organisms” in an ecological food web: (1) resident communities or species exposed to highest chemical concentrations in surface soil. No threatened or endangered amphibians. goldenrods (Solidago sp. About half of these are lepidoptera (i. Whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are very prevalent throughout the MMR (Greg Pierce.2. the vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus). (2) species or functional groups considered to be essential to. 3. and the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). However. The southern. and adder’s tongue fern (Ophioglossum pusillum). and seagulls (Larus sp.5 Threatened and Endangered Species There are at least 25 species listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act that have been observed on the MMR. the barrens daggermoth (Acronicta albarufa).2. and western perimeters of the Site are forested with white pines (Pinus stroba).Tetra Tech EC.). and the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) (USACE. Review existing data on chemical concentrations in soil and selection of COPECs. the normal food chain functioning within the affected habitat.

Omnivorous Mammals. rabbits. they represent the different foraging behaviors anticipated for avian and mammalian wildlife common to the terrestrial habitats present. earthworms. Chipping sparrows are found in grassy. ground-dwelling rodents) and snakes identified at MMR. 2007-O-JV04-0019 47 . a site-specific food web conceptual site model (CSM) (Figure 3. and soil invertebrates. grasses. Herbivorous Mammals. in addition to small amounts of insects. The chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina) was selected to represent a largely herbivorous avian species. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was selected to represent carnivorous terrestrial avian receptors. The robin feeds on terrestrial plants. fruits. The short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) was identified as being native to the MMR area and is a species that consumes terrestrial plants. and poultry. Because of its small home range. it is a commonly observed species in the MMR. rabbits. Both avian predators (hawks) and mammalian predators (foxes) prey upon mice.Tetra Tech EC. and they include upper tropic level receptors: • Herbivorous Birds. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was selected to represent carnivorous terrestrial mammalian species. Omnivorous Birds. as a top-level terrestrial predator that preys on small birds. Carnivorous Mammals. The primary exposure pathways and routes included ingestion of dietary items that have bioaccumulated contaminants from surface soils and incidental ingestion of surface soils by the receptors during normal behavioral activities in the habitats present.1) was created. The species chosen were selected given that they are all endemic to the terrestrial habitats present in the MMR area. Bioaccumulation was the primary exposure route considered in the dietary component of the CSM. and have been identified at MMR.2 Based upon the results of the ecological receptor selection process. This CSM was used to identify the exposure pathways and routes through which the identified wildlife receptors may be exposed to contaminants associated with historical range uses. Carnivorous Birds. Red fox prey extensively on mice and voles but also feed on other small mammals. The American robin (Turdus migratorius) was selected to represent omnivorous terrestrial avian receptors.. bgs). the shrew is potentially exposed to on-site chemicals for its entire lifetime. insects. and bark). Incidental ingestion of soils occur as part of normal behavioral functions by the wildlife species. Conceptual Site Model • • • • • 3. The primary exposure media considered in the BERA for the Site was surface soils (0-1ft. game birds.3. These behavioral functions resulting in the incidental ingestion of soils could include ingestion of soil particles during feeding or ingestion of soil particles during grooming or preening. The white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) was selected to represent a largely herbivorous mammalian species. small mammals (e. and other invertebrates in soil. Inc. This species is a terrestrial predator present throughout the United States and Canada that has been observed at MMR. weedy or brushy habitats.g. These mice have been identified at MMR and feed primarily on plant matter (shoots. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Three avian species and three mammalian species were selected as receptors of interest across the Site. the Site visit and the terrestrial habitats present on the Site.

not evaluated in the COPEC screening process. If the MDC is greater than the MDC in Demo 1 but the frequency of detection is < 5%. and If the MDC is greater than the background value the constituent is retained as a COPEC. cadmium. lead.5. potassium. antimony.1 presents the soil screening level assessment for identification of COPECs. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 3. sodium. The three following screening steps were applied for identifying a contaminant as a COPEC at the Site: STEP 1: If the constituent was a risk driver in Demo 1. the constituent is eliminated as a COPEC.1.3. and If no USEPA ECO-SSL is available. cobalt.3. and If the MDC is greater than the MDC in Demo 1 but the frequency of detection is ≥ 5%. If the MDC does not exceed the USEPA ECO-SSL. iron. If the MDC is less than the background value the constituent is eliminated as a COPEC. and vanadium. beryllium. STEP 2: STEP 3: USEPA has developed ecological soil screening levels (USEPA ECO-SSLs) for twelve metals: aluminum. a series of steps were applied consistent with the comprehensive BERA Site assessment process at MMR ranges. Table 3. barium.3 Screening Process for Identification of Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern Chemicals of potential ecological concern are chemicals that have the potential to present a risk to the representative wildlife receptors identified in Section 3. chromium. STEP 2 is applied. Inc. and magnesium have been identified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as essential nutrients and were not considered to be problematic for Site related. The soil screening level assessment described in this section compares maximum detected concentrations to relevant ecological screening values (USEPA ECO-SSLs) for identification of COPECs. the constituent is eliminated as a COPEC. Macro-elements such as phosphorus. arsenic. iron and aluminum bioavailability and toxicity are expected to be low and not problematic. If the MDC is less than the MDC in Demo 1. the constituent is retained as a COPEC. USEPA concluded that in well-aerated soils with a pH between 6 to 8. These detected analytes were. Aluminum and iron were therefore dropped as COPECs and not evaluated further. 2007-O-JV04-0019 48 . 2005a-2005m) are available for a limited group of inorganic metals and organic compounds Therefore. The MMR soils typically have a neutral pH (or slightly higher). calcium. copper.Tetra Tech EC. STEP 3 is applied. it is retained as a COPEC. therefore. USEPA ECO-SSLs (USEPA. The USEPA ECO-SSL for aluminum (USEPA. 2005a) states that aluminum is of concern only when the soil pH is less than 5. The USEPA ECO-SSL for iron (USEPA 2005i) states that identifying a specific benchmark for iron in soil is difficult since iron bioavailability to plants (and subsequent toxicity) are dependent upon site-specific soil conditions. the constituent is eliminated as a COPEC. similar to those present on MMR. If the maximum detection concentration (MDC) exceeds the USEPA ECO-SSL. if a USEPA ECO-SSL was not available for comparison.

Exposure point concentrations were calculated as the arithmetic mean of the relevant data (setting any undetected results to one-half the reported quantitation limit). 3.4 Development of Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Based upon the identification of seven COPECs in the soil screening level assessment the BERA must proceed with the ecological risk characterization which estimates risk to wildlife receptors. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation A total of eight COPECs were identified in the soil screening level assessment for the Site: Nitroglycerin. Measurement endpoints often are expressed as the statistical or arithmetic summaries of observations that make up the measurement. This list of COPECs was carried through the ERA process to assess exposure to the wildlife receptors previously identified. Comparison of predicted average daily dosage (ADDs) for herbivorous avian receptors to toxicity reference values (TRVs). Copper. Tungsten.Tetra Tech EC. and Vanadium. Protection and sustainability of omnivorous avian and mammalian populations utilizing terrestrial habitat present in the Site. Cadmium. Measurement Endpoints selected to evaluate Assessment Endpoint #1 1. 2007-O-JV04-0019 49 . Based upon the results of the soil screening level assessment the following assessments were developed: 1. Inc. Protection and sustainability of herbivorous avian and mammalian populations utilizing terrestrial habitat present in the Site. The following measurement endpoints were selected to evaluate the above corresponding assessment endpoints. 2. Lead. Antimony. Measurement endpoints are “measurable responses that are related to the assessment endpoint” (USEPA. Arsenic.3. Assessment endpoints are discrete expressions of an ecological or natural resource value deemed important to the community or ecosystem being protected. Protection and sustainability of carnivorous avian and mammalian populations utilizing terrestrial habitat present in the Site. 1998). 3. 2. Comparison of predicted ADDs for herbivorous mammalian receptors to TRVs.

and types of potential exposures to COPECs in food webs assumed to be present (USEPA. weaknesses. and (3) uncertainty analysis. Inc. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Measurement Endpoints selected to evaluate Assessment Endpoint #2 1. 3. and their derivations are discussed below.Tetra Tech EC. The above measurement endpoints will be used to evaluate and characterize risks to wildlife receptors. 2. In this step. and the calculation of soil EPCs. 1997). (2) risk description. the risks associated with estimated exposures were characterized. and = Body Weight (kg). Average Daily Dosage Derivation The equation used to calculate the receptor’s ADD. and the strengths.4. This includes the development of equations and exposure assumptions used to estimate potential exposure for selected ecological receptors. and assumptions employed in the risk assessment were fully described. duration. 3. 2.4 Ecological Risk Characterization Risk characterization uses the output from the preceding steps of the ERA and involves three principal steps: (1) risk estimation and characterization. frequency. Comparison of predicted ADDs for carnivorous avian receptors to TRVs. was as follows: ADD (mg/kg-day) = [Σ(Cprey x Frprey) x IRfood + (Csoil x IRsoil)] x AUF x SUF ÷ BW Where: ADD Cprey Frprey IRfood Csoil IRsoil AUF SUF BW = Average daily dose (mg/kg-day) = Concentration of COPEC in prey summed over all prey types (mg/kg wet weight) = Fraction of diet comprised of prey summed over all prey types including both plant and animal food items (unitless) = Ingestion Rate of food (wet weight) (kg/day) = Concentration of COPEC in soil (mg/kg wet weight) = Incidental ingestion rate of soil (kg/day) = Area Use Factor (unitless) = Seasonal Use Factor (unitless). Measurement Endpoints selected to evaluate Assessment Endpoint #3 1. 2007-O-JV04-0019 50 . Comparison of predicted ADDs for carnivorous mammalian receptors to TRVs. Comparison of predicted ADDs for omnivorous avian receptors to TRVs. The parameters used in the above equation were provided for each receptor selected. Comparison of predicted ADDs for omnivorous mammalian receptors to TRVs.1 Risk Estimation and Characterization Exposure assessment is the process of estimating the magnitude. or intake.

. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Dietary Intake Rate and Body Weight The dietary composition of the wildlife receptor was estimated or assumed using life history data summarized in the USEPA Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA. the wet weight food ingestion rate of the receptor. in kg/day. 1993). then the receptor’s home range is assumed to be within the habitat area on the site (i. plants. the receptor and/or progeny spend 100% of their life cycle on-site). In this method. invertebrates. Therefore the SUF is 5/12 or 0. Body weight and wet weight ingestion rates were derived from values listed in USEPA (1993). Therefore the SUF is 7/12 or 0. or at least the area of available habitat within the site. leaving the breeding grounds in September to November and returning between February and April. small birds and mammals) were estimated from soil concentrations and bioaccumulation factors. Area and Seasonal Use Factors Area use factors (AUFs) and seasonal use factors (SUFs) were applied to exposure estimations when it could be reasonably assumed that only a portion of the exposure dosage ingested by the receptor was from the contaminated soils present.e.g. or 7 months. the estimated exposure (the ADD) is compared to the toxicity reference value (i. This was typically the case when the home range of the receptor was greater than the area of the site. the NOAEL and/or LOAEL) using the following equation: HQ = ADD ÷ TRV Where: HQ ADD TRV = hazard quotient (unitless) = average daily dose (mg/kg-day). therefore. Hazard Quotient and Hazard Index Potential risks to the ecological receptors were estimated using the hazard quotient (HQ) method. For this risk assessment the robin was assumed to be at MMR from March through September. When wet weight ingestion rates are not available. The AUF is then defined by the ratio of the habitat area of the site to the animal’s home range area. 2007-O-JV04-0019 51 .58. was be calculated based on the body weight using the equation in Sample et al. It should be noted that the AUF cannot exceed 1. (1997). Inc. where available.. when the AUF is 1 for a particular exposure scenario. All other wildlife receptor species were considered to be resident to the habitats present on a year round basis. and = toxicity reference value (mg/kg-day).. For this risk assessment the chipping sparrow was assumed to be at MMR from April until September. Concentrations of COPECs in dietary/prey organisms (e.Tetra Tech EC.42.e. or 5 months. The robin exhibits seasonal movement or migration.

Dietary uptake factors used to estimate ADD via specific dietary exposure routes are provided in Table 3. Each Assessment Endpoint is discussed individually based upon the measurement endpoints used in each risk characterization. Wildlife exposure parameters applied in the calculation of the ADD are provided in Table 3.0 but below a LOAEL HQ <1. Cumulative hazard index for survival (endpoint 1).e.0 may be interpreted as a basis for no potential risk of biologically significant harm and a LOAEL HQ >1.0. Assessment Endpoint 1: Adverse effects to herbivorous bird (chipping sparrow) and mammal (whitefooted mouse) populations resulting from exposures to COPECs in surface soil and/or diet items. For the chipping sparrow.0 is considered inconclusive and will need to be carefully considered in light of the exposure assessment and risk characterization uncertainties.7 in Attachment D). =∑HQs for Endpoints 1. growth and other (i. 2 and 3 The measurement endpoints used to determine whether or not there is an adverse impact to each assessment endpoint are listed separately. survival.0 (Tables 3. along with the results for each endpoint.Tetra Tech EC. The HI represents a qualitative assessment of risk from COPECs for a common toxicological effect endpoint. and reproduction (endpoint 3).0 may be considered as a basis for the potential for biologically significant harm.4 and 3. Four categories of effects were evaluated in the HI summary: reproductive. the exposure assessment identified one COPEC. the estimated potential exposure exceeds the TRV and a potential risk may exist for the endpoint evaluated. histological effects or organ specific tissue effects). Under the MCP. a NOAEL HQ <1.2 (Attachment D).. For the white-footed mouse. When the HQ is greater than 1. All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1. The individual hazard quotients were summed to estimate a hazard index (HI).0.3 (Attachment D). The HQ is calculated separately for each individual compound for each of the assessment endpoints identified. vanadium. 2007-O-JV04-0019 52 . with a NOAEL HQ >1. A risk estimate that has a NOAEL HQ >1. the exposure assessment identified one COPEC. growth (endpoint 2). lead.e.0 (Tables 3. Measurement Endpoint: Comparison of predicted ADDs for avian and mammalian receptors to TRVs..6 and 3. Inc. The HI is only for interpretative measure and does not carry a definitive definition of risk as defined by a LOAEL HQ equal to or greater than one as defined under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) or Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (ERAGS). the estimated potential exposure is less than the TRV indicating that no potential risk exists. with NOAEL and/or LOAEL HQs ≥1.0.5 in Attachment D). Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation These calculations are performed for each individual wildlife receptor considered in the BERA. When the HQ is less than 1. The HI was calculated as follows: Hazard Index for Endpoint Where: ∑HQs HI = = Sum of hazard quotients for a common endpoint (i. growth and reproduction). survival.

7) (Table 3. Measurement Endpoint: Comparison of predicted ADDs for avian and mammalian receptors to TRVs. tungsten. 3.14 and 3.3 Summary of HazardQuotients and Hazard Indices White-footed mouse Table 3.0 (Tables 3. Measurement Endpoint: Comparison of predicted ADDs for avian and mammalian receptors to TRVs. For the American robin.7) contributed to the majority of the LOAEL HI for reproduction (3. the exposure assessment identified three COPECs.4.16 in Attachment D).Tetra Tech EC.8 and 3. vanadium. Assessment Endpoint 3: Adverse effects on carnivorous bird (red-tailed hawk) and mammal (red fox) populations resulting from exposures to COPECs in surface soil and/or diet items. while LOAEL HQs ranged from <1. the exposure assessment identified one COPECs. All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1. with NOAEL and/or LOAEL HQs >1. For the red fox.0.13 in Attachment D).0 (Tables 3. with NOAEL HQs >1.0.0 (Tables 3. All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1. The toxicological endpoint for vanadium is reproduction (endpoint = reduced fertility in male rats).10 and 3.16 (Attachment D) summarizes the results of the exposure assessment for the white-footed mouse.9 in Attachment D). the exposure assessment identified one COPEC. The LOAEL HQ for vanadium (3. vanadium.0 to 37. For the short-tailed shrew. This observation suggests that the potential 2007-O-JV04-0019 53 . All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1.0 to 3. due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for a representative mammalian test species.0 were identified (Tables 3. Risk to this receptor could not be characterized for one COPEC.12 and 3. The exposure assessment identified one COPEC. For the red-tailed hawk. risks from vanadium were overstated because of the conservativeness of the screening value and the failure to consider local conditions consistent with background ranges of this element. and vanadium. (2) a discussion of the evidence supporting the risk estimate(s) using a weight-of-evidence approach. with NOAEL and/or LOAEL HQs >1. Based upon this observation.11 in Attachment D).0.2 Risk Description The risk description component of the Risk Characterization includes: a summary of all the risk estimate(s). with NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1. no COPECs with a NOAEL or LOAEL HQ >1.4. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Assessment Endpoint 2: Adverse effects on omnivorous bird (American robin) and mammal (short-tailed shrew) populations resulting from exposures to COPECs in surface soil and/or diet items. NOAEL HQs ranged from <1.15 in Attachment D). 3.7 (maximum: vanadium). Inc. lead. and (3) an interpretation of the ecological significance and relevance of the estimate(s).0. The maximum concentration of vanadium exceeded the USEPA ECO-SSL value but was below the observed range of this metal in Demo 1 soils and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) background for natural soils. antimony.

vanadium. tungsten due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for a representative mammalian test species. Based upon this observation. All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1. Red Fox Table 3.9) (Table 3. Based upon a NOAEL HQ >1 potential risk may exist for the red fox from antimony at the Site. The exposure assessment identified one COPEC. NOAEL HQs ranged from <1.16 (in Attachment D) summarizes the results of the exposure assessment for the short-tailed shrew. with NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1. NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1 for vanadium suggest potential risk for the red fox in the Site. with a NOAEL HQs >1.6) contributed to the majority of the LOAEL HI for reproduction (4.16 in Attachment D). however. The maximum concentration of vanadium exceeded the USEPA ECO-SSL value but was below the observed range of this metal in Demo 1 soils and MassDEP background for natural soils. with both NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1.0 to 47.16 in Attachment D).0.7 (maximum: vanadium). while LOAEL HQs ranged from <1.6) (Table 3. risks from vanadium were overstated because of the conservativeness of the screening value and did not consider local conditions consistent with background ranges of this element.6 (maximum: vanadium). This suggests that the potential for risk of biologically significant harm is the product of the conservative nature of the exposure assessment and risk characterization.0 to 4. antimony. vanadium. The toxicological endpoint for vanadium is reproduction (endpoint = reduced fertility in male rats). This suggests that the potential for risk of biologically significant harm is the product of the conservative nature of the exposure assessment and risk characterization.0 to 46.0. due a lack of corresponding toxicity values for a representative mammalian test species.0 to 4. All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1. Risk to this receptor could not be characterized for one COPEC. NOAEL HQs ranged from <1. 2007-O-JV04-0019 54 .Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation for risk of biologically significant harm is the product of the conservative nature of the exposure assessment and risk characterization. The maximum concentration of vanadium exceeded the USEPA ECO-SSL value but was below the observed range of this metal in Demo 1 soils and MassDEP background for natural soils. while LOAEL HQs ranged from <1. Risk to this receptor could not be characterized for one COPEC. Based upon this observation. a LOAEL HQ <1 suggests this risk in minimal.7) contributed to the majority of the LOAEL HI for reproduction (4. The toxicological endpoint for vanadium is reproduction (endpoint = reduced fertility in male rats). The LOAEL HQ for vanadium (4. The LOAEL HQ for vanadium (4. The exposure assessment identified one COPEC. Short-tailed shrew Table 3.16 (Attachment D) summarizes the results of the exposure assessment for the red fox. It also identified one COPEC. Inc. risks from vanadium were overstated because of the conservativeness of the screening value and the failure to consider local conditions consistent with background ranges of this element. NOAEL and LOAEL HQs >1 for vanadium suggest potential risk for the short-tailed shrew at the Site. tungsten.0.

tungsten. and vanadium. The exposure assessment identified one COPEC. The LOAEL HQ for lead (4.0 to 4. however. lead.17 in Attachment D). It is a crucial element of the interpretation of the BERA results. LOAEL risks to this receptor could not be characterized for four COPECs.0. LOAEL HQs <1 suggests this risk in minimal. Red-tailed Hawk Table 3. Based upon NOAEL HQs >1 potential risk may exist for the American robin lead at the Site.7) contributed to the majority of the LOAEL HI for reproduction (4. LOAEL risks to this receptor could not be characterized for four COPECs.7) (Table 3. due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for representative mammalian test species. 3. due a lack of corresponding toxicity values for representative mammalian test species. NOAEL HQs ranged from <1. and vanadium. while all LOAEL HQs were <1. Based upon a NOAEL HQ =1 potential risk may exist for the chipping sparrow from lead at the Site.17 (Attachment D) summarizes the results of the exposure assessment for the American robin. The toxicological endpoint for lead is reproduction (endpoint = reduced hatching success). with a NOAEL HQ >1. NOAEL risks to this receptor could not be characterized for two COPECs. The LOAEL HQs for all COPECs were <1. due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for representative mammalian test species.0 for this receptor.4. Inc. Based on these findings. The following 2007-O-JV04-0019 55 . the potential for biologically significant harm does not exist for the red-tailed hawk. The LOAEL HQ for lead (1. lead. antimony. nitroglycerin and tungsten.9) (Table 3. nitroglycerin and tungsten. antimony.7) contributed to the majority of the LOAEL HI for reproduction (1. nitroglycerin.4 Weight-of-Evidence The weight-of-evidence approach applies a significance level to the lines of evidence applied as measurement endpoints to the assessment endpoints considered. due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for representative mammalian test species. while LOAEL HQs were all <1. tungsten. NOAEL HQs ranged from <1. and is integral to the risk management evaluation. due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for representative mammalian test species.Tetra Tech EC. nitroglycerin and tungsten. All other COPECs had corresponding NOAEL and LOAEL HQs <1.0. however. antimony.0.17 in Attachment D). American Robin Table 3. tungsten. NOAEL risks to this receptor could not be characterized for two COPECs. a LOAEL HQ <1 suggests this risk in minimal. nitroglycerin.7 (maximum: lead). LOAEL risks to this receptor could not be characterized for four COPECs. The exposure assessment identified one COPEC.0. due to a lack of corresponding toxicity values for representative mammalian test species. NOAEL risks to this receptor could not be characterized for two COPECs. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Chipping Sparrow Table 3. and vanadium.0 to 1.7 (maximum: lead). nitroglycerin.17 (Attachment D) summarizes the results of the exposure assessment for the chipping sparrow. The toxicological endpoint for lead is reproduction (endpoint = reduced egg hatching success). with NOAEL HQs >1.17 (Attachment D) summarizes the results of the exposure assessment for the red-tailed hawk. The exposure assessment identified no COPECs with NOAEL or LOAEL HQs >1.

and model error. These species also represented upper (consumer rather than producer) trophic level receptors so that potential food web effects would be considered for individual COPECs with bioaccumulating potential in the local food chain.0. COPECs that exhibited HQs less than unity can be eliminated from further consideration with a high degree of confidence. The representativeness and confidence in the risk estimations for the COPECs that exhibited HQs exceeding unity are further discussed in the Uncertainty Analysis section. red fox. Inc.4. parameter values. 3. Soil samples collected therefore included depths and locations determined to be important in relation to these past uses and as relevant to exposure pathways and routes for the ecological receptors evaluated. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation factors are some of the key considerations in the weight-of-evidence evaluation of the various risk estimates: • The relevance of the evidence to the assessment endpoint: The avian and mammalian wildlife species chosen as measurement endpoints (white-footed mouse. • The relevance of the evidence to the CSM describing the physical fate and transport processes and their direct relevance to the assessment endpoints: The exposure pathways and primary and secondary sources of contaminants identified in the CSM.4. Because of the conservative nature of the exposure assumptions. suggest that the presence of these contaminants in soil is due to the past military operations performed at the Site. American robin. Soil samples collected to evaluate potential effects of COPECs were selected based on the evidence provided by the historical use of the Site. chipping sparrow. 3. the estimated potential exposure exceeds the TRV and a potential for risk cannot be excluded. These types include: conceptual model uncertainty.5 Ecological Significance and Relevance The potential for various adverse effects arising from COPEC exposures to wildlife receptors included consideration of the following: The HQ/HI approach was used to assess potential risk.6 Risk Description USEPA ERAGS identifies three major types of uncertainty for evaluating ecological risks. Each of these is discussed 2007-O-JV04-0019 56 . the potential risks for estimating adverse effects. Based upon this information. and red-tailed hawk) were selected given that all six species are endemic to the terrestrial habitats present in the MMR area. as well as chemical fate and transport properties of the identified COPECs. When the HQ is greater than 1. are much more likely to overestimate rather than underestimate risk of effect to the individual receptors considered.Tetra Tech EC. • The confidence in the risk estimate or other information: The BERA used receptors known to inhabit areas represented by the Site and conservative exposure assumptions. short-tailed shrew.

and the selection of assessment and measurement endpoints that were used in the ecological risk assessment. the selection of receptors of concern. the number of COPECs and their concentrations are likely biased toward higher concentrations rather than being inclusive of non-use areas present at the Site. Parameter Value Uncertainty Uncertainty in parameter values includes the exposure assumptions that were used for dose calculations and the TRVs that were used to estimate and characterize the risks. the sampling locations were located in areas of the Site that were used for military activities. This CSM was developed not as a comprehensive integration of all possible exposure pathways or receptors but a simplified version to allow for the quantification of exposure to representative receptors. Because this is a simplification of the complex relationships and processes present in an ecological food web it not capture all of the potential exposure routes for each wildlife receptor assessed. as well as depths that are likely to be encountered by soil invertebrates or roots of plants that they ingest. This sampling strategy employs the collection of multiple random grabs from across a discrete area and combing the individual grabs into a single discrete soil sample. Another exposure pathway uncertainty was the conservative assumption of a bioavailability factor of 1 (except for avian exposures to lead). While this approach does allow for the assessment of contamination across a large spatial area it does not provide for the basis for assessing variability across individual sample points. Inc. The CSM formed the basis for the development of the field investigations. and therefore. 2007-O-JV04-0019 57 . EPCs: Exposure point concentrations were calculated for surficial soil using samples that encompassed depths (i. Sampling of surface soils from the Site used composite sampling. In general. This loss of variation may result in missing of hotspots or underestimation of exposure due to lack of discrete data for individual points that may identify an area of higher concentrations of contaminants. the receptors would therefore be exposed and assimilate lower COPEC concentrations that would result in an even lower probability of an adverse effect. dietary composition. the selection of exposure pathways. seasonality. Conservative exposure assumptions: The exposure assumptions. These are described in the following paragraphs. 0 to 1 ft bgs) that would likely be encountered by receptors incidentally ingesting the soil. and home range.e.. Because bioavailability of any compound is less than 100 percent.Tetra Tech EC. Conceptual Model Uncertainty The CSM for the Site presented the pathways and exposure routes identified for the soils present in the habitats of the Site. the exposure assumptions represent best professional judgment with regard to providing a conservative estimation of exposure for representative ecological receptors that may actually inhabit the site. In addition. were based on field studies performed by others and presented in the scientific literature but were assumed to be representative of the behavior of these receptors in the habitats present on the Site. The simplified food-chain exposure models assumed that COPECs were in a chemical form that was 100% bioavailable to the exposed receptor. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation below along with their relevance to the risk conclusions for the COPECs that showed HQs greater than unity. such as food and soil ingestion rates.

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Finally. Because conservative exposure assumptions were combined with conservative toxicity assumptions. Toxicity Reference Values: NOAELs are considered conservative estimates of the actual toxicity threshold of exposure. sensitive individuals within the population. Model Error Uncertainty The most common example for model error uncertainty is the method used to derive indirect (food-chain) uptake. Inc. they are generic and may not be representative of the processes that may be occurring at the Site. soil invertebrates were included in the modeled diets of two receptor species: the short tailed shrew and the American robin. they represent potential effects to highly exposed. Finally.Tetra Tech EC. the biota transfer factors for all soil invertebrates (earthworms and “others”) were based on earthworm transfer factors. However. Population Risk Estimate: The HQ/HI approach used in this evaluation was based on a sensitive individual receptor.. Although these were based on established fate and transport processes and food web models.g. USEPA 1997). some uncertainty remains associated with wildlife exposure to nitroglycerin and tungsten due to a lack of corresponding TRV data for avian and mammalian species. 2007-O-JV04-0019 58 . Both of these included earthworms and “other soil invertebrates” as a dietary item. The uncertainty values used in TRV development are well established (e. The use of earthworm transfer factors to model the contaminant concentrations in their tissues is probably highly conservative and thus prone to overestimate exposure to insectivorous wildlife. the NOAEL is estimated from a LOAEL or median lethal dose of laboratory test organisms. Epi-faunal insects such as crickets and grasshoppers ingest vegetative matter as part of their diet and thus do not have the same exposure pattern as earthworms. In some cases. Rather. Earthworms ingest soils resulting in a greater exposure potential to this receptor group. This is done through the application of appropriate uncertainty factors to extrapolate to the anticipated comparable chronic effect in the receptor of interest. the resulting risks overestimate potential effects to the populations.

Given the conservative assumptions used in this evaluation of potential non-cancer risk. LOAEL HQs <1 suggests this risk is minimal. The primary ecological risk was attributed to concentrations of lead to avian receptors. the potential ecological risks were attributed to lead exposure at the Site.Tetra Tech EC. omnivorous and carnivorous mammalian receptors. the receptors hazard indices associated with potential exposure to soil are still all less than one for all current receptors and all future receptors except child residents. Inc. future residential development is extremely unlikely to occur.3 Summary Potential Ecological Risks for the Tango Firing Range The ERA for the Tango Firing Range identified that there are potential risks to ecological receptors. The range wide mean lead concentration in surface soils was within the range of published MADEP background levels and further supporting the low risk determination. Thus. The ecological receptor groups where potential risks were identified include herbivorous and omnivorous mammalian and avian species and carnivorous mammal species. Risks associated with lead however appeared limited as modeled exposure dosages to avian receptors were below the LOAEL TRV indicating that the potential risk was low. Lack of a LOAEL TRV exceedance indicated that the potential risk was low. Similarly. future receptors (trespassers. Exposure and associated risk to lead appeared low as modeled exposure dosages to avian receptors were below the LOAEL TRV. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 4. military personnel training at Tango Range. trespassers and recreational hunters). 4. the future use of Tango Range area has not been determined. the risk assessment demonstrates that for the most likely and expected current and future uses. this human health risk assessment also indicates that potential excess lifetime cancer risks are less than or within USEPA’s allowable risk range of 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 for all current or future receptors included in the risk assessment and fall within the allowable risk range for future hypothetical residents (between 1. However. Based upon a NOAEL HQ >1 potential risk may exist for avian receptors from lead at the Site. this potential risk was determined to be low as the maximum and mean concentration of vanadium was within the range of published MADEP background levels. 2007-O-JV04-0019 59 . For both the herbivorous and omnivorous avian species.1 Potential Human Health Risks Potential human health risks were estimated for current receptors (military personnel engaged in firearms training.2 Summary Potential Ecological Risks The ERA for the Tango Firing Range determined that there are potential ecological risks to ecological receptors. 4. recreational hunters. the Site does not pose an unacceptable cancer risk. The human health risk assessment indicates that potential noncarcinogenic effects are not expected for any of the likely current Site receptors included in the evaluation. However.9x10-6 and 2. The primary receptor species identified were omnivorous avian species. Currently. Predicted exposure to vanadium at the Tango Firing Range exceeded both the NOAEL and LOAEL TRV for herbivorous.0 Summary 4. and construction workers) and hypothetical future residents at Tango Range Site. The calculated HI for future hypothetical child residents in Area 1 exceeds 1 primarily due to ingestion of nitroglycerin in soil. however.3x10-6).

A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control.Tetra Tech EC. G.atsdr. October. Draft. Fisher. J. Massachusetts. September 19.04. 2003.(http://www. Massachusetts April 2004. Sharp. Vol. 2003. 2004b.D. Camp Edwards. 1990. Massachusetts Military Reservation Cape Cod. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). RISKPRO User’s Guide. Lawrence. Lanno. J. American Society for Testing and Materials International. West Conshohocken. ECC-J23-35AY5301-M14-0003. Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers. R. Toxicological profile for copper. 2007-O-JV04-0019 60 . AMEC. C. DE85 000287.gov/whdab/html/B489. Cape Cod. 2005. Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Forum. Massachusetts Military Reservation. and M. Submitted to: U. 2005. E. AMEC Earth and Environmental.E. Westford. Shor. Granholm.N. R. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. AMEC. AMEC Earth and Environmental. Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities. 1984. June 17. Department of Health and Human Services. AMEC Earth and Environmental. April 9. http://www. Letter to Lynne Jennings EPA-New England Region 1 and Len Pinaud. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation 5. and S. J. Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC). Inc. Beringer.L.ca. 1991. 1994.S. D6051-96. Responses to EPA Comments on Information Regarding the Use of SESOIL for the IAGWSP dated June 1.gov) AMEC 2004. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. W. Baes III. Draft Final Environmental Risk Characterization. Gerould. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program: Final Environmental Risk Characterization Demo 1 Soil Operable Unit. Camp Edwards Impact Area Groundwater Quality Study. 2006. 11. Cape Cod. Henningsen. 2001b. New England District..0 References ASTM. 58:375-382 Cain. and R. Manage. Massachusetts. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture. Westford. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Chipping Sparrow. Draft Technical Memorandum 01-1 (TM 01-1).html. McGeer. 2004b. Maryland. Drexler.W. Beyer. Massachusetts. Massachusetts.dfg.. July 9. AMEC. Wildl. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Shallow Soil Background Evaluation. IAGWSP Final Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan. PA. Demo 1 Soil Operable Unit. Inc. Westford. N. ATSDR. A. Connor. Massachusetts. MA. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program: DRAFT Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Work Plan.. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. January General Sciences Corporation (GSC). 2004. S.F. Inc. Draft L Range Groundwater Characterization Report. Camp Edwards. 2004a. Paper on the Bioavailability and Bioaccumulation of Metals. Annual Book of Standards. California Department of Fish and Game. AMEC. U. Concord.S. Sjoreen. 2006. Laurel.cdc. Keith Sappington. Massachusetts Military Reservation.

Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds. 2005.nlm. R. WSC/ORS-95-141.0000] effective: June 27. ES/ER/TM-220.J.In Support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Welsh. California Department of Fish and Game. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems. 2006.A.gov/assessingrisk/herd_fly_overview. G. B. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. G.W. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup.In Support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. USACE to John Verban.dtsc.E. Draft Technical Update—Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil.gov/ Mykkanen.. 65C:33-36.cfm MAARNG. D. 1987.S.. 1997. J. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. H. II and T.htm and Wildlife (MDFW). and C. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization .dfg. 1980.. Suter II.M.. and R. E. human health.W.F. Physiol.Tetra Tech EC. 1982. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. W..nih.E. Development and Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Massachusetts Army National Guard. Massachusetts.. 1998a.P. Sample. Methods and Tools for Estimation of the Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants. S. Assessments on chemical toxicity and. Environ.E. Suter II. B. 2003. 112:520-527. http://www. M. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. B. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Nutr.mass. Beauchamp. Interim Final Policy. J. Interim Final Policy.M. repellency. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization . Volume12:355-382. 2004. Camp Edwards. Dieter.W. Environmental Restoration Program. MassDEP. 2007-O-JV04-0019 61 .L.html. Chipping Sparrow. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The acute oral toxicity. Sample.E.ca. J. A database of the National Library of Medicine's TOXNET system (http://toxnet.. 1995. Environmental Restoration Program.. Patton. Ecological Monographs 5:111-128. Toxicol. Arch. and ecological risk assessments. Efroymson. Efroymson and G. Beauchamp.E. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Effect of vitamin D on the intestinal absorption of 203Pb and 47Ca in chicks.H.gov).. Aplin. Hurlburt. Environmental Sciences Division. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). and G.J. and J. http://www. Section 9. Ashwood. Office of Research and Standards.A. 1996.A. Wasserman. 2003.A. April. Bowles.J. B.W. Personal Communication from Greg Piece. ES/ER/TM-219. Contam. MassDEP. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Inc. G. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).. 2002. 2001. Nagy.W. 1998b. 1983. Sample. J. Efroymson. Effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on hepatic function in the duck. Inc. 1996.gov/whdab/html/B489. Jr. K. Biochem. Sample. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Granholm. Human Ecological Risk Division (HERD). http://www. Suter. Comp. WSC/ORS-95-141. Opresko. II. The Massachusetts Contingency Plan [310 CMR 40. Schafer. MassDEP. July. Piece.ca. TtEC. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries dfwele/dfw/dfwrec. Jr. 2000. Development and Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. and hazard potential of 998 chemicals to one or more species of wild and domestic birds. and M. April.A. R. R. 2005. Suter.

Westford. 2004. Maryland. Fox. Inc. USACE. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE).B. E. and P. Development of Terrestrial Exposure and Bioaccumulation Information for the Army Risk Assessment Modeling System (ARAMS). Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP). Siegel.D. USACE. Impact Area Groundwater Study. 22(3):271-274. Hogye. Res. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. ERDC/CRREL TR-04-07. 254. 2005. Barnes. U. USACHPPM. MA. Bioavailability of lead in oysters fed to young Japanese quail.S. Issued by Paul Nixon.J. 36:249-257. http://www. Massachusetts Military Reservation. Environmental Science and Technology. 2002. Poultry Science. 1997. 2006a. Massachusetts. January 31. Environ. and A. and K. Project Note – Small Arms Ranges. 2004. January. USACE. USACE. 1981. Soil ingestion in adults—Results of a second pilot study. June 29. 1998. Massachusetts. milk. 2006b. Inheritance of body weight in Japanese quail. Aquatic Fate Process and Data For Organic Priority Pollutants. Standard Practice for Wildlife Reference Values Technical Guide No. Information regarding Guard Training Requirements. Arms.J. 2007-O-JV04-0019 62 . Stanek. E. E-mail correspondence from Larry Cain. April. AFC-J23-35Q85101-M3-00101. M. Inc.L. A. C... Army National Guard (USARNG).R. New England District. and ENSR International. Echo Range Soil Delineation. Stanek. Response to USEPA and MassDEP Comments on July 2004 Draft Health and Ecological (HERA) Work Plan. for AFCEE/MMR Installation Restoration Program. U. Travis. Toxiol.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 20(5):627-635 Stone. Maryland. Natural and Cultural Resources Environmental Compliance Assessment.Tetra Tech EC. October. and vegetation.S. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation Sefton. USACHPPM. Daily soil ingestion estimates for children at a Superfund Site. 1974.S. R. Otis Air National Guard Base. C.S. 1988.S. Prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group. 2006. Cape Cod. Calabrese.mil/about_us/training/ U. U. Aberdeen Proving Ground. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) Aberdeen Proving Ground. Letter to Lynne Jennings EPA-New England Region 1 and Len Pinaud Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection from Lawrence Cain USACE NAE. 2000a. Massachusetts Military Reservation Plume Response Program Quality Program Plan.S. U. 53:1597-1603. Pekow. Bioconcentration of organics in beef.J Calabrese. E.C. USACHPPM. 1982. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) Contract Number DAAD050-00-P-8365. TetraTechEC regarding Toxicity Factors for Tungsten. to Ronald Marnicio. USEPA Region I Administrative Orders SDWA 1-97-1019 and 1-2000-0014. Responses to EPA Comments on Information Regarding the Use of SESOIL for the IAGWSP dated June 1.. and P. 2007. December. Representative Sampling for Energetic Compounds at an Antitank Firing Range. United Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 2005. Risk Analysis.J..E. U. USEPA/400/4-81-014.S. Environ Safety. 2000.arng. 26:409-421.army. and E. September 19.

D. Inc. Region 8 Superfund Technical Guidance. April. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. USEPA. 2007-O-JV04-0019 63 . Office of Research and Development. August. No. USEPA. USEPA. Environmental Response Team. USEPA\600\P-95\002Fa. U. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. USEPA 540/1-86/060. USEPA Region I Risk Updates – Number 5. Soil Screening Guidance and Technical Background Document. USEPA. USEPA. FY 1997 Update. USEPA.R-97-036. USEPA/600/R-31/187a. USEPA/600/C-99/001). Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). 1994a. USEPA. Volumes I through III. 1993b. Human Health Evaluation Manual: Supplemental Guidance: “Standard Default Exposure Factors”. 1985. USEPA. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Evaluating and Identifying Contaminants of Concern for Human Health.7-09A.C. Number 3. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA-540. USEPA/540/F-98/030. USEPA Environmental Response Team. August. 1997b.b. Edison. Risk Assessment Forum. Environmental Protection Agency.Tetra Tech EC. Interim Final. 1992. 1994b. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities.S. September. USEPA 540/189/002. National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). March. USEPA/600/C99/001.c. RA-03. 187b. USEPA. Washington. USEPA/630/R-95/002F. Volume I. 1997d. 9285. 1999a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation USEPA. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. CD Version. 1997c. USEPA. USEPA. 1997a. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. (CD version 1999. July. USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I. Region 8. OSWER. USEPA. Risk Assessment Issue Paper for: Derivation of a Provisional Oral RfD for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5). 1996a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA. December. USEPA. Final. 1986.95/128. 1999b. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment. 1995. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Region I Risk Update. Final. 1991. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. July. USEPA. Ecological Risk Assessment for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. 1996b. USEPA 540-R-97-006. EPA. USEPA/540/R. USEPA. 1989. Volumes I through III. August. PB97-963211. USEPA Region I. Exposure Factors Handbook. Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. September. Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites. 1998b. USEPA.S. May/July. 1998a. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

USEPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA. April. and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments). USEPA-540-R-03-001. User Guide. USEPA. August 4. Office of Research and Development. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels.7-55. Assessing Intermittent or Variable Exposures at Lead Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA Publication 9285. 2004. USEPA. Revised Final.0. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. August. 2004b.7-47. May. OSWER Directive 9285. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. U. Vol.7-53. 1. Workgroup for Lead.Tetra Tech EC. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. USEPA Region IV Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins—Supplement to RAGS. 1999c. USEPA. Windows Version.6-10. EPA9285. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 2000. OSWER 9355. EPA530-D-99-001A. Protectiveness of Cleanup Levels for Removal Actions Outside the River. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). User Guide. 2002b. Inc. Memorandum from Ann-Marie Burke USEPA Region I. 2001a. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil.7-42. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Technical Review USEPA. Office of Technical Services. 2005a. D. 2003c. Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. 2003b. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites. March. 20460. USEPA. USEPA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 2004a. 2007-O-JV04-0019 64 . USEPA.05. 2002a. December. March.S. USEPA. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. National Center for Environmental Assessment. USEPA/630/R-03/003. 2001b. January. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. ProUCL Version 3. December. Guidance Manual for the All Ages Lead Model (AALM). USEPA.4. USEPA. Washington. 1999d. 2003a.USEPA. 2005c. EPA530D-99-001B. Waste Management Division. Environmental Protection Agency. December. OSWER Directive 9285. and EPA530-D-99-001C. October 1. USEPA/630/P03/001F. November. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E.C. Peer Review Draft. Reporting. 2. October. USEPA. October. USEPA.0. Peer Review Draft. ProUCL Version 3. Volume I: Human Health Environmental Evaluation Manual (Part D. OSWER 9285. Final. Standardized Planning. To Richard Cavagnero. 2005b. Risk Assessment Forum. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. User’s Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.S.S. & 3. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document. 2004c. April. Draft Version 1. USEPA. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation USEPA. U. 2004c.Protection of Human Health. USEPA. USEPA-540-R-03-008. Final. U.24. USEPA.

Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). OSWER Directive 9285.S. 2005l. U. Interim Final.S. 2005i. Attachment 4-5 Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) Eco-SSLStandard Operating Procedure (SOP) # 6: Derivation of Wildlife Toxicity Reference Value (TRV). Ecological Soil Screening Level for Copper. OSWER Directive 9285. Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. USEPA.S. Attachment 4-1. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.epa. Inc. 2005m. U. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Cobalt. U. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Aluminum. 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Antimony.S.7-63. USEPA. 2005j.7-70. Interim Final. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Lead. Cincinnati. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Interim Final. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.766. 2005e.Tetra Tech EC.7-67.gov/reg3hwmd/ risk/human/index. OSWER Directive 9285. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285. 2005h. USEPA.7-69. 2005k. USEPA. Interim Final. Interim Final. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation USEPA. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 2005l.762. OH. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. October. U. U. USEPA. USEPA.7-68. OSWER Directive 9285. USEPA. October. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Cadmium. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Vanadium. USEPA. OSWER Directive 9285. Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Derivation of Wildlife Eco. Interim Final. USEPA. 2005d.S. 2006a. Interim Final. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. National Center for Environmental Assessment. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Barium. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Chromium.7-55.S. U.761. USEPA. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.7-60. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Iron. U. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Arsenic. Interim Final. http://www. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-05).htm. 2005n. OSWER Directive 9285. USEPA. U. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Silver. Interim Final. 2006c. U. 2005g. U. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Beryllium. USEPA.S.7-77. OSWER Directive 9285. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 2006b. 2005m. OSWER Directive 9285.765.S. OSWER Directive 9285. 2007-O-JV04-0019 65 . U. USEPA.7-75. OSWER Directive 9285. OSWER Directive 9285. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center.S. Interim Final.SSLs OSWER Directive 9285. U. U. USEPA. 2005o.S. Interim Final. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2005f. OSWER Directive 92857-55 November 2003 USEPA. USEPA. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. USEPA.S.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.S.764.

Inc. Inc. 2007-O-JV04-0019 66 .wunderground.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/ Weather Underground. 2000. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Nitroglycerin (CASRN 55-63-0). Benzoioc Acid and Sodium Benzoate.Tetra Tech EC. Box 3605. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. P. USEPA.com. 26. http://www. 2006d.O. 2007. WHO (World Health Organization). http://www. Inc. August 22. Ann Arbor. 48 pages. Derivation of Subchronic and Chronic Oral RfDs. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document.. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation USEPA. The Weather Underground. MI 48106-3605. No. Region III Human Health Risk Assessment Risk Based Concentration Table Home Page.epa.

Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation FIGURES 2007-O-JV04-0019 . Inc.

1 Human Health Risk Assessment Process D ata E valuation. 1989) . and Screening • G ather and analyze relevant site data • Identify chem ic als of potential concern (C O P C s) • E stim ate exposure point concentrations (E P C s) for exposure routes E xposure A ssessm ent • A nalyze chem ical releases • Identify exposed populations • Identify potential exposure pathw ays • E stim ate chem ic al intakes for exposure routes Toxicity A ssessm ent • D eterm ine appropriate to xic ity values fo r C O P C s • Identify C O P C s w ithout toxic ity valu es • Identify alternative approaches for evaluating to xic ity R isk C haracterization • C haracterize the potential for ad verse health effects to occur • E stim ate c ancer risk s • E stim ate non-cancer hazard quotients • Identify key uncertainties • E valuate their potential im pacts on the resu lts (Source: USEPA. R eduction.Figure 2.

Figure 3.1 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Conceptual Site Model for the Terrestrial Food Chain Carnivorous Wildlife Carnivorous Wildlife Red Fox Red-tailed Hawk Herbivorous Wildlife Omnivorous Wildlife Herbivorous Wildlife Chipping Sparrow White-footed Mouse Plants Pine/Deciduous Trees Forbs Omnivorous Wildlife American Robin Short-tailed Shrew Soil Invertebrates Earthworms Crickets Grasshoppers Plants Soil Invertebrates Surface Soils Surface Soils Small Arms Practice and Training Range Small Arms Practice and Training Range GENERAL FOOD WEB REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES Direct Pathway / Route of Exposure Incidental Exposure Pathway / Route of Exposure "Wildlife" includes mammals and birds .

Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation ATTACHMENT A USEPA RAGS PART D AND SUPPORTING TABLES FOR THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 2007-O-JV04-0019 . Inc.

habitable building is To Be Determined constructed at the site for use in training in the future. washing) at the Tango Range site. The depth to groundwater is generally more than 100 feet bgs and unlikely to represent a source of vapors to indoor air. trespassers and unauthorized hunters are periodically observed on MMR. Residential Quantitative redevelopment activities may be performed to prepare the site for a new mission or to modify the site for reuse or redevelopment provided they are determined to not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Quantitative (1) Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] None None None Groundwater is not currently used as a source of drinking water or water for general consumptive use (e. residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] None None Groundwater is at depths generally greater than 100 feet bgs. The depth to groundwater is generally more than 100 feet bgs and unlikely to represent a source of vapors to indoor air. Groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future assessment. [Actual Exposure] Access to the site is not completely restricted. Potential exposure pathway if volatile compounds are found to be present in the groundwater at site and the groundwater is used for domestic or consumptive purposes. No volatile compounds have been detected at the Tango Range. No volatile compounds have been To Be Determined detected in Tango Range soil or groundwater. trespassing is considered to represent a potential current activity across all MMR sites. [Actual Exposure] Construction activities may be performed to maintain the site or to prepare the site for a new mission or to modify the site for reuse or redevelopment provided they are determined to not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. [Likely Future Exposure] Current/Potential Soil Surface Soil (0 to 1 ft bgs) Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) Area 3 Trespasser Adolescent (aged 12-18 years) Hunter Adult (aged 18+ years) (1) Construction Worker All Soil (0 to 10 ft bgs) Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) Area 3 Resident Adult (aged 18+ years) Adult (aged 18+ years) Child (aged 1-7 years) Adult (aged 18+ years) Tap Water Resident Child (aged 1-7 years) Not Applicable (1) Quantitative By agreement. although the presence of UXO and corresponding signage warning of such dangers is assumed to severely limit such current use. [Hypothetical Future To Be Determined Exposure] To Be Determined Indoor Air Volatiles Released at the Showerhead Resident Adult (aged 18+ years) Child (aged 1-7 years) Adult (aged 18+ years) By agreement. Therefore. No volatile compounds have been detected at the Tango Range. washing) at the Tango Range site. Very few residential buildings exist at MMR investigation sites (none at the Tango Range). residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only. Groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future assessment. residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only. [Actual Exposure] Hunting may be authorized for the site if it is determined that the action would not be incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. Therefore. Current use is small arms range. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] Future Potential Soil Indoor Air (Volatiles Migrating from Groundwater Up Into Habitable Space) Resident Child (aged 1-7 years) Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Adult (aged 18-28 years) Adult (aged 18-28 years) Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Ingestion (Drinking) Inhalation of Volatiles Groundwater Tap Water Indoor Air (Volatiles Released at the Showerhead) Indoor Air (Volatiles Migrating from Groundwater Up Into Habitable Space) Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Adult (aged 18-28 years) Inhalation of Volatiles Very few residential buildings currently exist at MMR investigation sites (none at the Tango Range). Potential exposure pathway if volatile compounds are found to be present in the groundwater at site that could pose a threat of migration. Groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future assessment. No volatile compounds have been detected in soil or groundwater at the Tango Range. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] Not Applicable To Be Determined By agreement.g. residential redevelopment of the site was evaluated for risk management purposes only. Unauthorized hunting also may occur as there are no physical barriers to access to the site to anyone already on MMR. Potential future exposure pathway if volatile compounds are found to be present in the groundwater at site and an enclosed. It is considered to be unlikely that it would be in the future. groundwater is unlikely to infiltrate a future trench where an individual conducting future military training or construction activities could come in contact with it.g. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] To Be Determined By agreement. groundwater is unlikely to infiltrate a future trench or excavation associated with any future military training or construction activities. The outer perimeter of MMR is fenced and patrolled.. No volatile compounds have been observed To Be Determined at the Tango Range.. .SRF Table 1 Selection of Exposure Pathways Scenario Timeframe Exposure Medium Exposure Point(s) Receptor Population Military Pesonnel (Non-Intrusive Training) Receptor Age Adult (aged 18-28 years) Exposure Route Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Inhalation of Particulates Inhalation of Volatiles Dermal Absorption Ingestion (Drinking) Dermal Absorption Ingestion (Drinking) Inhalation of Volatiles Inhalation of Volatiles Inhalation of Volatiles Type of Analysis Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Not Applicable Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Not Applicable Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative Not Applicable Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative (1) (1) Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway Training activities may be conducted when they are not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. Residential To Be Determined redevelopment activities may be performed to prepare the site for a new mission or to modify the site for reuse or redevelopment provided they are determined to not incompatible with the uses and preservation objectives specified in To Be Determined Chapter 47 of the Acts of 2002. [Hypothetical Future Exposure] Groundwater is not currently used as a source of drinking water or water for general consumptive use (e. By agreement. [Unlikely Future Exposure] Groundwater is at depths generally greater than 100 feet bgs. It is considered to be unlikely that it would be in the future. The site is accessible by vehicle via one road on base. There are no physical barriers to access to the site for an individual already on MMR. However. [Unlikely Future Exposure] Pooled Water in Trench or Excavation Construction Worker Adult (aged 18+ years) Dermal Absorption Incidential Ingestion Ambient Air In or At a Trench or Excavation Construction Worker Adult (aged 18+ years) Inhalation of Volatiles None (1) No volatile organic compounds have been detected in Tango Range soils or monitoring well. Groundwater exposures are to be evaluated in a future assessment.

25-0.25 SS169B 0-0.129 0.94 0.BSL BKG.5 .BSL BSL BKG.02 0.25-0.18 0.5-1 SSTR1CS01 0.Positive Result is Estimated (2) The maximum detected concentration is the concentration used for screening.41 0. Field Duplicate samples from Location 169F were averaged.39 .BSL BSL BKG.016 3.17 2.46 .5 SS169A 0-0.019 J Maximum Location Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg of Maximum SS169B 0.0.8 2.75-1 SSTR1CS01 0.1.1 Occurrence.0.16.2 0.25 SS169B 0.022 J 0.BSL BSL BKG.2 24.25-0.BSL BKG.017 J 0.15 .05 0.5-1 SS169C 0.5 .154 0.008 19.31 .0.037 J 0.41 (Qualifier) (1) 20.5 .25 SS169E 0.4 537 15.0 2.053 44.14 J 0.5 SS169E 0.0.0.6 MMR SSL (6) 54.0 4.51 0. SSTR2W01 (post-excavation).5-1 SS169A 0.35 .BSL BSL BSL NUT.1 J 0.0.5-1 SS169A 0.15 0.46 0.04 0.009 120. SSTR1CS01.8 0.24 Outwash (3) 16.94 0.25-0.1 0.300 5.045 2.000 1.2 47 0.81 10. (3) The Background Values listed are the values detected from Outwash 0-1'.000.183 292.079 0.25-0.Not sufficient reason alone Essential Nutrient (NUT) Below Screening Levels (BSL) .006. SSTR3C01.3 61.5 SS169A 0.36 .76 0.48 .6 J 0.35 .2 10 766 1.59 17.25-0.7 1.7 420 0.2 47 0.9 0.1.5 SS169E 0.14 J 79.1 1.201.BSL BSL BSL NUT.000 7.1 611 229 0.25 J 0. 169D.1 J 0.4 J 1.35 .BSL BSL BSL BKG.38 9.5 SS169E 0.BSL BSL BKG.375.5 SS169E 0-0.036 J 0.12 1.027 2 14.d)pyrene n.017 J 0.2.401 7.8 .5-1 SSTR1W01 0-0.018 J 3.39 . SSTR2E01 (post-excavation).14 .114 0.1 0.35 .17 .9 J 23. Technical Update: Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soils.0.1 .3 10.41 0.8 935 1.7 62.59 17100 21 7 110 19.5 SS169E 0.n'-Diethylcarbanilide Nitroglycerin n-Nitrosodiphenylamine Pyrene CAS # Chemical (Qualifier) (1) 4.5 0.41 0.5-1 SS169A 0-0.2.047 J 0.4 22.4.25 SS169D 0.130 165 0.036 0.300 5.3.3.1 0.018 J 0.3-c.0.130 165 0.0 1.1 0. SSTR2C01 (post-excavation).9 23.421. SSTR1CN01.25-0.13 0.0.0 2.114 72.018 J 6.03 .89 .375.75-1 SS169D 0.25 SS169B 0.7 726 46.614 3.5 0. 169E.550 3.35 .06 0.18 J 0.317 0.15.52 0.6 0.41 0.94 0.BSL Concentration Concentration Includes samples from locations 169A.30 20 0.3 231.384 45.41 0.096 0.3 61.0.6 34. 169F.600 3.0 30 4.375.6 30 100 2.0.018 J 0.35 .34 J 3.0 Screening Toxicity Value (5) 7.05 J 0.441 34.0 2.100 21 7 110 19.047 0.5 SSTR1CS01 0.25-0. Distribution.25-0.94 288 19 4.271 0.560 0.75 0.25-0. (7) Rationale Codes: Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL) Deletion Reason: Background Levels (BKG) .63 0.25-0.01 24 .27 .3.4 1.1.25-0.3.018 J 0.88 3.001 0.4 J 22.018 6.57 159 3.919 0.6 .11 0.6 6.56 .15.46 0.727 2.096 J 0.11 J 0. 169B.35 .000.7 196 29 26 0.1 0.94 0.13 J 180 7 2 3 5.4 0.5 SS169D 0.3 39.5-1 SSTR1CS01 0-0.7 .5-1 SS169A 0.BSL No value No value BSL BKG.4 0.BSL No value ASL.35 .0.04 0.40 2.203 0.0 40 20.0 1.41 0.5-1 SS169C 0.1 156 121.127 2.BSL ASL NUT. SSTR3E01.5 29. and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Medium: Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Exposure Medium: Area 1 Minimum Exposure Point 7429-90-5 Surface Soil (0-1' bgs) 7440-36-0 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-41-7 7440-42-8 7440-43-9 7440-70-2 7440-47-3 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 7439-89-6 7439-92-1 7439-95-4 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7439-98-7 7440-02-0 7440-09-7 7782-49-2 7440-22-4 7440-23-5 7440-33-7 7440-62-2 7440-66-6 56-55-3 50-32-8 205-99-2 207-08-9 65-85-0 117-81-7 218-01-9 84-74-2 206-44-0 193-39-5 85-98-3 55-63-0 86-30-6 129-00-0 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Tungsten Vanadium Zinc Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzoic acid bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Chrysene Di-n-Butyl Phthalate Fluoranthene Indeno(1.4 3.8 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.601 9.000 300 0.5 SS169E 0.017 132.000 211 903 7.35 .231 260.27 .5 44 / 44 23 / 44 36 / 44 44 / 44 44 / 44 28 / 44 13 / 44 44 / 44 36 / 36 44 / 44 44 / 44 44 / 44 44 / 44 44 / 44 44 / 44 8 / 44 36 / 44 44 / 44 44 / 44 28 / 44 8 / 44 8 / 44 8 / 8 44 / 44 44 / 44 1 / 38 2 / 38 1 / 38 1 / 38 15 / 38 20 / 38 3 / 38 3 / 38 3 / 38 1 / 38 17 / 38 3 / 4 1 / 38 5 / 38 Detection Frequency Range of Detection Limits 3. 0.46 Background Value MassDEP (4) 10.7 0.800 19 134 0.0. SSTR3W01 including Field Replicates.24 J Concentration Used for Screening (2) 20. (4) The Background Values listed are the those reported for natural soils by MassDEP.096 J 0.400 91.018 J 0.037 0.46 0.400 91.BSL NUT.38 0.25-0.4 .46 0. BKG BSL BKG.75 67.2.523 0.800 3.1 39.46 0.57 159 J 3.75-1 SSTR1CS01 0-0.46 0.BSL BKG.4 3.375.1 0.41 0.7.76 0.46 0.23 .000.0. SSTR1W01.25 SS169C 0. (6) The SSL are site-specific screening values for the potential impacts from soil to groundwater.152 400 1.35 .279 0.349 2.25-0.25-0. SSTR1E01.15.35 .25 SSTR1CN01 0-0.5-1 SS169B 0.5 SS169B 0.41 0.75 0.6 0.5-1 SS169A 0.000 100 5.919 4.11 J 0.0.2 25.8 0.5 24 0.8 935 1.35 .04 0.81 2.000 176 2.000 39.25.BSL BKG.14 0.41 0.832 108.15 .5 0.850 55.8 0.0.37 .0.5 SS169E 0.02 J 0.028 NO YES YES NO NO NO YES NO YES NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO Exceeds SSL? (Y/N) COPC Flag (Y/N) Rationale for Selection or Deletion (7) ASL ASL ASL BKG.7 99.0 4.1 0.38 24.0 11 17.800 3.346 0.02 .SRF Table 2.5 29.BSL BKG.0 20 50 0.8 8.0. (5) The Screening Toxicity Value is the USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for Residential Soil for carcinogens and 1/10th the PRG for non-carcinogens.037 0.5 SS169E 0.25 SSTR1CS01 0.036 J 0.404 150.41 0.BSL BKG.079 J 0.5 SS169D 0-0.759 16.75-1 SS169B 0. Footnotes: (1) Qualifier Definitions: J .BSL NUT.027 J 2 14.9 5.25 SSTR1CN01 0-0. 169C.0.019 1.

(6) The SSL are site-specific screening values for the potential impacts from soil to groundwater.25 SSTR3C01 0-0.400 3.0 150.400 3.614 0.Not sufficient reason alone Essential Nutrient (NUT) Below Screening Levels (BSL) . (4) The Background Values listed are the those reported for natural soils by MassDEP.40 2.5 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Location of Maximum SSTR3E01 0-0.25 SSTR3W01 0-0.93 .37 .0.BKG.0.8 2.384 45.BKG.600 97.045 2.BSL BSL NUT.49 .000 300 0.77 3.000 7.006.346 MMR SSL (6) 54. SSTR2E01. (7) Rationale Codes: Selection Reason: Above Screening Levels (ASL) Deletion Reason: Background Levels (BKG) .87 .0 97.1 1190 87.93 .8 29.8 2.13 .39 537 15.0 11.1.4 121.4 934 76.12 1. (5) The Screening Toxicity Value is the USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for Residential Soil for carcinogens and 1/10th the PRG for non-carcinogens.200 41. BKG ASL.3 39.7 0.0. Distribution. BKG BKG.BSL BKG.4 8.601 9.73 .053 44.727 2.000 20 50 0.8 29.4 0.94 288 4.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.3 16.421.4 0.13 .13 .26 J 0. and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Medium: Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Exposure Medium: Area 2 (post-excavation) + Area 3 Minimum Exposure Point 7429-90-5 Surface Soil (0-1' bgs) 7440-38-2 7440-39-3 7440-41-7 7440-42-8 7440-43-9 7440-70-2 7440-48-4 7440-50-8 7439-89-6 7439-92-1 7439-95-4 7439-96-5 7439-97-6 7439-98-7 7440-02-0 7440-09-7 7440-23-5 7440-33-7 7440-62-2 7440-66-6 Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Sodium Tungsten Vanadium Zinc CAS # Chemical Concentration (Qualifier) (1) 10.14 J 297 J 3.4 1.16 0.BSL BKG.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.BSL BKG.7 1.25 SSTR3E01 0-0. BSL NUT.6 778 150 J 11.400.8 14.13 .019 6 24 0.6 10. BSL Includes samples from locations SSTR3C01.9 20.2 Maximum Concentration (Qualifier) (1) 13.000.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.02 0.201.25 SSTR3C01 0-0.14 .25 SSTR3E01 0-0.6 0.0 15.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.000 1.25 Detection Frequency Range of Detection Limits 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 4 / 4 9 / 14 4 / 4 4 / 4 14.25 SSTR3W01 0-0. SSTR3W01and post-excavation samples from SSTR2C01.3 16.033 1.000.25 SSTR3W01 0-0.12 .3 589 84.523 0.1 297.4 7.000 100 5.BSL BKG. BKG BKG.16 0.0. Technical Update: Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soils. and SSTR2W01 including Field Replicates.6 36.190.6 J 36 15.600 3.0.BSL NUT.3 24.20 10 766 196 29 26 Background Value Outwash MassDEP (4) 10.0 11 17.93 .154 0.4 14.1 0.0 3.349 2.2 0.5 (3) 16.4 13.03 J 1.0.3 0.30 20 30 100 Screening Toxicity Value (5) 7.1.Positive Result is Estimated (2) The maximum detected concentration is the concentration used for screening.9 0.600.BSL BSL BSL NUT.279 0.0.152 400 1.850 55.401 132.75 .6 10.3 J 0.4 1.BSL BKG.25 SSTR3E01 0-0. (3) The Background Values listed are the values detected from Outwash 0-1'.0 3.25.0 4.3 1. SSTR3W01 0-0.2 14.6 778.BSL No value ASL.38 9.8 0.33 J 1.25 SSTR3C01 0-0.BSL BKG.SRF Table 2.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.400 373.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.9 20.2 16.04 0.16 0.000.400 1.2 373.7 J 8.919 4.1 156.0 87.75 .919 NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO Exceeds SSL? (Y/N) COPC Flag (Y/N) Rationale for Selection or Deletion (7) ASL.BSL NUT.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.127 260.000 176 2.183 292.8 373.99 .009 120.BSL BKG.800 19 134 0.096 J 213 J 2.4 1.6 Concentration Used for Screening (2) 13.3.1 0.4 373.2 Occurrence.85 J 0.900 3.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.000 903 7. SSTR3E01.1 1.37 .46 .400 0.25 SSTR3E01 0-0.7 J 0.0 40 20.03 .25 SSTR3E01 0-0.75 .73 . Footnotes: (1) Qualifier Definitions: J .033 1.

17 4.09 285.09 1.213 24.8 20.4 1.213 24.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 95% UCL-G 99% UCL-C 95% UCL-N Mean-N (1) 95% UCL-N 95% UCL-G 95% UCL-H 95% UCL-N Notes: Codes used for the "EPC Statistic": 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N) 95% UCL of Lognormal Data (95% UCL-H) 95% UCL of Gamma Data (95% UCL-G) Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N) 99% Chebyshev UCL (Mean.595 1.400 91.800 3.92 17.2 47 9. Sd) (99% UCL-C) (1) The TRW recommends that the soil contribution to dust lead be evaluated by comparing the average or arithmetic mean of soil lead concentrations .27 285.3 0.5 29.4 1.3-diethyl-1.449 3.17 4.4 J 5.3 6.1 Exposure Point Concentration Summary Area 1 .3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 8.4 0.513 19.51 3.32 16.SRF Table 3.9 J 23.T Range Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Medium: Soil Exposure Medium: Area 1 Maximum Concentration (Qualifier) Reasonable Maximum Exposure EPC Value EPC Units EPC Statistic Exposure Point Chemical of Potential Concern Units Arithmetic Mean 95% UCL Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.4 0.76 44.4 9.760 44.92 17.

98 13.525 26.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 95% UCL-N Maximum 99% UCL-C 95% UCL-N Notes: Codes used for the "EPC Statistic": 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N) 99% Chebyshev UCL (MVUE) (99% UCL-C) .190 3.55 13.83 28.8 29.3 13.400 3.4 1.190 3.875 3.92 6.T Range Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Medium: Soil Exposure Medium: Area 2 (post-excavation) + Area 3 Maximum Concentration (Qualifier) Reasonable Maximum Exposure EPC Value EPC Units EPC Statistic Exposure Point Chemical of Potential Concern Units Arithmetic Mean 95% UCL Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 11.2 Exposure Point Concentration Summary Areas 2 and 3 .SRF Table 3.83 28.9 6.9 11.

7 See Table 4. EPA. 2003. EPA. hands. http://www. 1997: Table 4-11 Value set to 1 (2) Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) Ages 12-18 Average of age-specific male and female 50% body weight values. 1989 Particulate CA = CS x 1/PEF See Table 4.07 Chemical specific 1 1. EPA/540-1-89-002.2. and lower legs (EPA. EPA. EPA. 2004: RAGs Volume 1.00E-06 65 6 56 25.550 2.SRF Table 4.epa. EPA. . 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. July 2004. EPA. Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. EPA. 2004: Exhibit C-1) Recommended loading value for adult residents. EPA-540-R-03-008.1 Values for Daily Intake Calculations .94E+09 1. August 1997. EPA. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. forearms. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 See Table 4.190 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = CS x IR x AAFing x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Dermal CS SA AF ABS FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Absorption Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) Chemical Concentration in Air from Particulates Particulate Emission Factor Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 mg/kg cm /day mg/cm2 unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days mg/m 3 2 Chemical specific 5.gov/ncea/efh/. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr.9 Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) Ages 12-18 Average of age-specific male and female 50% body weight values. 1997 70 yr x 365 d/yr. Part A OERR. EPA. 1997. 1997 70 yr x 365 d/yr.262 0. 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. (3) Assumed 2 day/ week for June-August and 1 day/week September-May. EPA/540/R/99/005. Human Health Evaluation Manual. which totals 65 days/year. EPA. Vol. 1989 Intake Equation/ Model Name Ingestion CS IR AAF ing FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Ingestion Rate of Soil Absorption Adjustment Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg mg soil/day unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Chemical specific 50 Chemical specific 1 1.550 2.1 and 3.00E-06 65 6 56 25. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual. November.51E+09 Exposure point concentration (1) Average of age-specific surface area of head. (2) In accordance with MMR Site-wide risk assessment protocol.7 CDI (mg/kg-day) = CS x SA x AF x ABS x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Inhalation of Particulates CA PEF m3/kg m3/kg Notes: (1) For exposure point concentrations see Tables 3.Trespasser Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Potential Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Soil Exposure Point: Area 1 / Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Older child (12-18 yrs) Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units RME Value RME Rationale/ Reference Exposure point concentration (1) Older child. Exposure Factors Handbook.190 Chemical specific 1. EPA. Sources : EPA. Assessing Intermittent or Variable Exposures at Lead Sites.

August 1997. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. EPA. November. EPA.00E-06 5 10 67. EPA. EPA. 1997.550 3.2.epa. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr.e.7 m3/kg m3/kg Notes: (1) For exposure point concentrations see Tables 3. EPA. EPA.51E+09 Particulate CA = CS x 1/PEF See Table 4.9 Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) Site-specific assumption (3) Average of 18-25 year male and females. 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.650 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = CS x IR x AAFing x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Dermal CS SA AF ABS FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Absorption Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg cm2/day mg/cm2 unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Chemical specific 3.00E-06 5 10 67. Assessing Intermittent or Variable Exposures at Lead Sites. assumed 1 weekend/month and 2 weeks/year. 1989 CDI (mg/kg-day) = CS x SA x AF x ABS x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Inhalation of Particulates CA PEF Chemical Concentration in Air from Particulates Particulate Emission Factor Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 mg/m 3 Chemical specific 1.gov/ncea/efh/. 2005 (see text). . Part A OERR. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/540-1-89-002.650 Exposure point concentration (1) Industrial scenario (hands.7 See Table 4. 2003). The Adult Lead Model was not applied as the TRW has recommended 3 months as the minimum duration of exposure that is appropriate for modeling exposures that occur no less often than once every 7 days (EPA. 1997: Table 7-2 70 yr x 365 d/yr. 5 days per year spent on small arms training. (2) In accordance with MMR Site-wide risk assessment protocol.300 0.25 Chemical specific 1 1.SRF Table 4. totalling 38 days/year and assumed a 8 year enlistment and 2 year re-enlistment (i.1 and 3.94E+09 1. forearms. 50% body weight EPA. value in EPA 2004 is incorrectly calculated. 10 years) for total time at MMR. (3) Based on USARNG.Firearms Training Receptor Age: Adult (18 to 28 yrs) Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units RME Value RME Rationale/ Reference Exposure point concentration (1) EPA. July 2004.550 3. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead.. and face). EPA-540-R-03-008. Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. 2003. (4) Recalculated from outdoor worker. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 (4) See Table 4.2 25. http://www. Vol.2 Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations . EPA/540/R/99/005. 2004: RAGs Volume 1.Military Personnel Firearms Training Scenario Timeframe: Current /Potential Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Soil Exposure Point: Area 1 / Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Receptor Population: Military Personnel . 50% body weight EPA. Human Health Evaluation Manual. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 Industrial scenario. EPA. 1997: Table 4-23 Value set to 1 (2) Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) Site-specific assumption (3) Average of 18-25 year male and females. 1989 Intake Equation/ Model Name Ingestion CS IR AAF ing FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Ingestion Rate of Soil Absorption Adjustment Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg mg soil/day unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Chemical specific 50 Chemical specific 1 1. 1997: Table 7-2 70 yr x 365 d/yr. EPA. Sources : EPA.2 25. EPA.

forearms. EPA.190 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = CS x IR x AAFing x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Dermal CS SA AF ABS FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Absorption Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg cm2/day mg/cm2 unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Chemical specific 3. (3) Based on Mass Dept of Fish & Wildlife. EPA. EPA-540-R-03-008. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual. 1989 CDI (mg/kg-day) = CS x SA x AF x ABS x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Inhalation of Particulates CA PEF Chemical Concentration in Air from Particulates Particulate Emission Factor Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 mg/m3 m3/kg m3/kg Chemical specific 1. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 (4) See Table 4. Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. November. 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. (2) In accordance with MMR Site-wide risk assessment protocol. 1989 Intake Equation/ Model Name Ingestion CS IR AAF ing FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Ingestion Rate of Soil Absorption Adjustment Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg mg soil/day unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Chemical specific 100 Chemical specific 1 1.7 See Table 4. 2004. EPA. adjusted to 12 days per year at small arms range. EPA.9 Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) Professional judgement (3) EPA. The Adult Lead Model not applied as the TRW has recommended 3 months as the minimum duration of exposure that is appropriate for modeling exposures that occur no less than once every 7 days (EPA.1 and 3.190 Exposure point concentration (1) Industrial scenario (hands.550 2. December 2002. OSWER 9355. Exhibit 3-5 70 yr x 365 d/yr.7 Notes: (1) For exposure point concentrations see Tables 3. Assessing Intermittent or Variable Exposures at Lead Sites. EPA.51E+09 Particulate CA = CS x 1/PEF See Table 4. Vol.3 Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations . Part A OERR.94E+09 1. 2004.25 Chemical specific 1 1. EPA. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. . Exhibit 3-5 70 yr x 365 d/yr. and face). EPA. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead.2.00E-06 12 6 70 25. 2004: RAGs Volume 1.00E-06 12 6 70 25. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. EPA/540-1-89-002.550 2. value in EPA 2004 is incorrectly calculated. EPA. (4) Recalculated from outdoor worker.300 0. 2003. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 Value set to 1 (2) Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) Professional judgement (3) EPA. EPA/540/R/99/005. EPA.SRF Table 4. EPA. Sources : EPA. totalling 28 days for a duration of 6 years for total time spent hunting at MMR. 2003). July 2004. 2002: Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 Industrial scenario. 2005 (see text) assumed 7 days/year for each 4 hunting seasons.Hunter Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Soil Exposure Point: Area 1 / Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Receptor Population: Hunter Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units RME Value RME Rationale/ Reference Exposure point concentration (1) Outdoor worker.4-24. Human Health Evaluation Manual.

SRF Table 4. July 2004. . 2004b:Adult Lead Methodology Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). 2004a: RAGs Volume 1. EPA. Exposure limited to 13-days due to limited size of small arms range.htm .2. value in EPA 2004a is incorrectly calculated.300 0.epa. 2004b (3) EPA. (3) Assumed to be 13 work days over 90-day exposure period to meet requirements of the Adult Lead Model. http://www.gov/ncea/efh/. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 70 yr x 365 d/yr. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 Value set to 1 (2) Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated EPA.60E+06 7. and face). 2004a: Exhibit 3-5 (4) See Table 4. 1997. Part A OERR.1 and 3. (4) Recalculated from outdoor worker. (2) In accordance with MMR Site-wide risk assessment protocol.8 Notes: (1) For exposure point concentrations see Tables 3.4 Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations . 2002: Exhibit 1-2 70 yr x 365 d/yr. December 2002. EPA.550 365 Exposure point concentration (1) Industrial scenario (hands.78E+06 Particulate CA = CS x 1/PEF See Table 4. EPA. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. 1989 CDI (mg/kg-day) = CS x SA x AF x ABS x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Inhalation of Particulates CA PEF Chemical Concentration in Air from Particulates Particulate Emission Factor Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 mg/m3 m3/kg m3/kg Chemical specific 9. EPA.gov/superfund/programs/lead/almfaq. Exposure Factors Handbook.last updated April 2004. 2002: Exhibit 5-1 EPA. EPA/540-1-89-002.epa. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr.550 365 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = CS x IR x AAFing x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Dermal CS SA AF ABS FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Absorption Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg cm /day mg/cm 2 2 Chemical specific 3. 2004a: Exhibit 3-5 Industrial scenario. OSWER 9355. 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol. forearms.00E-06 13 1 70 25. 2002: Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.25 Chemical specific 1 1. August 1997. EPA.Construction Worker Scenario Timeframe: Future Potentia Medium: Surface and Subsurface Soil (0 to 10 ft bgs) Exposure Medium: Soil/Ambient Air Exposure Point: Area 1 / Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units RME Value RME Rationale/ Reference Exposure point concentration (1) EPA.00E-06 13 1 70 25. 1989 Intake Equation/ Model Name Ingestion CS IR AAF ing FA CF EF ED BW AT-C AT-N Chemical Concentration in Soil Ingestion Rate of Soil Absorption Adjustment Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg mg soil/day unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years kg days days Chemical specific 330 Chemical specific 1 1. Human Health Evaluation Manual.9 Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated EPA. EPA. Sources : EPA.8 See Table 4. EPA. 2004b (3) EPA. EPA/540/R/99/005. EPA. EPA.http:www. 2002: Exhibit 5-1 EPA. EPA.4-24.

EPA. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 70 yr x 365 d/yr. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. August 1997. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 See Table 4. July 2004. totalling 190 days (using 4. lower legs. 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.9 Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) EPA. http://www.00E-06 190 6 24 15 70 25. (3) Based on climatic data for Cape Cod. EPA. (2) In accordance with MMR Site-wide risk assessment protocol. 1997: Table 4-23 Value set to 1 (2) Assumed 100% of media contacted is contaminated Site-specific assumption (3) EPA. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 EPA. forearms. 1989 EPA.3 weeks/month).gov/ncea/efh/. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual.SRF Table 4.2 0. hands. EPA. hands.760 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = CS x IR x AAFing x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT AT-N (adult) Averaging Time (non-cancer) Dermal CS SA (child) SA (adult) AF (child) AF (adult) ABS FA CF EF ED (child) ED (adult) BW (child) BW (adult) AT-C AT-N (child) Chemical Concentration in Soil Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Soil to Skin Adherence Factor Absorption Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Duration Body Weight Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg cm2/day cm2/day mg/cm2 mg/cm2 unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years years kg kg days days days Chemical specific 2. 2002: Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Exposure Factors Handbook.94E+09 1. Part A OERR.1 and 3. Human Health Evaluation Manual. 1989 EPA. EPA.7 See Table 4.190 8. 1997. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 EPA. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 CS x SA x AF x ABS x FA x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT AT-N (adult) Averaging Time (non-cancer) Inhalation of Particulates CA PEF Chemical Concentration in Air from Particulates Particulate Emission Factor Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 mg/m3 m3/kg m3/kg Chemical specific 1. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr.2.5 Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations .07 Chemical specific 1 1. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 EPA. EPA/540-1-89-002. EPA.550 2.550 2.760 Exposure point concentration (1) Head. 2002: Exhibit 1-2 70 yr x 365 d/yr. Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. 1989 EPA. EPA. EPA.800 5. EPA/540/R/99/005.4-24.epa. 1997: Table 4-23 EPA. OSWER 9355.00E-06 190 6 24 15 70 25. 1989 Intake Equation/ Model Name Ingestion CS IR (child) IR (adult) AAF ing FA CF EF ED (child) ED (adult) BW (child) BW (adult) AT-C AT-N (child) Chemical Concentration in Soil Ingestion Rate of Soil Ingestion Rate of Soil Absorption Adjustment Factor Fraction of Area Conversion Factor Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Duration Body Weight Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/kg mg soil/ day mg soil/ day unitless unitless kg/mg days/year years years kg kg days days days Chemical specific 100 50 Chemical specific 1 1. 2004: RAGs Volume 1. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr. EPA. lower legs and feet. Vol.51E+09 Particulate CA = CS x 1/PEF See Table 4. 2004: Exhibit 3-5 EPA. . 1989 EPA. EPA. assumed 5 days/week for 9 months/yr. EPA. EPA. December 2002. 1989 CDI (mg/kg-day) = Head. 1989 ED x 365 d/yr.7 Notes: (1) For exposure point concentrations see Tables 3. forearms.700 0.190 8.Residential Scenario Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Medium: Surface Soil Exposure Medium: Surface Soil/Ambient Air Exposure Point: Area 1 / Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Receptor Population: Resident Receptor Age: Child (1-7 years) & Adult (18+ years) Exposure Route Parameter Code Parameter Definition Units RME Value RME Rationale/ Reference Exposure point concentration (1) EPA. Sources : EPA.

00 10.95 0. Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide.036 • (1 − V ) • ⎛ m ⎞ • F ( x) ⎜ U ⎟ t ⎠ ⎝ 3 (3) The equation used to calculate the Inverse of the Ratio of the Geometric Mean Air Concentration to the Emission Flux at the Center of the Square Source is shown below: Q C wind = A • e [(ln A site − B )2 / C ] (4) Observations made during site reconnaisance (Winter 2007).75 4. 2002 Exhibit D-2 Portland. hunter. the and adult and child resident. OSWER 9355. EPA.2002 Notes: (1) The PEFs for wind resuspension developed were apprpriate for the following receptors: trespassers. (2) The equation used to calculate the particulate emission factor is shown below: PEF = Q • C 3. ME: EPA.1996. military personnel (non-intrusive). December.600 s / hr U 0. EPA. EPA. 2002. ME: EPA.1996.SRF Table 4. . EPA.94E+09 1. 2002 Exhibit D-2 m3/kg g/m 2-s per kg/m 3 g/m 2-s per kg/m 3 unitless unitless unitless acres acres unitless m/s m/s unitless V Um Ut F(x) Based on site observations (4) EPA.4-24. EPA.90 3.194 Portland.6 Particulate Emission Factor Development for Wind Resuspension Parameter Code PEF Particulate Emission Factor Parameter Definition Units Value Rationale/ Reference EPA.2002 EPA.2002 EPA. 2002 Exhibit D-2 Portland. Sources: EPA.2002 (3) 66. to Emission Flux at Center of Square Source Area 1 A B C Asite Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Constant Based on Air Modeling for specific climate zones Constant Based on Air Modeling for specific climate zones Constant Based on Air Modeling for specific climate zones Areal extent of the site or contamination Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Fraction of Vegetative Cover/Gravel Mean Annual Wind Speed Equivalent Threshold Value of Wind Speed at 10 m Function Dependent on x 3 m /kg 1.03 0.1996.32 0.1996.91 238. ME: EPA.90 52.1996.51E+09 EPA. Value shown is minimum observed. July. EPA. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites.47 20.2002 (2) Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Q/Cwind Inverse of Ratio Mean Air Conc. 1996.69 11.

Equation 5-5 (5) Lr Wr W p SumVKT (7) (8) EPA.864 65. Page 5-12 (9) Based on 2 vehicle fleet.9351 5.2002. (7) Assumed construction road 10 feet wide.7383 71. Equation 5-5 (1) Q/Csr Asite Subchronic Road Particulate Emission Factor Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Inverse of the Ratio of the 1-Hour Geometric Mean Air Concentration to the Emission Flux Along a Straight Road Segment Bisecting a Square Site Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Areal extent of the site or contamination Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 First Constant in the Q/Csr Equation Second Constant in the Q/Csr Equation Third Constant in the Q/Csr Equation Dispersion Correction Factor Total Time (seconds) Total Time (hours) Surface Area of Contaminated Road Segment Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Length of Road Segment Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 Width of Road Segment Mean Construction Vehicle Weight Number of Days with at Least 0. 2002. 1852 + 5 . 2002.78E+06 EPA. OSWER 9355. for 130 days. 2002. Exhibit 5-2 (9) Notes: (1) The equation used to calculate the road particulate emission factor is shown below (EPA.8368 A B C Fd T tc Ar (2) (2) (2) EPA. 2002) T • Ar (365 − p ) • SumVKT 556 • (W / 3) • 365 (2) The equation used to calculate the Q/Csr factor is shown below (EPA. 3537 − 9 . Equation E-16 (3) (4) (4) EPA.7 Particulate Emission Factor Development for Fugitive Dust from Construction Operations Parameter Code PEFsc Parameter Definition Units Value Rationale/ Reference EPA.7711 0. Sources: EPA. Ar = Lr • Wr (6) Assumed construction road length equals the largest diagonal through the area.78E+06 2160 457 549 (6) 152 183 3.9 3.00 20 135 54.4 Q C sr = A • e [(ln A r − B )2 / C ] (3) The equation used to calculate the Fd factor shown below. 2002.4-24.69E+01 0. EPA.SRF Table 4. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Equation 5-6 (2) g/m2-s per kg/m3 2 3 g/m -s per kg/m acres acres unitless unitless unitless unitless seconds hours m2 2 m m m m tons days/year km km 2.60E+06 7. 2002. (EPA. 2002): PEFsc = Q 1 • • Csr Fd 0. (5) The equation used to calculate the Ar factor is shown below (EPA. 2*Lr distance per vehicle trip. .08E+01 1.95 12. 2002. 2002). (8) Based on assumption of 2 trucks @ 20 tons/truck. December. 6318 + 2 tc tc (4) Based on duration of exposure for the construction worker (13 days of exposure over 90-day period). 2002): F d = 0 .01 inches of Precipitation Sum of Fleet Kilometers Traveled During the Exposure Duration Area 1 Area 2 (post-excavation) and Area 3 3 m /kg 3 m /kg 9.188 7.

Part E.SRF Table 4. 2004. dermal exposure risk not be quantified if no absorption adjustment factors were available in RAGS Part E. Exhibit 3-4 (1) EPA. 2004.8 Chemical-Specific Dermal Absorption Factors Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead 1. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. 2004. Exhibit 3-4 (1) (1) Notes: (1) In accordance with MMR Site-wide risk assessment protocol. Sources: EPA.03 0.1 - Source/ Notes (1) (1) EPA. Exhibit 3-4 EPA. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. Vol I: Human Health Evaluation Manual.1 0. 2004.3-diethyl-1.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Tungsten Vanadium Absorption Factor (ABS) 0. No factors were available for these COPCs. .

4 3. inhalation of particulates coupled with maternal baseline of 2.4 4 3.6 4.3 2. User’s Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK).9 Values Used and Results for IEUBK Child Lead Model .7-42. 2001.4 285.4 285.4 2.2 Site-Related Blood Lead Level (2) (ug/dL) 3.1 2.Area 1 Child Age (yr) 0.1 2.4 285.47E-07 1.4 285.9 2.0 Target Blood Lead Level (ug/dL) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Notes: (1) See Table 3.4 285.47E-07 All Sources Blood Lead Level (ug/dL) 4.6 3.6 2.4 285. Windows Version.47E-07 1.5 .1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) NA 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lead Concentration in Soil (1) (mg/kg) 285. October . EPA9285.SRF Table 4.47E-07 1.47E-07 1.5 ug Pb/dL.47E-07 1.47E-07 1.8 3.1 for soil exposure point concentrations.4 Associated Outdoor Air Concentration (mg/m3) 1. Sources: EPA. (2) Site-related sources include soil and dust ingestion.

and dermal contact with soil. dust. diet.S. school.Area 1 Resident Age (yr) 19-40 40-65 65-82 82-90 Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) 50 50 50 50 Lead Concentration in Soil (1) (mg/kg) 285. 2005. DC.395 Site-Related Maximum Blood Lead Level (3) (ug Pb/dL) 1.4 285. Environmental Protection Agency. plus site-related sources. All-Ages Lead Model (AALM) Version 1.602 2.173 1. Environmental Protection Agency.878 1. residential. (2) Sources include air (outdoor.10 Values Used and Results for AALM Lead Model .47E-07 1.477 2.4 Associated Outdoor Air Concentration (mg/m3) 1.1 for soil exposure point concentrations.4 285.47E-07 1. EPA/600/C-05/013.05 (External Review Draft).SRF Table 4.169 1. soil ingestion. .160 2. U.47E-07 1.4 285.S. drinking water.169 Target Blood Lead Level (ug Pb/dL) 10 10 10 10 Notes: (1) See Table 3. Sources: U.47E-07 All Sources Maximum Blood Lead Level (2) (ug Pb/dL) 4. Washington. (3) Sources include air (outdoor and residential only). occupational).

645 * R) **Equation 2. 0. geometric mean ug/dL ug/dL 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers Target PbB level of concern (e. fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil -X Mass fraction of soil in dust -X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) -X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) days/yr X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) days/yr PbB of adult worker..9 0. Recommendations of the Technical Work Group for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil.8 6.4 0.7 -0.4 285.5% 2.D) + PbB0 PbBadult * (GSDi1. 0.11 Values Used and Results for Adult Lead Model . Units ug/g or ppm X X -X X ug/dL per ug/day X X Geometric standard deviation PbB -X X Baseline PbB ug/dL X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) g/day X Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust g/day X Weighting factor.050 ---0. and A-19 in USEPA (1996).5 10. EPA-540-R-03-001.5 0.5 10. assuming lognormal distribution X X PbB Equation1 1* 2** Description of Exposure Variable Soil lead concentration Fetal/maternal PbB ratio Biokinetic Slope Factor Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2 GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het 285.95 = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS. When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1. January.7 0. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. the equations yield the same PbB fetal. 2.4 0.95.1 1.95 PbBt P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S.7 0.5 -0.9 10.645 * R) Sources: EPA. 10 ug/dL) ug/dL % Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt.5% 2.8 6.9 0. PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB 0 PbB adult = PbB fetal.1 1. 2003.5% 2.4 285.0 0. alternate approach based on Eq.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.0 0.5% *Equation 1. 1.12 65 365 1. based on Eq.0.4 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.6 4.0 0.7 0.12 65 365 1.D*EFS/ATS.9 0.0.3 1. 2 in USEPA (1996).050 1. 1. D ATS. KSD).g.0 1.050 ---0. . D EFS.3 1.12 65 365 1. 0.050 1.9 10.4 285. PbB adult = PbB fetal.4 2.12 65 365 1.Trespasser Version date 05/19/03 Exposure Variable PbS Rfetal/maternal BKSF 1 GSDi PbB0 IRS IRS+D WS KSD AFS. D PbBadult PbBfetal.6 4.SRF Table 4.

2.12 13 90 2.4 8.4 285.6 10.4 0.D) + PbB0 PbBadult * (GSDi1. PbB adult = PbB fetal.0.0.12 13 90 2. 0.7 0.4 285.645 * R) **Equation 2.6 10. alternate approach based on Eq. assuming lognormal distribution Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes W S.12 13 90 2.330 ---0.7 0.9 0. geometric mean PbBfetal. January. EPA-540-R-03-001.4 2.95 95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers PbBt Target PbB level of concern (e.7 -0. and A-19 in USEPA (1996).4 285.0 0. When IRS = IRS+D and WS = 1. 0.0 3. D PbBadult PbB of adult worker.330 1.3% 2.330 1.4 0. based on Eq.g.5 -0.95 = PbBadult * (GSDi1.9 0. 1.95 = (PbS*BKSF*IRS+D*AFS. D X X Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust) X X Averaging time (same for soil and dust) ATS.645 * R) Sources: EPA.3 10. . 10 ug/dL) P(PbBfetal > PbBt) Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt.3% 2.7 0..4 0.1 1.9 0. Units ug/g or ppm -ug/dL per ug/day -ug/dL g/day g/day ---days/yr days/yr ug/dL ug/dL ug/dL % Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario Using Equation 1 Using Equation 2 GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het GSDi = Hom GSDi = Het 285. Recommendations of the Technical Work Group for Lead for an Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil.2 6.4 0. fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil KSD X Mass fraction of soil in dust AFS. PbS*BKSF*([(IRS+D)*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D)*(1-WS)*AFD*EFD])/365+PbB 0 PbB adult = PbB fetal.12 Values Used and Results for Adult Lead Model .330 ---0.D*EFS/ATS. KSD).0 1. Technical Review Workgroup for Lead.4 8. D X X Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust) EFS.1% *Equation 1.95.12 13 90 2.3 1.SRF Table 4.3 1.0 1. 2 in USEPA (1996). 0.0 3. 1.5 0.1 1.0 0.1% 2. 2003.9 0.Construction Worker Version date 05/19/03 Exposure Variable PbS Rfetal/maternal BKSF PbB Equation1 1* 2** X X X X X X Description of Exposure Variable Soil lead concentration Fetal/maternal PbB ratio Biokinetic Slope Factor 1 GSDi X X Geometric standard deviation PbB PbB0 X X Baseline PbB IRS X Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust) IRS+D X Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust WS X Weighting factor.3 10.2 6. the equations yield the same PbB fetal.

SRF Table 5.0003 0. 2004a.6% Absorbed RfD for Dermal Value (2) 1. 2004b. 2006e) IRIS IRIS PPRTV (EPA.00010 0.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Tungsten Vanadium Chronic/ Subchronic Oral RfD Value Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor (Gastro-Intestinal Absorption Efficiency) (1) 100% 15% 95% 100% 100% 2.02 0. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. 2006d.htm. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center.00003 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Primary Target Organ(s) Neurotoxicity Blood Pigmentation/keratosis Tachycardia - Combined Uncertainty / Modifying Factors 100 1000 3 300 1000 - RfD:Target Organ(s) Source(s) (3) PPRTV (EPA. .e.02 0. no adjustment (i.0001 0. 100%) was made. 2006b) Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY) 10/23/2006 1/31/2007 1/31/2007 8/22/2006 1/31/2007 10/31/2006 Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic - 1.001 Notes: . October 1.1.= No published value (1) USEPA. 2004. to Ronald Marnicio. EPA. Derivation of Subchronic and Chronic Oral RfDs.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/index. August 22. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Nitroglycerin (CASRN 55-63-0). Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. When no value presented.Oral/Dermal Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead 1.00006 0.0 0. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5). 2006b. EPA. E-mail correspondence from Larry Cain. EPA. October 23. (2) ⎛ mg ⎞ ⎛ mg ⎞ RfDD ⎜ ⎝ = RfDO ⎜ kg − day⎟ ⎠ ⎝ • OraltoDerm alAdjustme ntFactor kg − day⎟ ⎠ (3) IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment CHPPM = Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Sources: CHPPM. EPA.0 0. October. 2006e. 2007.0004 0.. Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. January 31. 2006d) CHPPM. Exhibit 4. http://www.epa. TetraTech-EC reagarding Toxicity Factors for Tungsten. USACE. 2007 NCEA (EPA.3-diethyl-1.0003 0. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document.1 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data .

2004. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5). 2006e.Inhalation Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead 1. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document. 2004a.SRF Table 5.0049 - ⎤ = RfC⎡mg ⎤ ⋅ RfDI ⎡mg ⎢ kg − day⎥ ⎢ m3 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ 3 ⎤ 20⎡m ⎢ day⎥ ⎣ ⎦ 70[kg] PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values Sources: EPA.= No published value (1) Chronic/ Subchronic Inhalation RfC Value Units mg/m mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 3 Extrapolated RfD Value (1) 0. October 1.3-diethyl-1. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. October 23.2 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data .0014 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Primary Target Organ(s) Neurotoxicity - Combined Uncertainty / Modifying Factors - RfC : Target Organ(s) Uncertainty / Source(s) Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY) PPRTV (EPA. 2006e) 10/23/2006 - Chronic - 0.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Tungsten Vanadium Notes: . EPA. .

3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Tungsten Vanadium Oral Cancer Slope Factor Value 1. Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). 2007) Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY) 10/23/2006 1/31/2007 1/31/2007 1/31/2007 - Notes: .1 Cancer Toxicity Data . Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5). no adjustment (i. Exhibit 4.indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans C .. When no value presented.5E+00 1. 100%) was made. EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E.= No published value (1) USEPA.Probable human carcinogen .Possible human carcinogen D . October 1. 2007.SRF Table 6.e.7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Weight of Evidence/ Cancer Guideline Description D A B2 - Oral CSF Source(s) (3) PPRTV (EPA.epa. October 23.Human carcinogen B1 .gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/ . 2006e) IRIS PPRTV (EPA.indicates that limited human data are available B2 .7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor (Gastro-Intestinal Absorption Efficiency) (1) 15% 95% 100% - Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal Value (2) 1. 2006e. 2004b.1. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center.Possible human carcinogen D .3-diethyl-1. (2) CSFD ⎛ kg − day ⎞ = ⎜ mg ⎟ ⎠ ⎝ CSFO ⎛ kg − day ⎞ ⎜ mg ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (OraltoDerm alAdjustme ntFactor) (3) IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values Weight of Evidence .USEPA Group: A . http://www.Not classifiable as a human carcinogen C .5E+00 1.Not classifiable as a human carcinogen E .Probable human carcinogen . 2004b. 2004. EPA. EPA. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document. 2004a. Region III Human Health Risk Assessment Risk Based Concentration Table Home Page.Evidence of noncarcinogenicity Sources: EPA.Oral/Dermal Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead 1.

Evidence of noncarcinogenicity inadequate or no evidence in humans Sources: EPA.2 Cancer Toxicity Data . October 23.Inhalation Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead 1. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5). EPA. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document.= No published value (1) −1 ⎡ ⎛ mg ⎡ ⎛ mg ⎞ ⎤ SF I ⎢ ⎜ ⎣⎝ kg − day ⎟ ⎠ ⎥ = UR ⎢ ⎜ ⎢⎝ ⎦ ⎣ Unit Risk Value 4.5E+01 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Weight of Evidence/ Cancer Guideline Description D A B2 - Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF Source(s) (2) PPRTV (EPA.indicates that limited human data are D .Probable human carcinogen . 2004a.3-diethyl-1.Human carcinogen B1 .Probable human carcinogen . Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center.3E+00 Units (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Value (1) 1. 2006e. (2) . 2004.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Tungsten Vanadium Notes: . 2004a) IRIS IRIS Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY) 10/23/2006 1/31/2007 1/31/2007 - ⎞ ⎟ m3 ⎠ −1 ⎤ 70 [kg ] ⎥⋅ ⎤ ⎥ 20 ⎡ m 3 ⎦ day ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦ IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values Weight of Evidence .indicates sufficient evidence in animal E .Not classifiable as a human carcinogen B2 .SRF Table 6.Possible human carcinogen A .USEPA Group: C . October 1.

4E-08 1.3E-07 1.76 44.0E+00 6.1E-09 1.6E-05 1.0E-09 3.9E-10 9.6E-03 2.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 9.8E-06 1.76 44.5E+00 1.0E-04 2.4E-07 1.4E-08 Value 1.8 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 1.4 0.9E-03 - mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 9.3E-07 5.09 285.0E+00 4.1E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.9E-10 9.2E-06 5.3E-07 4.92 17.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-1 1.4 1.1E-02 8.2E-08 7.8E-06 6.3E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.4E-01 .5E-07 9.6E-08 1.4 0.1E-09 1.0E-09 3.1E-07 2.5E-07 4.5E-03 9.213 24.3-diethyl-1.4E-01 1.6E-09 4.3-diethyl-1.0E-04 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 4.Trespasser .2E-07 7.2E-02 5.4 1.76 44.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 9.3E+00 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 9.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 4.3E-07 1.17 4.2E-03 1.0E-04 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Cancer Risk 8.0E-04 3.6E-08 2.4E-07 8.09 285.0E-08 9.5E-05 2.5E-07 9.3E-04 3.7E-02 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.5E+00 1.213 24.9E-10 2.2E-08 2.92 17.4E-01 1.0E-02 2.9E-06 2.0E-04 2.6E-09 2.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.3-diethyl-1.9E-10 2.5E-07 1.6E-08 3.1E-09 1.17 4.3E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.0E-03 1.92 17.1E-09 9.2E-08 2.0E-05 3.5E-03 3.4 0.9E-08 5.213 24.3E-02 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.4 1.8E-04 Hazard Quotient Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.7E-04 1.8E-06 1.8E-08 7.0E-08 6.0E-02 1.17 4.SRF Table 7.1E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.1a Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 1 .5E-05 3.8E-03 7.8E-06 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Older child (12-18 yrs) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total 9.7E-04 9.09 285.

0E+00 3.8E-08 1.4E-05 4.98 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 1.1E-02 1.6E-09 1.83 28.5E-09 1.0E-04 2.6E-05 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 2.1E-02 1.0E-03 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 2.8E-08 13.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Older child (12-18 yrs) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 13.190 3.5E-09 1.3E-08 9.1E-07 1.6E-09 8.0E-08 13.5E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.8E-03 Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 1.0E-02 2.9 6.190 3.3E+00 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 8.1E-03 6.9 6.0E+00 3.83 28.4E-03 1.6E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.0E-09 3.83 28.SRF Table 7.1E-07 6.4E-07 4.5E+00 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Cancer Risk 8.6E-04 1.2E-07 1.1E-07 1.4E-03 1.2E-08 1.0E-08 8.9E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.8E-06 2.Trespasser .0E-02 1.6E-04 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total 4.0E-04 2.6E-03 8.1E-06 4.5E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.1b Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 2 (Post Excavation) and Area 3 .3E-08 3.5E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.9E-03 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.8E-04 5.1E-03 2.1E-03 5.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 6.9 6.1E-02 .190 3.0E-09 3.8E-06 2.

5E+00 1.9E-10 9.5E-07 9.5E-08 5.1E-09 1.4 1.5E-08 1.7E-04 1.8E-07 7.4E-02 1.7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Cancer Risk 8.5E-07 4.2E-08 2.9E-09 1.5E-07 7.213 24.09 285.6E-05 1.17 4.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Military Personnel Firearms Training Receptor Age: Adult (18 to 28 yrs) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.0E-02 2.4E-02 1.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total .0E+00 4.3-diethyl-1.92 17.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.9E-03 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.17 4.2E-09 9.4E-05 2.0E-03 1.8E-06 1.2E-07 2.5E-08 4.4 0.3E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 2.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 4.0E-04 2.5E-08 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.76 44.6E-03 6.1E-09 2.92 17.3-diethyl-1.3E-05 3.2E-08 2.9E-06 2.17 4.8E-04 4.92 17.5E-03 7.4E-09 1.5E-08 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 9.0E-04 2.8E-06 1.6E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.09 285.SRF Table 7.8E-07 1.4 1.2E-08 2.7E-04 9.9E-10 2.9E-10 9.213 24.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 9.9E-10 2.8E-09 1.1E-09 1.1E-09 9.0E-04 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 9.0E-09 3.5E+00 1.5E-08 2.3E+00 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 9.9E-05 - Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.213 24.4 0.4E-02 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.8E-09 6.8 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 1.4 1.1E-09 1.76 44.7E-09 4.0E-04 3.76 44.0E-08 1.0E-05 3.1E-08 1.3-diethyl-1.0E-09 3.2a Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 1 Military Personnel Firearms Training .1E-07 1.0E+00 6.6E-03 5.8E-09 2.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 4.9E-09 2.3E-08 7.1E-09 6.4E-05 6.2E-04 1.9E-09 4.4 0.6E-03 9.0E-08 9.5E-07 9.09 285.0E-02 1.4E-04 9.3E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.

5E-06 3.0E+00 3.0E-04 2.190 3.5E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.190 3.0E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.5E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.8E-06 2.9E-05 5.3E-04 3.6E-09 8.4E-03 2.5E-09 8.5E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 4.6E-05 1.2E-09 4.9E-09 4.3E+00 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 8.98 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 1.9E-03 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.0E-03 2.4E-03 1.8E-09 2.2E-09 13.5E-09 13.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 6.83 28.1E-08 2.5E+00 Units (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Cancer Risk 8.0E-02 1.7E-04 Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Ingestion Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total Dermal Aluminum Absorption Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total 2.0E-03 2.5E-09 1.Military Personnel Firearms Training .0E-08 7.1E-08 2.0E-09 3.0E+00 3.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Military Personnel Firearms Training Receptor Age: Adult (18 to 28 yrs) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 13.83 28.0E-04 5.0E-08 3.6E-05 6.2E-08 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.0E-02 2.9 6.3E-04 4.83 28.0E-04 2.9 6.8E-06 2.2b Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .0E-03 Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total .190 3.6E-05 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 1.SRF Table 7.0E-08 6.9 6.0E-03 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 1.6E-09 2.3E-04 1.5E-09 1.1E-08 6.7E-09 9.0E-09 3.

4E-04 4.1E-09 4.3E-04 1.1E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.0E-03 1.1E-09 2.5E-08 4.SRF Table 7.7E-08 1.1E-09 1.7E-08 2.0E-04 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 4.1E-02 2.3-diethyl-1.5E-08 3.9E-08 1.4 1.3E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.6E-05 1.7E-09 7.0E-04 2.5E+00 1.8E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.1E-09 1.7E-06 1.5E-08 4.213 24.76 44.09 285.0E-05 3.1E-09 1.4 1.1E-09 4.3-diethyl-1.9E-10 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Hunter Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.0E-09 3.4E-02 4.9E-10 9.8E-06 1.0E-08 8.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total .1E-09 9.213 24.5E-07 2.92 17.0E-09 3.0E+00 4.2E-04 2.1E-06 7.4 1.5E-07 9.9E-10 9.6E-08 2.6E-02 1.17 4.92 17.6E-09 9.8E-03 6.Hunter.7E-04 9.8 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 3.1E-06 1.7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Cancer Risk 2.4 0.0E-04 2.1E-09 2.9E-10 2.3E-04 2.92 17.3-diethyl-1.9E-07 1.0E+00 6.0E-02 2.5E-09 1.4 0.6E-08 1.213 24.17 4.5E-07 9.5E+00 1.0E-02 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 6.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 4.7E-02 1.6E-04 - Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.7E-05 9.5E-06 8.17 4.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 3.9E-03 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.4 0.8E-08 Tungsten Vanadium 1.4E-02 4.3E+00 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 9.8E-08 9.09 285.8E-06 1.5E-08 4.2E-07 3.2E-08 2.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 4.5E-09 8.3E-05 9.2E-08 2.76 44.76 44.3E-08 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.8E-02 9.0E-08 3.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 9.4E-02 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Particulates Aluminum Antimony Arsenic 2.4a Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 1 .7E-04 4.0E-04 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 4.09 285.

5E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-1 -1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 6.8E-07 3.4E-03 2.8E-08 .9 6.1E-03 4.190 3.7E-08 1.4E-08 13.98 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 5.6E-09 8.5E-08 1.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.4E-03 4.6E-05 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 3.6E-05 1.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 6.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Hunter Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 13.8E-08 3.5E-09 1.4E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.1E-04 1.0E-09 3.8E-06 2.8E-08 3.5E-09 1.8E-09 4.83 28.2E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.0E-09 3.4E-08 2.5E-04 6.0E+00 3.9 6.6E-09 3.2E-04 6.5E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.4b Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .5E+00 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-1 Cancer Risk 2.6E-03 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.4E-03 1.1E-03 8.3E-05 1.190 3.2E-07 1.0E-04 2.1E-03 4.Hunter.0E-02 2.9E-09 5.9 6.0E-02 1.5E-04 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total 13.2E-04 1.0E+00 3.83 28.9E-03 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 1.8E-09 5.8E-06 2.SRF Table 7.6E-08 2.0E-03 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 6.83 28.5E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.190 3.3E+00 (mg/m ) 3 -1 (mg/m ) 3 -1 (mg/m ) (mg/m3)-1 3 -1 1.0E-04 2.

8E-06 9.0E-04 2.92 17.1E-01 3.5E-02 9.7E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 1.0E-05 2.9E-07 4.92 17.2E-08 1.3E-07 3.Construction Worker .0E-04 3.2E-07 2.0E-04 2.4 0.0E-07 1.4 0.213 24.7E-06 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.3E-07 3.8E-06 7.0E-03 1.17 4.213 24.9E-08 4.09 285.9E-02 1.8E-09 6.6E-09 4.4E-10 5.0E-04 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 1.0E+00 6.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total 7.7E-06 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.5E-03 1.8E-07 4.76 44.0E-07 1.76 44.1E-08 4.6E-10 2.2E-05 5.5E-08 1.9E-03 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.8E-06 1.7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Cancer Risk 1.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total Inhalation oAluminum ParticulatesAntimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.3E-07 7.5E-06 4.9E-06 1.SRF Table 7.5a Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 1 .8E-06 1.0E-04 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 1.8E-06 7.5E-06 4.92 17.0E+00 4.5E+00 1.17 4.1E-07 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.6E-04 2.8E-08 9.1E-06 6.8E-05 3.6E-05 2.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.9E-06 1.0E-02 1.3-diethyl-1.9E-03 7.213 24.09 285.5E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.0E-02 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 9.5E-03 4.7E-04 - Soil Surface and Subsurface Soil (0-10 ft bgs) Area 1 Ingestion Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.4 0.7E-08 9.2E-02 1.0E-01 3.7E-08 3.3E+00 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 1.17 4.6E-04 2.3-diethyl-1.0E-01 2.4 1.6E-05 1.8E-06 1.8E-06 1.4 1.0E-02 2.0E-05 3.8E-09 1.6E-09 9.76 44.09 285.9E-08 4.1E-01 3.8 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 2.8E-09 1.3E-03 1.0E-05 2.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total Dermal Aluminum Absorption Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.1E-09 4.6E-10 1.4 1.5E+00 1.9E-02 2.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 9.1E-01 Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total .2E-08 1.3-diethyl-1.

9E-08 1.9 6.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 13.4E-03 4.1E-07 3.9 6.83 28.1E-06 4.9E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.190 3.3E-03 Soil Surface and Subsurface Soil (0-10 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 7.0E+00 3.0E-06 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.9E-03 9.4E-08 13.2E-03 2.0E-06 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 4.1E-09 1.4E-09 1.5E+00 Units (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Cancer Risk 1.1E-07 7.8E-01 2.9E-01 2.0E-08 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.4E-08 1.SRF Table 7.190 3.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 1.0E-04 2.4E-03 4.9 6.7E-06 1.8E-06 1.5E-07 1.0E-04 2.0E-03 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient 2.8E-01 2.3E+00 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 (mg/m 3)-1 1.0E-10 4.83 28.7E-06 1.1E-09 13.8E-06 1.9E-03 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/m 3 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.2E-05 9.6E-08 7.9E-01 Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total .6E-04 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Particulates Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 1.2E-03 5.1E-07 7.1E-07 3.7E-05 4.0E+00 3.0E-02 1.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.6E-04 2.2E-03 6.5b Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .9E-01 2.8E-06 1.5E+00 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 1.Construction Work .98 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 3.190 3.0E-02 2.6E-05 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 2.83 28.

0E-04 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient Child 3.0E-01 1.92 17.6E-05 1.1E-03 5.0E-05 2.6E-06 1.8E-07 2.92 17.7E-02 3.1E-06 4.8E-01 1.7E-07 1.5E-06 1.17 4.2E-08 2.7E-04 9.92 17.4E-01 Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.7E-01 8.17 4.5E-06 2.9E-03 - mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 9.0E+00 4.8E+00 2.1E-09 9.0E-06 1.4E-05 1.3E-07 1.8E+00 2.8E-06 1.4E-07 8.3-diethyl-1.9E-10 9.8E+00 .1E-04 7.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Hypothetical Resident Receptor Age: Child (1-7 years) & Adult (18+ years) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.0E-05 3.9E-03 Hazard Quotient Adult 3.7E-04 2.5E-05 4.0E-04 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 7.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Exposure Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total 9.4 0.5E-07 9.0E-02 1.SRF Table 7.1E-09 2.0E+00 6.3-diethyl-1.4E-06 3.0E-04 2.5E+00 1.4 1.5E-06 8.0E-04 3.9E-04 6.9E-10 2.1E-03 3.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 2.0E-02 2.8E-06 1.2E-08 2.3E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.4E-03 2.5E-06 9.76 44.2E-02 8.4E-01 3.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.1E-09 1.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 9.3E-05 8.17 4.8E-07 1.3E-01 1.6E-07 1.3E-07 6.8E-06 1.5E-03 1.9E-10 2.7E-04 9.76 44.7E-05 2.3E-07 1.8 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 4.09 285.9E-10 2.6E-05 6.4E-07 4.4E-03 9.3E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.6E-04 Adult Value 3.1E-01 4.3E+00 (mg/m ) (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 3 -1 9.6a Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 1 .09 285.1E-06 2.4E-01 3.4 0.1E-07 6.4E-07 1.0E-06 1.1E-06 2.4 0.09 285.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 -1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Child Value 3.8 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 2.2E-02 5.9E-10 9.7E-01 2.4 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.4E-07 4.6E-06 9.7E-04 3.4E-05 9.2E-03 - Soil Surface and Subsurface Soil (0-10 ft bgs) Area 1 Ingestion Exposure Route Total Dermal Absorption Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.3E-06 3.0E-09 3.7E-05 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.76 44.4 1.5E-07 9.Hypothetical Resident .3E-01 9.2E-08 2.0E-04 2.1E-09 1.9E+00 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.6E+00 1.1E-09 1.7E-02 Units (mg/kg-day)-1 -1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 -1 (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 (mg/kg-day)-1 Cancer Risk 1.5E+00 1.5E-07 9.213 24.7E-07 1.4E-06 1.213 24.3-diethyl-1.213 24.0E-09 3.9E-10 9.3E-08 4.2E-02 2.0E-05 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.7E-06 6.3E-04 6.0E-09 3.

98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 2.5E-09 1.98 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg 6.2E-03 7.0E-02 1.2E-03 1.6E-09 1.6b Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .4E-03 1.5E+00 Units (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Cancer Risk 1.6E-05 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient Adult 4.4E-03 1.5E-06 1.5E-08 6.0E-01 2.5E+00 - (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1 3.83 28.SRF Table 7.0E-03 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Hazard Quotient Child 4.0E-03 8.6E-09 8.8E-06 2.4E-03 2.3E-06 3.6E-03 6.0E-02 2.9E-03 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 1.190 3.190 3.83 28.2E-03 1.3E-02 2.83 28.6E-06 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day CSF / Unit Risk Value 1.0E-09 3.1E-02 2.0E-09 3.9E-01 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.190 3.4E-03 2.0E-04 2.4E-05 2.7E-06 1.9E-03 1.3E+00 - (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 (mg/m3)-1 8.3E-07 3.6E-03 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Hypothetical Resident Receptor Age: Child (1-7 years) & Adult (18+ years) EPC Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Contaminant of Potential Concern Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration Value 13.0E-01 2.3E-06 Child Value 4.3E-02 2.98 Units mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Value 3.1E-05 Units mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day RfD / RfC Value 1.8E-06 2.Hypothetical Resident .7E-06 Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total .5E-09 1.5E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.8E-07 1.0E+00 3.0E-04 Adult Value 4.5E-06 2.9 6.8E-06 2.0E-01 1.9E-03 4.3E-04 1.5E-02 1.5E-07 7.1E-02 Soil Surface and Subsurface Soil (0-10 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Ingestion Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total Dermal Aluminum Absorption Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total Inhalation of Aluminum Particulates Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium Exposure Route Total 13.0E-01 1.5E-06 6.0E-04 2.8E-03 1.4E-05 1.9 6.3E-02 13.6E-02 1.5E-09 1.3E-06 1.3E-07 2.0E+00 3.7E-06 1.2E-07 mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day mg/kg-day 1.5E-08 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 mg/m3 4.9 6.0E-09 3.6E-02 4.

2E-03 1.3E-07 1.6E-09 - 1.2E-02 1.8E-04 - 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Older child (12-18 yrs) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.Trespasser .3E-07 1.4E-03 9.3E-07 1.4E-01 .3-diethyl-1.1E-02 9.4E-01 1.6E-03 2.1E-07 1.8E-08 Neurotoxicity Blood Pigmentation/keratosis Tachycardia 1.5E-05 2.7E-04 - 4.6E-03 2.1E-09 - 1.8E-08 7.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.2E-01 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 1.3E-07 Receptor HI Total 1.6E-03 1.4E-08 1.5E-05 2.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 8.SRF Table 9.8E-03 7.8E-03 5.4E-01 1.1a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 1 .5E-03 9.3E-07 1.0E-08 9.

1E-07 1.1E-03 2.6E-03 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 1.4E-05 4.1E-02 1.Trespasser .1E-02 1.8E-08 - - 1.1E-07 1.1E-02 1.4E-05 4.1E-07 Receptor HI Total 1.5E-03 5.4E-03 4.6E-03 1.1E-07 - Neurotoxicity Pigmentation/keratosis - 2.SRF Table 9.1E-02 .1E-07 1.5E-03 2.1E-07 1.1b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .1E-02 1.6E-09 - 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Trespasser Receptor Age: Older child (12-18 yrs) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 8.1E-03 5.6E-04 3.0E-08 - 8.

1E-09 9.4E-09 1.5E-08 2.4E-04 9.3-diethyl-1.2a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 1 .8E-07 1.9E-09 1.2E-04 2.2E-04 1.1E-09 - 4.4E-02 .8E-04 4.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 8.5E-08 Receptor HI Total 1.4E-02 1.9E-09 Neurotoxicity Blood Pigmentation/keratosis Tachycardia 9.8E-07 1.5E-03 1.4E-02 1.4E-05 6.5E-08 2.2E-08 2.5E-08 2.6E-03 9.1E-04 9.8E-04 7.Military Personnel Firearms Training .1E-03 6.8E-09 - 2.4E-02 1.5E-08 2.SRF Table 9.7E-04 - 6.2E-02 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 2.9E-05 - 1.4E-02 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current / Potential Receptor Population: Military Personnel Firearms Training Receptor Age: Adult (18 to 28 yrs) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.

0E-04 3.0E-04 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 2.0E-03 2.5E-06 3.0E-03 .SRF Table 9.2E-09 - - 2.1E-08 2.6E-09 - 4.4E-03 6.5E-09 - 8.1E-08 - Neurotoxicity Pigmentation/keratosis - 1.2b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .0E-03 2.3E-04 3.0E-04 1.5E-03 2.1E-08 Receptor HI Total 2.1E-08 2.1E-08 2.1E-08 2.Military Personnel Firearms Training .0E-03 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current / Potential Receptor Population: Military Personnel Firearms Training Receptor Age: Adult (18 to 28 yrs) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 8.0E-03 2.5E-06 3.3E-04 1.6E-05 1.

3-diethyl-1.1E-09 - 6.5E-08 4.5E-06 8.4E-04 4.8E-03 6.0E-04 4.5E-08 4.4E-02 4.3a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 1 .8E-02 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 4.7E-02 3.6E-04 - 1.8E-03 8.1E-02 9.4E-02 4.5E-08 Receptor HI Total 4.5E-08 3.1E-09 9.2E-04 1.1E-09 2.2E-04 2.4E-02 4.5E-09 - 4.7E-04 - 1.3E-04 2.5E-08 4.4E-02 .5E-08 4.4E-03 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Hunter Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.Hunter .0E-08 5.4E-02 4.SRF Table 9.6E-09 Neurotoxicity Blood Pigmentation/keratosis Tachycardia 4.5E-06 8.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 2.

8E-09 - - 3.8E-08 3.3b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .6E-05 1.SRF Table 9.8E-08 3.1E-03 .1E-03 4.8E-08 Receptor HI Total 4.8E-08 3.Hunter .2E-04 6.1E-03 4.0E-03 7.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Current/Potential Receptor Population: Hunter Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 2.8E-08 3.6E-09 - 5.1E-04 1.6E-04 1.4E-08 - 8.8E-08 - Neurotoxicity Pigmentation/keratosis - 6.4E-03 1.6E-05 1.5E-04 2.1E-03 4.1E-03 4.4E-03 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 3.4E-03 1.

5E-03 1.5E-02 2.4E-02 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 1.8E-06 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.8E-06 - 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 1.SRF Table 9.8E-06 2.1E-01 3.3-diethyl-1.9E-03 7.0E-02 2.1E-01 3.6E-10 - 1.1E-09 4.3E-03 1.8E-06 1.0E-01 1.8E-06 1.1E-01 3.6E-05 2.6E-05 2.4a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 1 .0E-02 2.7E-04 - 2.1E-01 3.9E-02 9.3E-09 Neurotoxicity Blood Pigmentation/keratosis Tachycardia 1.1E-01 .8E-09 1.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 1.8E-06 Receptor HI Total 3.8E-06 1.0E-01 - 1.5E-08 1.Construction Worker .

7E-05 4.2E-03 2.4E-08 - 1.Construction Worker .8E-06 1.8E-01 2.9E-03 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.8E-06 1.8E-01 1.2E-03 5.8E-06 1.9E-03 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 1.3E-03 5.8E-06 - Neurotoxicity Pigmentation/keratosis - 2.7E-06 - 1.8E-06 1.9E-01 2.SRF Table 9.7E-05 4.9E-01 2.6E-04 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Construction Worker Receptor Age: Adult (18+ years) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Absorption Exposure Routes Total Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 1.4b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .9E-01 .1E-09 - - 1.8E-06 Receptor HI Total 2.

0E-02 1.Hypothetical Resident .4E-03 2.3-diphenyl urea Nitroglycerin 1.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Hypothetical Resident Receptor Age: Child (1-7 years) & Adult (18+ years) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Child Adult Inhalation Child Adult Dermal Absorption Child Adult Exposure Routes Total Child Adult Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Area 1 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1.7E-06 3.6E-05 6.5a Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 1 .7E-04 - 9.1E-06 Receptor HI Total 2.4E-01 3.1E-03 3.1E-06 2.8E+00 2.2E-02 2.1E-01 4.4E-07 - 1.1E-01 5.3E-04 6.5E-02 3.4E-01 .9E-03 - 1.2E-03 - 3.3-diethyl-1.5E-03 1.7E-01 9.4E-06 1.7E-02 3.2E-02 6.3E-04 6.0E-01 8.3E-03 3.7E-04 - 7.1E-09 - 3.1E-06 2.4E-01 3.4E+00 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 2.0E-02 4.4E-07 1.6E-05 6.3E-02 2.7E-07 9.8E+00 2.8E+00 2.4E-01 3.SRF Table 9.7E-01 1.6E+00 3.8E+00 3.2E-02 5.3E-01 2.8E+00 2.1E-07 Neurotoxicity Blood Pigmentation/keratosis Tachycardia 3.4E-03 2.1E-06 2.1E-06 2.4E-01 3.5E-03 3.

2E-03 1.0E-01 2.7E-06 1.3E-02 2.3E-02 .0E-01 2.3E-04 1.7E-06 - Neurotoxicity Pigmentation/keratosis - 4.3E-03 6.3E-02 2.2E-03 1.6E-09 - 3.3E-07 - - 1.5b Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs Area 2 (Post-Excavation) and Area 3 .0E-01 2.4E-03 7.8E-03 1.0E-01 6.3E-06 - 8.7E-06 1.3E-02 2.7E-06 1.4E-03 - 1.1E-02 1.0E-01 2.7E-06 1.5E-02 1.3E-02 1.6E-03 1.0E-01 2.Hypotheitcal Resident .6E-02 4.0E-01 4.7E-02 5.0E-03 1.3E-02 2.SRF Table 9.7E-06 Receptor HI Total 2.Reasonable Maximum Exposure Scenario Timeframe: Future Potential Receptor Population: Hypothetical Resident Receptor Age: Child (1-7 years) & Adult (18+ years) Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Contaminant of Potential Concern Ingestion Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Dermal Absorption External (Radiation) Exposure Routes Total Primary Target Organ(s) Ingestion Child Adult Inhalation Child Adult Dermal Absorption Child Adult Exposure Routes Total Child Adult Soil Surface Soil (0-1 ft bgs) Areas 2&3 Aluminum Arsenic Tungsten Vanadium 1.9E-03 4.3E-04 1.2E-03 4.1E-02 Chemical Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Receptor Total Receptor Risk Total 1.

Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation ATTACHMENT B PROUCL OUTPUTS FOR THE DERIVATION OF SOIL EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 2007-O-JV04-0019 . Inc.

Area 1 Page 1 .625839 0.74 97.749007 0.944 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 9212.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 11056.Chi Square Value (.5% Chebyshev (Mean.627357 914.9 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 12620.324 813.105984 RECOMMENDATION Data follow gamma distribution (0.2565 0.1574 979. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.36692 1.136 10486.57 9551.425078 9.72346 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.242366 8.423 9445.044545 694.133305 9.986728 0.325552 0.637 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0.12685 0.944 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 9234.05) Use Approximate Gamma UCL 9217.8 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.711 9347.14 11367.2074 696.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx. Sd) UCL 8.2219 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 9212.92329 8.933 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 10260.473 9218.864398 0.095 9610590 0.864 9276.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Aluminum 44 42 4560 20400 8448.62 13099.637 9247.46 9254.964693 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.12 Tango Range .879 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0. Sd) UCL 97.977 8095 3100.3282 759.875 9234.878 Adjusted Gamma UCL 9239.

3637 25.857377 40.900146 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Antimony 44 36 0.Area 1 Page 1 .141668 0.30753 20.944 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 7.447315 7. Sd) UCL 97.61939 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 5.231858 0.917985 6.5% Chebyshev (Mean.18 91.18382 7.05) Use 99% Chebyshev (Mean.51472 0.63 3.81307 39.128796 1.98881 0.578341 7.004621 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 4.47933 24.340448 7. Sd) UCL 6.004621 6.150448 97.463785 0.944 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 3.17065 Tango Range .083112 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.821998 0.306612 1.438218 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.926223 12.714798 4.520701 -0.587137 0.77062 189.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.323537 Adjusted Gamma UCL 5.630202 9.67 13.044545 25.707235 RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5.08245 7.56379 16. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.4003 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.9 3.538081 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.234625 0.929435 9.Chi Square Value (.93337 30. Sd) UCL -1.915149 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.

Area 1 Page 1 .526068 4.990986 5.114465 275.8816 221.822302 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.214007 0.349159 4.4 3.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Arsenic 44 25 1 23.65186 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5.75507 0.95 3.Chi Square Value (.944 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 4.06846 4.134205 3.562833 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.312945 8.930473 1.392687 6.249024 RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.5% Chebyshev (Mean.865543 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0. Sd) UCL 97.152736 1. Sd) UCL 0 3.6901 0.799079 Adjusted Gamma UCL 3.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.120615 Tango Range .157508 4.188097 97.445907 7.23647 10.620834 0.763636 5.944 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 3.015294 0.265909 2.5555 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 3.061763 5.221591 4.05) Use Student's-t UCL or Modified-t UCL 4.47474 0.043876 1.044545 220.086131 4.086131 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 2. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.397447 0.499023 0.3201 257.128638 2.818622 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.610702 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.

542549 0.88135 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 90.62931 90.7443 45.694787 RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.07447 88.4653 94.9047 118.3 111.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 111.4089 90.967742 1.30184 1.944 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 90.63002 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.34545 135.159187 0.05093 97.05) Use 99% Chebyshev (Mean.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.41364 94.94591 6.14056 0.1155 166. Sd) UCL 1.4646 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 151.5% Chebyshev (Mean.82234 31.07447 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 9.044545 30.5713 12448.87995 90.15 1.50253 Adjusted Gamma UCL 91.8397 229.006353 2.90593 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.525327 0.422332 0.5634 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Chromium 44 34 7 406 61. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.1558 Tango Range .944 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 77.79886 11.28939 0.805393 1.51794 90.69835 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.809313 0.Chi Square Value (.82706 100.Area 1 Page 1 .53796 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 91.6823 47.520708 113. Sd) UCL 97. Sd) UCL 89.

Sd) UCL 97.385522 0.7859 526.975 698.8685 506.665613 3.1366 1100.374388 740.944 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 1039.986 539.967113 3.0079 762142.168 762.936658 1.Area 1 Page 1 .023 1304.595 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 898.82165 0.8318 631.5917 97.153998 0.05) Use 99% Chebyshev (Mean.944 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 506.718 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1645. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Lead 44 42 3.3545 859.94615 20.734 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.5% Chebyshev (Mean.908201 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.65 873.810684 0.869532 RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.0297 1107.261 1594.044545 20.129769 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.5119 Adjusted Gamma UCL 458. Sd) UCL 1.7 5800 285.49384 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 451.3511 72.059416 6.312175 0.863 Tango Range .308333 8.5983 495.1802 33.92595 32.143199 0.Chi Square Value (.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1150.8 3.840665 0.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.5983 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 1.971 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean. Sd) UCL 501.

46528 0.184926 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.92267 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 1.609262 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.106139 2.Chi Square Value (.971579 1.428619 1.485081 Page 1 .5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2.226826 RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.156792 1.728395 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.61233 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 1.32147 0.593747 0.64967 0.89973 0.92267 1.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.818 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 1.39472 28.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Tungsten 8 8 0.995 0.985601 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.01946 25.45213 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.29532 4.818 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 1.5 1.32 0.96594 Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.325688 0.843232 2.150949 0.681614 2.498175 65.233204 97.05) Use Student's-t UCL or Modified-t UCL 1.210721 1.30655 4.718623 0.794855 4.809514 0.476262 0.81 3.187389 0.252763 0. Sd) UCL 97.644405 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.630962 4.8825 2.5% Chebyshev (Mean.2175 2. Sd) UCL -0.69823 42.706577 3.

133134 15.07129 97.46899 17.15308 20.044545 1182.33977 17.59905 17.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 20.965006 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.3 29.64014 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.3 16.4697 17.41415 17. Sd) UCL 97.131859 1358.42169 Adjusted Gamma UCL 17.748111 0.536 0.39963 17.45723 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 19.5% Chebyshev (Mean.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Vanadium 44 38 10.05) Use Approximate Gamma UCL 17.933578 0.065796 RECOMMENDATION Data follow gamma distribution (0.343459 18.266488 0.36181 17.Area 1 Page 1 .106613 0.39963 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0. Sd) UCL 2. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.377588 2.3881 22.758357 0.46094 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.944 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 17.88241 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.332144 3.46364 19.40009 1.81405 Tango Range .433176 0.944 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 17.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.27524 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 22.499 1267.43749 14.055797 1.872 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 17.208 1185.Chi Square Value (.86564 0.256507 0.37592 17.29886 16 4.

715133 677.107 1572.148744 0.757383 0.35013 38.938 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 798.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1092.05) Use H-UCL 791.n'-Diethylcarbanilide 38 24 18 6200 512.0493 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 898.939 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 2.0544 57. Sd) UCL 97. Sd) UCL 2.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: n.938 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1474.506 1823.Area 1 Page 1 .Chi Square Value (.5% Chebyshev (Mean.5611 54.0434 37.556751 0.943198 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.431318 0.788207 0.14 815.450514 1.0545 717.6067 798.6369 Adjusted Gamma UCL 736.85207 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 725.724985 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.40788 0.939 791.6878 820. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.171018 1.7632 1252.371282 RECOMMENDATION Data are lognormal (0.552 1093180 2.475 97.938 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 760.732305 5.890372 8.7895 190 1045.9979 1344.3158 995.038951 4.7747 930.398 Tango Range .01 2200.292 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.25757 0.923 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.

41 44756.14 126725 Tango Range . Sd) UCL 97.5 14600 21580.345986 26994.748 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 44756.7E+008 1.05) Use Student's-t UCL 37111.738226 2.03 41408.918765 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Nitroglycerin 4 4 1250 47000 19362.7 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 167963.41 55963.3E+011 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 85451.9 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.748 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 1.21 5.934082 RECOMMENDATION Data are normal (0.671689 0.52 45426.336849 0.Chi Square Value (.7579 9.130899 10.306965 N/A N/A 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 174590.09 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.03139 1.717278 0.40568 0. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.09 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 66396.5 86748.76789 0.5% Chebyshev (Mean.Area 1 Page 1 .712916 2.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 113286.8 Adjusted Gamma UCL N/A Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.68 4.11456 0.27381 0. Sd) UCL 7.74547 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data are normal at 5% significance level 0.889992 0.36 97.

926211 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.256484 0.95754 76.Chi Square Value (.13 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 14310. Sd) UCL 9.748 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 13190.8 Adjusted Gamma UCL N/A Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.7542 N/A N/A 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 13618.3 Page 1 .1635 38.094119 1.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Aluminum 4 4 10900 13400 11875 11600 1117.61 97.661 1249167 0.105007 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data are normal at 5% significance level 0.296518 9.95 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 17309.6603 271.092069 0.19 13124.915409 0.65652 0.748 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL N/A 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 14255.53218 304.29 Tango Range .39399 155.5% Chebyshev (Mean.308 311.1 13241.13 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0.32098 0.59 13190.50301 9.87 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean. Sd) UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 15285.378965 0. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.9 17435.89 15364.05) Use Student's-t UCL 12794.Area 2.8191 1241.008477 RECOMMENDATION Data are normal (0.

67687 3.406377 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5. Sd) UCL 97.728867 0.79613 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 4.39399 144.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL Use Approximate Gamma UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.65652 0. Sd) UCL Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation 3.73696 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.163151 1.4136 251.0017 N/A N/A 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 3.099015 1.1767 0.748 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 3.360977 1.074813 Tango Range .2 3.023605 0.33665 0.Area 2.2203 0.920316 Adjusted Gamma UCL N/A Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.25 0.102331 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.822601 3.5% Chebyshev (Mean.133712 4.Chi Square Value (.094899 0.0401 36.113333 0.846575 3. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.003618 1.887105 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.9 3.378795 0.698408 0.79613 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow approximate gamma distibution at 5% significance level 0.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.093983 1152.748 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL N/A 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.321 289.009006 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL Assuming gamma distribution (0.3 Page 1 .4 3.45119 5.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Arsenic 4 3 3.

General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.3 Page 1 .420535 5.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.748 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 244.8735 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 331. Sd) UCL Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation 224. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.Chi Square Value (. Sd) UCL 97.Area 2.313536 0.1056 5.2297 233.5% Chebyshev (Mean.19755 634.259011 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data are normal at 5% significance level 0.8995 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0.170484 5.8284 97.328657 0.123366 -0.8166 144.465738 0.748 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 233.5 25.65636 0.6276 233.522 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 259.25 207.368345 9.24165 21.855296 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.9293 329.400711 689.393943 86.9937 Adjusted Gamma UCL N/A Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.8995 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 259.6062 Tango Range .9167 0.9332 173.124975 0.849672 0.9731 223.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 283.015619 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL Data are normal (0.1668 282.72708 2.321 N/A N/A 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 245.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Chromium 4 4 176 226 204.

359462 RECOMMENDATION Data are lognormal (0.850473 Tango Range .934733 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 3.03122 4. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.131965 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data not normal at 5% significance level 0.006919 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 1.649797 3.46625 5.736979 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.506042 0.006919 2.445223 3.172352 0.172344 6.08315 11.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Tungsten 14 13 0.791654 5.4681 -0.16917 12.792723 0.673732 97.487109 2. Sd) UCL 97.081915 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.801607 2.12365 3. Sd) UCL -2.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.130752 9.825523 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.3 Page 1 .5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.289193 0.05) Use 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2.8 1.901425 3.886056 6.Area 2.425537 14.534648 0.241532 0.874 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 7.750497 9.511749 0.5% Chebyshev (Mean.86346 5.763124 2.525129 0.01384 3.972679 3.874 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 3.435202 Adjusted Gamma UCL 3.830784 1.536054 2.41 3.897356 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.852819 Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.052779 3.Chi Square Value (.

076763 0.471386 1797.5858 402.Chi Square Value (.24681 28.063169 4.256667 0.04657 32.68358 29.81414 Tange Range .05) Use Student's-t UCL 28.55 26.969288 0.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.194583 3.98932 97.276802 0.01 450.97769 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0.6263 56.978348 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.748 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 28.6841 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL Hall's Bootstrap UCL Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.Area 2.39399 224.3611 N/A N/A 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 29.65652 0.79251 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data are normal at 5% significance level 0.73214 Adjusted Gamma UCL N/A Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.207494 0.99224 36.748 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL N/A 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 30.5% Chebyshev (Mean.3 Page 1 .377588 3.118196 0. Sd) UCL 97.4 29.23777 0.3 26.077709 0.04582 28.32323 0.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 32.25 2.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Vanadium 4 4 24. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean. Sd) UCL 3.91044 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 36.97769 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 31.005893 RECOMMENDATION Data are normal (0.

82495 6.531519 Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value Data are normal at 5% significance level 0.394886 10.575741 4.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 154.87537 570.41638 85.4 97.723281 4.06507 22.89371 N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R 123.78716 N/A N/A 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 126.983489 0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL BCA Bootstrap UCL Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean.General Statistics Data File Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples Number of Unique Samples Minimum Maximum Mean Median Standard Deviation Variance Coefficient of Variation Skewness Gamma Statistics k hat k star (bias corrected) Theta hat Theta star nu hat nu star Approx.8352 146.1459 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 129.752477 25.04583 99. Sd) UCL Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation 91.259687 0.2986 3.63313 2.8 74.943405 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.Chi Square Value (.43575 88.5996 12.332526 -0.370157 0.0333 0. Sd) UCL 97. Sd) UCL 99% Chebyshev (Mean.35 23.3 Page 1 .8969 Adjusted Gamma UCL N/A Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.3508 190.748 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 99.05) Adjusted Level of Significance Adjusted Chi Square Value Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data Maximum of log data Mean of log data Standard Deviation of log data Variance of log data Variable: Lead 4 4 41.5785 Tango Range .137016 95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) Jackknife UCL Standard Bootstrap UCL Bootstrap-t UCL RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL Data are normal (0.36495 99.657099 0.213947 0.89371 Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic A-D 5% Critical Value K-S Test Statistic K-S 5% Critical Value Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level 0.1 71.5% Chebyshev (Mean.226125 0.4177 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 203.Area 2.748 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 162.5331 97.

Tetra Tech EC. Inc. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation ATTACHMENT C SITE SKETCH AND PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG FOR TANGO RANGE 2007-O-JV04-0019 .

X Photos 01-03 Gravel Area SHED TOWER X Photo 04 Firing Line with posts BERM X Photos 08-10 X X Photos 13-14 X Photos 11-12 Photos 15-16 N Tango Firing Range .

Cape Cod. Military Reservation . Photos 01-03 are a panoramic view.Photo 01: Facing southeast at the firing range from the northern access road. MA . Photo 02: Facing south at the firing range from the northern access road. Note the tower and berm built August/September 2006. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass.

Cape Cod.Photo 03: Facing southwest at the firing range from the northern access road. Photo 04: The storage shed located at the northeastern corner of the gravel drive. MA . Military Reservation . PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass.

Photo 05: Facing southeast at the eastern portion of the berm. Military Reservation . Photos 05-07 are a panoramic of the entire berm. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass. Photo 06: Facing south at the central portion of berm.Cape Cod. MA .

Cape Cod. Photos 08-10 are a panoramic of the southern portion of the Site. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass. MA . Military Reservation .Photo 07: Facing southwest at the western portion of the berm. Photo 08: Facing south at the eastern portion of the Site located south of the berm.

Photo 09: Facing southwest at the southern portion of the Site. MA . Military Reservation . PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass.Cape Cod. Photo 10: Facing west along a dirt access road located along the southern side of the berm.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass. MA .Photo 11: Moss found in the overgrown area located south of the berm.Cape Cod. Military Reservation . Photo 12: Vegetation found in the overgrown area located south of the berm.

Military Reservation . MA . PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass. Photo 14: Facing west at the forested area located along the western boundary of the Site.Cape Cod.Photo 13: Vegetation on the eastern side of the access road shown in Photo 10.

Military Reservation .Photo 15: Facing west at the forested area located along the western boundary of the Site. Photo 16: Facing southwest at the forested area located along the western boundary of the Site. MA . Note one of five old targets.Cape Cod. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG TANGO FIRING RANGE Mass.

Inc.Tetra Tech EC. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA) Massachusetts Military Reservation ATTACHMENT D BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (BERA) TABLES 2007-O-JV04-0019 .

24 J NO NA 0.1 Max (mg/kg) 10 25. If the MDC is greater than the background value the constituent is retained as a COPEC.3 542 YES YES YES Lead 48 48 100 3.017 J 0.4 NA 2 30 4 40 20.019 1.8 NO 0.022 J 0.26 4. MDC .400 91. Technical Update: Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soils. upon soil pH as listed.024 12.3 NA 20 1 0. FOD = Frequency of detection If the MDC does not exceed the USEPA ECO-SSL the constituent is eliminated as a COPEC.018 J 0.42 1.018 0.02 1.018 J 0.9 0.72 NO YES NO NA bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 20 38 53 0.2 NA 7.46 NO NO NO 1 NO Benzoic acid 15 38 39 0.2 NO YES NO Molybdenum 40 48 83 0.1 NO 7.036 J 0.8 NO YES NO Silver 8 48 17 0.3 29.3 11.5a 11 NA NA NA NA NA 4.3 13.018 J 0.014 0.1 J NO NA 0.1 6.019 0.32 12.018 J NO NA ND ND YES NO NO 1 NO Nitrosodiphenylamine. ND = Compound not detected at Demo 1 Soil Area therefore considered to exceed the MDC.62 22.800 Manganese 48 48 100 46.14 J 0.56 NO NO NO 2 NO Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 38 3 0.11 J 0.1 0.3 NO YES NO NA Chrysene 3 38 8 0.018 1.25 J 1.012 0.096 J NO NA 0.096 J 0.2 NO YES NO NA Fluoranthene 3 38 8 0.4 NO YES NO Nickel 48 48 100 3. n1 38 3 0.41 0.7 YES YES YES Selenium 28 48 58 0.36 26 13 28 pH<5.If the MDC is less than the background value the constiuent is eliminated as a COPEC.88 NO YES NO 4 NO STEP 1 . Bolded values and chemicals identify COPECs and decision source.6 61. If the maximum detected concentration (MDC) exceeds the USEPA ECO-SSL the constiuent is retained as a COPEC.3 NO NO NO NA Pyrene 5 38 13 0.7 14.2.017 0.036 J NO NA 0. .8 NO 1.9 165 NO 17. therefore the next step will be If the MDC is greater than the MDC in Demo 1 the constituent but the frequncy of detection (FOD) is < 5% the constituent is applied.027 0. 3 Chemical to be retained as a COPEC for the Tango Range.17 0.2 NO YES NO 4 NO Indeno(1.096 J 7 2 3 Max (mg/kg) 47 20.81 4.Maximum Detected Concentration If no USEPA ECO-SSL is available STEP 2 is applied.27 18 330 21 NA 0.Table 3.037 J NO NA 0.920 25. eliminated as a COPEC.060 NO YES NO Mercury 12 48 25 0.088 YES YES YES 2 NO Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 3 38 8 0.2 4.7 NO YES NO Zinc 48 48 100 10.079 J NO NA 0.4 J 1.550 19.6 NO YES NO ND ND YES YES YES Tungsten 17 22 77 0. Page 1 of 1 .2 0.000 1 20 50 0.047 J NO NA 0.75 2.9 405 STEP 2 Exceeds DEMO 1 MDC YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO ≥ 5% FOD STEP 3 Exceeds Retain Demo 1 Background Exceeds as MDC and Background Value2 COPEC?3 ≥ 5% FOD (mg/kg) YES NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NA 10.02 J 0.62 1.8 1.500 NO YES NO Iron 48 48 100 5.7 173 0.018 J 0. STEP 3 .033 NO 0.08 2.019 J 0.56 NO NO NO 2 NO Benzo(a)pyrene 2 38 5 0.05 J NO NA 0. a = USEPA ECO-SSL states that bioavailability and subsequent toxicity is dependant If the MDC is greater than the MDC in Demo 1 the constituent but the FOD is ≥ 5% STEP 3 is applied. 1 Chemical identified as contributing to a risk to one of the assessment endpoints evaluated in the Demo Area 1 ERA.8 NA Exceeds USEPA ECO-SSL NO YES YES NO NO YES NO NO YES Demo Area 1 Min (mg/kg) 0.018 0.7 39.4 3.8 9.8 8. J = Estimated value STEP 2 .23 NO YES NO 2 NO Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 38 3 0.000 5.400 0.18 J NO NA 0.8 0.57 NO NO 0.If the MDC is less than the MDC in Demo 1 the constituent is eliminated as a COPEC.8 0. NA = USEPA ECO-SSL or background value not available for the consituent.3 NO YES 5.560 0.8 8.6 NA 30 100 YES YES YES NO YES YES NO NO YES YES NO YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES NO YES YES NO NO NO YES NO NO YES NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 3 48 23 40 48 48 32 17 48 48 48 4 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 75 100 48 83 100 100 67 35 100 100 100 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO 3.9 J 23.14 J NO NA 0.34 J 2 NO 0.6 28.4 J 22.017 J 0.1 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Soil Screening Level Assessment SAMPLING RESULTS Constituent Detected at Tango Range Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals/Inorganics Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Number of Number of Detections Results FOD (%) Tango Range Min (mg/kg) 3. 2 The background values listed are those reported for natural soils by MADEP.8 NO Vanadium 48 48 100 10.9 0.d)pyrene 1 38 3 0.1 J 0.59 21 7 110 Demo 1 Risk Driver1 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO STEP 1 USEPA ECO-SSL (mg/kg) NA pH<5.85 0.5a 0.If the constituent was a risk driver in Demo 1 it is retained as a COPEC.56 1.300 NO YES YES 2.3-c.= USEPA ECO-SSL or background value not available.11 J NO NA 0.018 0.4 168 NO YES NO Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Benzo(a)anthracene 1 38 3 0.7 5.000 100 300 0.

20E-02 1. (1994).2 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Exposure Parameters for Wildlife Receptors Dietary Fraction Percent of Items in Diet 2 General Receptor Receptor of Interest Wet Weight Food Terrestrial Ingestion1 Plants (kg/day) Earthworms Other Invertebrates Small Small Birds Total Diet Mammals Soil Ingestion Rate (kg/day) 3.08E-04 1.84E-03 9.0.062 0.13E+00 1.30E-02 5.4 Body Weight (kg) Home Range (Ha) Area Use Factor5 (Unitless) Seasonal Use Factor6 (Unitless) Herbivorous Mammal Omnivorous Mammal Carnivorous Mammal Herbivorous Bird Omnivorous Bird Carnivorous Bird Notes: White-footed Mouse Short-tailed Shrew Red Fox Chipping Sparrow American Robin Red-tailed Hawk 4.42 0. 6 Seasonal use factor as cited in AMEC (2005).58 1 1 Wet weight food ingestion rate (kg/day) calculated from measured values for receptors of interest as reported in USEPA (1993) except for chipping sparrow where the ingestion rate of the mourning dove. 3 Soil ingestion rate based upon reference in Beyer et al.10E-02 4.58E-05 2.70E-02 1.04E-02 9. where AUF can not exceed 1. 5 Area use factor (AUF) defined as home range/available habitat.13E-04 7. 1993) was applied.72E-03 2.Table 3. 4 Soil ingestion rate based upon estimate from species occupying a similar trophic level in Beyer et al.84E-02 3. 2 Estimated percentage of dietary food items based upon USEPA (1993) or available scientific literature.13E-03 7. (1994).24E-01 54% 12% 0% 60% 29% 7% 0% 28% 0% 0% 15% 0% 46% 60% 0% 40% 56% 3% 0% 0% 88% 0% 0% 74% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 16% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8.50E-02 8.50E+00 0.25 57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.29E-03 1.39 60 3 0. a similar species that ingests grit (USEPA. 1 of 1 .89E-02 5.

20E-02 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 6 1. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for AssessingTransport of Enviornmentally Released Readionuclides Through Agriculture. C.02E-02 4.49E-02 7. 2004) 2 Baes.50E-03 4 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 MMR specific uptake factor as derived from Draft Final Environmental Risk Characterization Demo 1 Soil Operable Unit (AMEC.00E+00 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.00E+00 2.52E-01 2. 1984. Shor.43E-04 1.11E-02 1. 5 BAF reported in Sample et al. (1998).20E-02 2. R. 3 Lack of corresponding data prevented BAF uptake factor from being estimated. D.15E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.61E+00 2.0 is applied to estimate body burden.00E+00 1.50E-03 0. 1 of 1 . A value of 1. 6 BAF reported in Sample et al.00E+00 1.Table 3.00E+00 7. A. L.00E+00 1..53E-01 6. Sharp.00E+00 5.32E-01 1.71E-01 5. Sjoreen and R.29E+00 2.00E+00 1. ORNL 5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.F.00E+00 8.W.23E-01 4.70E+00 0.3 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Dietary Uptake Factors for Wildlife Receptors Contaminant of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Kow Log Kow Small Mammal Uptake Factor Small Bird Uptake Factor Soil Invertebrate Uptake Factor Terrestrial Plant Uptake Factor 1.00E+00 4 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 2. (1999).00E+00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1. Health and Safety Research Division. 4 Technical approach or BAF value applied in USEPA (1999) used to estimate or identify BAF.10E+00 1.

29E-02 1.13E-03 5.25E-02 6.41E-02 5.72E-01 8.55E-01 2.37E+01 1.79E-01 Toxicity Reference Values NOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) NC 8.45E+00 4.14E+00 1.62E-01 1. 2 Based upon a percent moisture content of 69% in crickets/grasshoppers.91E-03 2.40E+00 3.13E-04 5.94E+01 3.33E+00 1.13E-03 5.40E+02 5.46E+00 5.61E+00 0.13E-04 5.13E-04 1. 1 of 1 .13E-03 5.70E+01 1.13E-03 5.50E+00 1.13E-04 5.28E+01 2.16E-01 1.00E+00 1.37E-02 6.91E-03 7.13E-04 5.06E+00 4.88E-01 Total Daily Dietary Dosage (mg/kg/day) 1.50E-02 1.Table 3. (kg/day) 5.13E-03 5.13E+00 NC 1.94E+00 6.13E+01 NC NC <1 <1 <1 <1 1. NC = No criteria or value available.4 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Calculated Hazard Quotients for the Chipping Sparrow Exposed to COPECs in Surface Soils Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Mean Soil Conc.30E-02 2.13E-04 5.50E-02 1.13E-03 5.13E-01 6.50E-02 1.31E+02 1.47E-03 7.50E-02 1.84E-02 9. (kg/day) 5.36E-03 7.14E+01 LOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) NC NC 1.99E-02 9.72E+01 1 Based upon a percent moisture content of 85% in plants.02E-01 1.50E-02 1.31E-02 1.13E-04 5.17E+01 1.30E+00 2.00E-01 7.13E-04 5.04E-02 1.13E-02 5.7 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ (mg/kg/day) 1 (mg/kg/day) 2 1. (mg/kg) Ingestion Rate Wet Wt.84E-03 2.50E-02 1.32E-03 3.00E+01 6.13E-03 5.23E-02 2.50E-02 1.52E+00 4.13E-03 Dry Wt.50E-02 Body Weight (kg) Terrestrial Plants Dietary Dosage Other Invertebrates Soil (mg/kg/day) 6.

14E+00 NC NC 1.) = (LOAELtest sp.)1) LOAEL(wildlife sp.015 0.70E+01 1. dose with no reproductive effect Duckling mortality NC Damron and Wilson (1975) USFWS (1964) In Sample et al.40E+02 5.13E+00 NC 1. (1996) Edens et al.015 0. (1978) Mehring et al. (1976) In Sample et al.) = (NOAELtest sp. 1 of 1 .70E+01 1.13E+00 NC 1.00E+01 6.14E+01 2. (1996) NOAEL(wildlife sp.015 NC 0.015 NC 8. (1996) NC Formigli et al.)1) NC = No TRV available for compound or surrogate compound.13E+01 NC NC 1. (1986) In Sample et al.0 NC 0.40E+02 5.5 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Toxicity Reference Values for the Chipping Sparrow Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1 2 Body Weight (kg) Test Species Test Species Wildlife Species Test Species (mg/kg) NOAEL LOAEL Chipping Sparrow (mg/kg) NOAEL1 LOAEL2 Toxicological Endpoint Reference NC bobwhite quail Mallard NC 0.15 1.45E+00 4. (1996) mallard duck domestic chicken bobwhite quail NC mallard duck 1.28E+01 NC 8.5 0.14E+00 NC NC 1. dose with no reproductive effect White and Finley (1978) In Sample et al.15 NC 2 1.Table 3.015 0.15 1.015 0.45E+00 4.14E+01 2.13E+01 Reduced egg hatching success NC NC NC Max.17E+01 1.00E+01 Reproductive impairment 6.17E+01 Juvenile mortality 1.28E+01 NC Max. (1960) In Sample et al.

58E-05 8.00E-01 1.67E+00 1.29E-03 4.94E+01 3.37E-02 2.29E-03 4.00E+00 1.58E-05 8.6 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Calculated Hazard Quotients for the Whitefooted Mouse Exposed to COPECs in Surface Soils Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Mean Soil Conc.20E-02 2.40E+01 1.60E+02 NC 1.39E+01 1.85E-03 6.00E+00 5.7 NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ (mg/kg/day) 1 (mg/kg/day) 2 (mg/kg/day) 3 (mg/kg/day) 8.50E+00 1.49E-03 0.29E-03 4.30E+00 2.54E-02 4.78E-01 7.00E+00 0.29E-03 4.35E-01 1.20E-02 2.00E+00 8.29E-02 7.29E-03 4.64E-01 9.20E-02 2.48E-02 LOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) 6.58E-05 8.58E-05 8.00E+01 3.00E+00 0.72E-01 9.48E-01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 37 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 3.72E+01 1 Based upon a percent moisture content of 85% in plants. NC = No criteria or value available.40E+00 3.27E-01 0. 2 Based upon a percent moisture content of 84% in earthworms.00E+00 0.94E-02 1.60E+01 NC 1.74E-02 1.80E-02 2.29E-03 4.36E-01 2. 1 of 1 .52E+00 1.56E-02 1.00E+00 0.29E-03 Dry Wt. (kg/day) 8.49E-02 5.20E-02 Body Weight (kg) Terrestrial Plants Dietary Dosage Earthworms Other Invertebrates Soil Total Daily Dietary Dosage (mg/kg/day) 2.17E-01 4.32E-02 4. (mg/kg) Ingestion Rate Wet Wt.18E-02 5.36E+00 2.00E+00 0.13E-01 3.99E+00 1.84E+01 1.Table 3.20E-02 2.62E-02 4. (kg/day) 4.55E-02 1.29E-03 4.58E-05 8.09E-01 5.57E+00 2.33E-02 1.00E+00 0.21E-02 7.31E+02 1.58E-05 2.80E-04 7.58E-05 8.20E-02 2.71E-02 1.20E-02 2. 3 Based upon a percent moisture content of 69% in crickets/grasshoppers.19E-01 4.23E-03 7.17E-02 4.20E-02 2.35E+00 1.00E+00 0.47E-01 Toxicity Reference Values NOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) 5.58E-05 8.

35 0.25 LOAEL(wildlife sp.40E-02 5. (1978a) in USACHPPM (2001) 1.99E+00 1. (1996) NOAEL(wildlife sp.35 1. hepatic lesions. (1996) Schroeder and Mitchner (1971) In Sample et al.)(bwtsp)/(bwwsp)0.7 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Toxicity Reference Values for the Whitefooted Mouse Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1 2 Body Weight (kg) Test Species Test Species Wildlife Species Test Species (mg/kg) NOAEL LOAEL Whitefooted Mouse (mg/kg) NOAEL1 LOAEL2 Toxicological Endpoint Reference rat mouse mouse rat mink rat NC rat 0.35 0.26E+00 1.28E+00 8. (1996) Sutuo et al.022 0. (1986) In Sample et al. (1980) In Sample et al.00E+01 1. (1973) In Sample et al. (1996) NC Formigli et al.35E-01 1.022 NC 0.35 NC 0.00E+01 Embryo toxicity 3.00E+00 1.36E+00 Declining litter sizes over multiple generations 2. increased kidney damage NC 1.00E+00 8.60E+02 Reduced body wt. (1996) Azar et la. and reproduction.0 0.) = (NOAELtest sp. 1 of 1 .)(bwtsp)/(bwwsp)0.52E+00 1.40E-03 3.39E+01 Weight loss.60E+01 NC 1.022 0. (1996) Aluerich et al.00E+01 NC 7.25E-01 1.48E-01 NC Reduced fertility in male rats Schroeder et al.03 0.31E+01 8.022 0..Table 3. (1996) in Sample et al.) = (LOAELtest sp. Ellis et al.25E+00 1.00E+00 3.022 0.00E+00 NC 7.35E+00 Reduction in life span of treated adults 1.36E-01 2. (1976) In Sample et al.25 NC = No mammalian Toxicity Reference Value was available and therefore the HQ was not calculated.20E+01 1.26E-01 1.48E-02 6.03 0.40E+01 Increased kit mortality 1.022 3.022 0.

90E-02 1.84E-02 7.84E-02 7.Table 3.50E+00 1.14E+00 1.82E-01 1.84E-02 7.84E-02 7.37E+00 (mg/kg/day) 1 (mg/kg/day) 2 (mg/kg/day) 3 (mg/kg/day) 2.10E-02 8.10E-02 8.72E+01 1 Based upon a percent moisture content of 85% in plants.93E-02 7. (kg/day) 7.20E+00 0.77E-03 2.01E+00 9.00E-01 1.30E+00 2.55E-02 2.84E-02 7.40E+00 3.31E+02 1. NC = No criteria or value available.89E-01 1.13E+00 1.84E-02 7.66E+00 1.52E-01 2.01E-02 2.38E-02 4.37E+01 1.7 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Mean Soil Conc.84E-03 8. (mg/kg) Total Daily Dietary Dosage (mg/kg/day) 3.84E-03 7.84E-03 7.94E+01 3.84E-02 7.97E-01 3.06E-01 4.35E+00 1.13E+01 NC NC <1 <1 <1 <1 4.19E-01 1.28E+01 2.14E-02 3.10E-02 8.00E-01 7.04E-01 3.84E-03 7.94E-02 7.00E+01 6.8 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Calculated Hazard Quotients for the American Robin Exposed to COPECs in Surface Soils Ingestion Rate Wet Wt.26E+01 1.45E-01 1.40E+00 1.87E+00 3.84E-03 7.14E+01 LOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) NC NC 1.10E-02 8.17E+01 1.84E-03 7.10E-02 8.10E-02 8.87E-01 2.00E+00 1.40E+02 5.84E-03 7.35E-02 4.21E-01 1.84E-02 Dry Wt.49E-01 3.48E-02 4. (kg/day) 7.45E+00 4. 1 of 1 .10E-02 Body Weight (kg) Terrestrial Plants Dietary Dosage Other Earthworms Invertebrates Soil Toxicity Reference Values NOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) NC 8.13E+00 NC 1.39E-01 1.92E-01 1.10E-02 8. 3 Based upon a percent moisture content of 69% in crickets/grasshoppers.99E+00 5.29E-01 3.26E-01 3.98E-03 1.52E-02 2.84E-03 7.76E+00 2. 2 Based upon a percent moisture content of 84% in earthworms.70E+01 1.

(1960) In Sample et al. (1996) Edens et al. (1996) mallard duck domestic chicken bobwhite quail NC mallard duck 1. (1976) In Sample et al.15 1. (1996) NC Formigli et al.45E+00 4. (1986) In Sample et al.081 0.17E+01 1.13E+01 Reduced egg hatching success NC NC NC Max.40E+02 5. dose with no reproductive effect White and Finley (1978) In Sample et al.015 0.)1) NC = No TRV available for compound or surrogate compound. (1996) NOAEL(wildlife sp.15 NC 2 1.00E+01 Reproductive impairment 6.13E+00 NC 1.14E+00 NC NC 1.45E+00 4.) = (NOAELtest sp.081 0.)1) LOAEL(wildlife sp.14E+01 2.13E+01 NC NC 1. dose with no reproductive effect Duckling mortality NC Damron and Wilson (1975) USFWS (1964) In Sample et al.28E+01 NC Max.14E+00 NC NC 1.00E+01 6. 1 of 1 .Table 3.14E+01 2.081 NC 0.13E+00 NC 1.081 0.0 NC 0.9 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Toxicity Reference Values for the American Robin Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1 2 Body Weight (kg) Test Species Test Species Wildlife Species Test Species (mg/kg) NOAEL LOAEL American Robin (mg/kg) NOAEL1 LOAEL2 Toxicological Endpoint Reference NC bobwhite quail Mallard NC 0.70E+01 1.40E+02 5.5 0.081 NC 8.) = (LOAELtest sp.70E+01 1.15 1.28E+01 NC 8.17E+01 Juvenile mortality 1. (1978) Mehring et al.

16E-02 4.70E+01 NC 1.04E-03 5.58E-02 LOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) 6.31E+02 1.53E-02 1.39E+00 1. (kg/day) 1.89E-02 1.08E-04 2.44E-01 1.04E-02 1.04E-02 Dry Wt.22E-01 Toxicity Reference Values NOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) 6.70E-02 1.04E-02 1.70E-02 1.08E-04 2.45E-01 2. (mg/kg) Ingestion Rate Wet Wt.04E-03 1.70E-02 1.70E-02 1.13E+01 3.13E+00 9.91E-02 2.77E-01 0.11E-02 3.59E-02 7.40E+00 3.70E-02 1.11E-02 4.94E+01 3.04E-02 1.08E-04 1.41E-03 3.50E+00 1.93E-03 2.30E-02 1.11E-01 4.10E-03 9.70E+02 NC 1.37E-01 4.04E-02 1.25E-01 1. 3 Based upon a percent moisture content of 69% in crickets/grasshoppers.70E-02 Body Weight (kg) Terrestrial Plants Dietary Dosage Earthworms Other Invertebrates Soil Total Daily Dietary Dosage (mg/kg/day) 2.72E+01 1 Based upon a percent moisture content of 85% in plants.70E-02 1.84E+01 1.84E-02 2.71E-03 3.08E-04 2.08E-04 2.10 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Calculated Hazard Quotients for the Short-tailed Shrew Exposed to COPECs in Surface Soils Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Mean Soil Conc.08E+00 1.10E-01 1. NC = No criteria or value available.44E+00 1.59E-02 4.49E-02 4.04E-02 1.58E-01 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 46 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4.Table 3.6 NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ (mg/kg/day) 1 (mg/kg/day) 2 (mg/kg/day) 3 (mg/kg/day) 5.07E+00 9.03E-01 2.73E-02 2.04E-02 1.37E-01 1.60E+00 5.42E-02 3.00E+00 3.60E+00 1.28E-01 3. 2 Based upon a percent moisture content of 84% in earthworms.45E-03 2.70E-02 1.08E-04 2. (kg/day) 2.08E-04 2.17E-01 4.04E-02 2.32E-03 3.71E-01 1.63E+01 1.30E+00 2.45E+00 2. 1 of 1 .63E-02 5.04E-02 1.65E+00 1.16E-02 3.00E-01 1.08E-04 2.82E+01 1.

.40E-03 3.25E+00 1.11 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Toxicity Reference Values for the Shortailed Shrew Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1 2 Body Weight (kg) Test Species Test Species Wildlife Species Test Species (mg/kg) NOAEL LOAEL Shortailed Shrew (mg/kg) NOAEL1 LOAEL2 Toxicological Endpoint Reference rat mouse mouse rat mink rat NC rat 0.) = (NOAELtest sp.70E+02 Reduced body wt.00E+00 1.017 3.35 0. 1 of 1 .70E+01 NC 1.03 0. increased kidney damage NC 1.63E+01 Increased kit mortality 1.00E+00 NC 7.00E+01 1.35 0.58E-02 6.40E-02 6. (1973) In Sample et al.017 0.45E+00 Declining litter sizes over multiple generations 2.28E+00 8. (1996) Sutuo et al.13E+00 9.82E+01 Weight loss.26E+00 1.00E+01 NC 7.13E+01 Embryo toxicity 3.39E+00 1.44E+00 Reduction in life span of treated adults 1.25E-01 1.20E+01 1. (1996) Azar et la. (1996) Aluerich et al.017 0.017 0. (1980) In Sample et al. and reproduction. (1976) In Sample et al.35 1.35 NC 0. (1996) NC Formigli et al.45E-01 2.00E+00 3.26E-01 1.) = (LOAELtest sp.017 0.03 0.Table 3.0 0.44E-01 1.58E-01 NC Reduced fertility in male rats Ellis et al.)(bwtsp)/(bwwsp)0.31E+01 8.25 LOAEL(wildlife sp.017 NC 0. 1.25 NC = Toxicity reference value not available.017 0.)(bwtsp)/(bwwsp)0. (1978a) in USACHPPM (2001) Schroeder et al.08E+00 1. (1996) Schroeder and Mitchner (1971) In Sample et al. (1996) NOAEL(wildlife sp. (1996) in Sample et al. hepatic lesions. (1986) In Sample et al.

50E+00 4.59E-01 2.00E-01 7.34E-03 7.34E-02 Soil (mg/kg/day) 4.30E+00 2.30E-01 4.32E-01 7.40E-02 2.70E+01 1. 1 of 1 .14E-02 1.72E-03 9.40E+02 5.85E-01 1. NC = No criteria or value available.89E-04 1.14E+01 LOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) NC NC 1.82E-01 3.81E-01 5.53E-03 6.72E-01 4.49E-03 3.72E-03 9.94E+01 3.56E-02 1.50E+00 4.72E+01 1 Based upon a percent moisture content of 85% in plants.24E-01 3.17E+01 1.00E+00 2.24E-01 3.24E-01 3.16E-01 Toxicity Reference Values NOAEL Dosage (mg/kg/day) NC 8.72E-03 9.24E-01 3.50E+00 4.28E+01 2.13E+01 NC NC <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ (mg/kg/day) 1 (mg/kg/day) 2 3.52E-03 Birds (mg/kg/day) 7.31E+02 1.14E-02 1. (kg/day) 3.01E-02 1.14E+00 1.50E+00 4.00E+00 3.03E-02 3.50E+00 Body Weight (kg) Terrestrial Plants Other Invertebrates Dietary Dosage Small Mammals (mg/kg/day) 3.12 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Calculated Hazard Quotients for the Red-tailed Hawk Exposed to COPECs in Surface Soils Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Mean Soil Conc.70E-03 8.38E-04 2.13E+00 NC 1.32E-04 1.38E-02 3.24E-01 Dry Wt.72E-03 9.15E-02 1.24E-01 3.72E-02 Total Daily Dietary Dosage (mg/kg/day) 5.40E+00 3.46E-04 1.24E-01 3.00E-03 1.37E+01 1.96E-03 5. 2 Based upon a percent moisture content of 84% in earthworms.24E-03 3.48E-07 2.Table 3.96E-02 0.13E-03 4. (mg/kg) Ingestion Rate Wet Wt.17E-03 2.50E+00 4.27E-03 7.72E-03 9.50E+00 1.22E-02 5.57E-03 7.45E+00 4.15E-05 4.72E-03 9.25E-02 1.50E+00 4.00E+01 6.72E-03 9.17E-04 1.20E-02 1.50E-02 2.18E-02 7. (kg/day) 9.16E-03 6.72E-03 4.50E+00 4.24E-01 3.23E-01 2.00E-02 0.

40E+02 5.50 NC 4.28E+01 NC 8. (1976) In Sample et al.17E+01 1.0 NC 4.14E+01 2. (1996) NC Formigli et al.) = (LOAELtest sp. (1978) Mehring et al.45E+00 4. (1996) mallard duck domestic chicken bobwhite quail NC mallard duck 1.)1) NC = No TRV available for compound or surrogate compound.00E+01 6.14E+01 2.50 0.17E+01 Juvenile mortality 1. dose with no reproductive effect Duckling mortality NC Damron and Wilson (1975) USFWS (1964) In Sample et al. (1960) In Sample et al.13E+00 NC 1. dose with no reproductive effect White and Finley (1978) In Sample et al.13E+00 NC 1.50 4.40E+02 5.15 1.70E+01 1.28E+01 NC Max.15 NC 2 1.50 NC 8.15 1.)1) LOAEL(wildlife sp.70E+01 1. (1986) In Sample et al.50 4.00E+01 Reproductive impairment 6.13E+01 NC NC 1.) = (NOAELtest sp. (1996) Edens et al. 1 of 1 .14E+00 NC NC 1. (1996) NOAEL(wildlife sp.13E+01 Reduced egg hatching success NC NC NC Max.015 4.14E+00 NC NC 1.45E+00 4.13 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Toxicity Reference Values for the Red-tailed Hawk Body Weight (kg) Test Species Test Species Wildlife Species Test Species (mg/kg) NOAEL LOAEL Red-tailed Hawk (mg/kg) NOAEL1 LOAEL2 Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1 2 Toxicological Endpoint Reference NC bobwhite quail Mallard NC 0.5 0.Table 3.

40E+00 3.7 NC = No criteria or value available.89E-02 9.39E+01 5.09E-03 Birds (mg/kg/day) 6.80E-03 1.72E+01 Ingestion Rate Wet Wt.30E-02 1.30E-02 1.01E-03 3.09E-02 7.46E+00 1.89E-02 9.30E-02 1.89E-02 9.Table 3.1 <1 <1 <1 <1 47 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4.05E-02 5.45E-02 3. 1 of 1 .13E+00 1.89E-02 9.73E-02 1.30E-02 1.05E-01 5.09E-01 7.31E+02 1.51E-02 1.98E-01 Total Daily Dietary Dosage (mg/kg/day) 7.01E-01 1.89E-02 Dry Wt.61E-01 Toxicity Reference Values LOAEL NOAEL Dosage Dosage (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) 1.21E-03 3.14 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Calculated Hazard Quotients for the Red Fox Exposed to COPECs in Surface Soils Mean Soil Conc. (mg/kg) 1. (kg/day) 1.13E+00 1.46E-01 3.12E-01 1.18E+00 5.04E-03 5.03E-02 6.73E-02 5. (kg/day) 9.77E-01 6.30E-02 Body Weight (kg) Dietary Dosage Small Mammals (mg/kg/day) 4.93E-02 2.23E-01 3.18E-02 4.91E-02 3.30E-02 1.80E-02 2.52E-03 2.97E+01 NC 5.84E+01 1.27E+01 5.71E-03 2.99E-07 6.89E-02 9.11E-02 4.89E-02 9.73E-02 1.13E+00 1.50E+00 1.89E-02 9.130E+00 5.50E+00 1.13E+00 <1 1.70E-02 5.97E+00 NC 5.39E-01 5.65E-01 5.13E+00 1.94E+01 3.30E-03 2.78E-02 Soil (mg/kg/day) 2.30E-02 1.13E+00 1.00E-01 1.13E+00 1.52E-02 Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ 1.95E+00 5.30E+00 2.14E-02 1.13E+00 1.30E-02 1.

130 1. (1973) In Sample et al.03 0.25 NC = Toxicity reference value not available.05E-01 5. (1996) NC Reduced fertility in male rats 7.27E+01 Increased kit mortality 5. and reproduction. 1 of 1 .00E+01 NC 7.. hepatic lesions.26E-01 1.Table 3.25E+00 1.18E+00 5.0 0.97E+01 Reduced body wt. (1978a) in USACHPPM (2001) 5.15 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Toxicity Reference Values for the Red Fox Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium 1 2 Body Weight (kg) Test Species Test Species Wildlife Species Test Species (mg/kg) NOAEL LOAEL Red Fox (mg/kg) NOAEL1 LOAEL2 Toxicological Endpoint Reference rat mouse mouse rat mink rat NC rat 0.31E+01 8.09E-01 Reduction in life span of treated adults Declining litter sizes over multiple generations Schroeder et al.40E-02 2.130 1.39E+01 Weight loss. (1996) Schroeder and Mitchner (1971) In Sample et al. (1986) In Sample et al. (1996) in Sample et al.40E-03 3.130 1.00E+00 1. Ellis et al.)(bwtsp)/(bwwsp)0.35 1.00E+00 3. (1996) Sutuo et al. increased kidney damage NC 5.00E+00 NC 7. (1996) Aluerich et al.)(bwtsp)/(bwwsp)0.24E+00 5.46E+00 Embryo toxicity 1.09E-02 7.) = (LOAELtest sp.28E+00 8.) = (NOAELtest sp.26E+00 1.35 0.97E+00 NC 5.25 LOAEL(wildlife sp.00E+01 1.20E+01 1.05E-02 5.52E-03 2.03 0.35 NC 0.25E-01 1.130 1.130 NC 1.35 1. (1996) Azar et la.46E-01 3.130 1. (1976) In Sample et al. (1980) In Sample et al.52E-02 NOAEL(wildlife sp. (1996) NC Formigli et al.130 3.

9E+01 3.1E-03 3.8E-01 1.7E-03 7. HIs>1.3E-02 4.1E-01 8.8E-02 1.3E-02 1.2E-02 1.6E+00 4.9E+00 3.2E-01 4. and COPECs with at least one HQ > 1 are in bold Reproductive HI = ∑ (nitroglycerin HQ + arsenic HQ + cadmium HQ + copper HQ + vanadium HQ) Growth HI = ∑ (lead HQ) Survival HI = ∑ (antimony HQ) 1 of 1 .5E-02 3.1E-02 2.1E+00 LOAEL HQ 3.7E+00 4.1E-04 2.16 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Summary of Hazard Quotients (HQs) and Hazard Indices (HIs) to Mammals from Soil Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Reproductive HI Growth HI Survival HI White-footed Mouse Short-tailed Shrew Red Fox NOAEL HQ 6.1E-03 9.1E-01 1.6E-02 4.1E-02 3.7E+00 1.1E-02 1.8E-02 4.2E-01 4.7E+01 4.3E-01 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 8.9E-01 8.0E-02 2.8E+01 6.1E-02 -.2E-02 4.7E+01 3.2E-02 2.1E-03 2.4E-02 1.1E-02 6.7E+01 1.8E-01 1.1E-01 4.8E+00 6.1E-01 NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ 4.7E+00 3.2E-02 4.= Risk not calculated because of a lack of toxicity data HQs >1.7E-02 3.6E-03 1.2E-01 2.6E+01 4.2E-01 4.2E-01 1.1E+00 9.1E-01 8.3E-01 2.1E-01 3.Table 3.4E-02 3.3E-01 4.2E-02 4.8E-03 6.

9E+00 1.3E-03 5.4E-04 6.7E+00 1.1E-01 1.0E-04 8.6E-02 1.2E-01 4.2E-04 2.= Risk not calculated because of a lack of toxicity data HQs >1. and COPECs with at least one HQ > 1 are in bold Reproductive HI = ∑ (antimony HQ + cadmium HQ + lead HQ + vanadium HQ) Growth HI = No Growth Endpoint Applicable Survival HI = ∑ (arsenic HQ + copper HQ) 1 of 1 .Table 3.7E+00 4.6E-02 7.0E-01 3.0E-02 1.4E-02 1.0E-05 4.6E-03 7.0E-02 7.1E-01 4.7E+00 2.0E-02 3.0E-02 7.0E-02 -.9E-02 2.6E-03 2.0E-02 1.1E-02 4. HIs>1.9E-05 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 4.17 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Tango Range Summary of Hazard Quotients (HQs) and Hazard Indices (HIs) to Birds from Soil Tango Range COPECs Explosives Nitroglycerin Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Tungsten Vanadium Reproductive HI Growth HI Survival HI Chipping Sparrow American Robin Red-tailed Hawk NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ NOAEL HQ LOAEL HQ 5.1E-02 7.8E-02 7.7E-01 1.7E-03 1.7E-01 2.2E-03 8.7E-01 2.9E-03 2.2E-03 2.4E-02 2.0E-01 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 1.

APPENDIX B T Range April 2007 Firing Line Preliminary Soil Results .

2 25300 33000 5.6 0.1 16300 50000 6.4 44500 3300 7.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .1 25700 30000 6.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .LK Analyte Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Result 33000 6.5 U W-3 Duplicate SSTRW3S-0-3-01D W-3 Duplicate SSTRW3S-0-3-01D W-3 Duplicate SSTRW3S-0-3-01D W-4 W-4 W-4 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 SSTRW4S-0-3-01 SSTRW4S-0-3-01 SSTRW4S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 SSTRC1S-0-3-01 U B Page 1 of 5 .LK SW8330 SW9045 TOC .1 42600 ND 6.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc U 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 0.62 12.9 30500 ND 7.LK SW8330 SW9045 TOC .1 18700 ND 6.7 19400 0.16 1.8 137 19.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .6 Qual RL 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 Units ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .6 1.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 SW9045 TOC .LK SW8330 SW9045 TOC .Table B-1 T Range April 2007 Soil Data Preliminary Results Top of Sampling Interval (inches) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottom of Sampling Interval (inches) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Data has NOT been validated Area of Concern Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Location W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-2 W-2 W-2 W-3 W-3 W-3 Sample ID SSTRW1S-0-3-01 SSTRW1S-0-3-01 SSTRW1S-0-3-01 SSTRW1S-0-3-02 SSTRW1S-0-3-02 SSTRW1S-0-3-02 SSTRW1S-0-3-03 SSTRW1S-0-3-03 SSTRW1S-0-3-03 SSTRW1S-0-3-04 SSTRW1S-0-3-04 SSTRW1S-0-3-04 SSTRW2S-0-3-01 SSTRW2S-0-3-01 SSTRW2S-0-3-01 SSTRW3S-0-3-01 SSTRW3S-0-3-01 SSTRW3S-0-3-01 Date 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 Method SW8330 SW9045 TOC .9 26800 30000 5.

6 1.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .4 10.3 ND 6.4 6780 ND 7.9 23.4 22.2 10.6 1.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 Analyte Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Result 3800 6.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .2 7.6 0.5 2500 0 500 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .6 0.2 49.5 2500 0 500 0.6 3700 6.16 1.9 22.16 1.5 2500 0 500 0.6 0.4 7830 ND 8.5 Units ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg U U U U B U Page 2 of 5 .6 0.9 3800 6.6 0.16 1.2 5050 ND 8.4 Qual RL 2500 0 500 0.6 1.1 2600 6.2 5900 0.5 8030 ND 12.8 26.Table B-1 T Range April 2007 Soil Data Preliminary Results Top of Sampling Interval (inches) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Bottom of Sampling Interval (inches) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Data has NOT been validated Area of Concern Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Location C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 Sample ID SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-3-6-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-6-9-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-9-12-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-12-18-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 SSTRC1D-18-24-01 Date 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 Method SW8330 SW9045 TOC .6 1.7 45.6 1.9 22.16 1.4 24.5 2500 0 500 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .16 1.

6 0.6 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .2 12300 2.2 206 28 ND 6.5 Units ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg B U B U B U U U U Page 3 of 5 .16 1.8 11500 0.7 ND 6.16 1.6 1.5 2500 0 500 0.5 2500 0 500 0.0 9740 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 Analyte Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Result ND 7.4 Qual U RL 2500 0 500 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .5 9450 ND 8.7 193 31.Table B-1 T Range April 2007 Soil Data Preliminary Results Top of Sampling Interval (inches) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bottom of Sampling Interval (inches) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Data has NOT been validated Area of Concern Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Location C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 Sample ID SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2S-0-3-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-3-6-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-6-9-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-9-12-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 SSTRC2D-12-18-01 Date 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/20/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 Method SW8330 SW9045 TOC .6 1.6 0.16 1.5 2500 0 500 0.7 32.6 1.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .7 35 518 23.6 1.4 40.5 2500 0 500 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .2 7520 ND 10.16 1.72 9.6 0.83 19.6 1.16 1.3 96.1 ND 7.3 31 ND 6.6 0.

0 18900 6900 5.LK SW8330 SW9045 TOC .1 37000 Qual U RL 2500 0 500 0.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .0 41100 ND 6.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 Analyte Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Result ND 6.Table B-1 T Range April 2007 Soil Data Preliminary Results Top of Sampling Interval (inches) 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottom of Sampling Interval (inches) 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Page 4 of 5 Data has NOT been validated Area of Concern Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Location C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-4 C-4 C-4 Sample ID SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC2D-18-24-01 SSTRC3S-0-3-01 SSTRC3S-0-3-01 SSTRC3S-0-3-01 SSTRC4S-0-3-01 SSTRC4S-0-3-01 SSTRC4S-0-3-01 Date 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/17/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 Method SW8330 SW9045 TOC .LK Total Organic Carbon U 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 U .4 10100 4300 6.LK SW8330 SW9045 TOC .LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .9 33.8 37.LK SW8330 SW9045 TOC .2 5330 ND 21.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .9 20100 ND 6.9 18500 5300 5.1 29900 ND 7.0 18300 8200 6.16 1.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 SW9045 TOC .6 1.5 2500 0 500 Units ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg U SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .1 2700 7.6 0.LK Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon U 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 C-4 Duplicate SSTRC4S-0-3-01D C-4 Duplicate SSTRC4S-0-3-01D C-4 Duplicate SSTRC4S-0-3-01D E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-2 E-2 E-2 E-3 E-3 E-3 SSTRE1S-0-3-01 SSTRE1S-0-3-01 SSTRE1S-0-3-01 SSTRE1S-0-3-02 SSTRE1S-0-3-02 SSTRE1S-0-3-02 SSTRE1S-0-3-03 SSTRE1S-0-3-03 SSTRE1S-0-3-03 SSTRE1S-0-3-04 SSTRE1S-0-3-04 SSTRE1S-0-3-04 SSTRE2S-0-3-01 SSTRE2S-0-3-01 SSTRE2S-0-3-01 SSTRE3S-0-3-01 SSTRE3S-0-3-01 SSTRE3S-0-3-01 U SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .2 11000 ND 7.

0-3 inches) Sequential sample number Notes: * Data has NOT been validated All samples were ground at CRREL prior to extraction and analysis CRREL BLANK .Table B-1 T Range April 2007 Soil Data Preliminary Results Top of Sampling Interval (inches) 0 0 0 Bottom of Sampling Interval (inches) 3 3 3 Data has NOT been validated Area of Concern Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Tango Range Location E-4 E-4 E-4 Sample ID SSTRE4S-0-3-01 SSTRE4S-0-3-01 SSTRE4S-0-3-01 CRREL Blank 1 CRREL Blank 1 CRREL Blank 1 CRREL Blank 2 CRREL Blank 2 CRREL Blank 2 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-24-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 CRREL Blank 4-25-07 Date 4/19/2007 4/19/2007 4/19/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/24/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 4/27/2007 Method Analyte Result ND 6.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .5 2500 0 500 0.2 Qual U RL 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 2500 0 500 0.4 16. Soil Sample Tango Range West. D -0-3-01.16 1.6 0.5 15800 ND 8.0 ND 0.2 ND ND 8. 4 S.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .4 ND 8. Center. C.3 68. etc.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW8330 SW9045 TOC .39 8.6 1. -02.5 Units ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg ug/Kg SU mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg mg/Kg SW8330 Nitroglycerin SW9045 pH TOC .2 ND ND 4.7 15. E 1.6 0.LK SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 SW6010 Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc Nitroglycerin pH Total Organic Carbon Antimony Copper Lead Zinc U U U U U U U U U B FLDSAMPID Scheme - SS TR W. 3.16 1.3 ND ND 8.Two blanks are provided by CRREL with each Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Page 5 of 5 . or East section Section distance from Firing Line Surfical or Depth Sample Depth of sample interval in inches from surface (ex.LK Total Organic Carbon SW8330 SW9045 TOC .2 3. 2.6 1.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->