Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA)

Prepared for

Baker School District 5J 2090 4th Street

Baker City, Oregon 97814 &

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 811 Southwest 6th Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES

Ostwald Machine Shop 2430 Balm Street

Baker City, Oregon

Prepared by

621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600

Portland, Oregon 97205

Project Number: PNG0573

June 14, 2013

ii June 14, 2013

Attn: Katie Robertson Prepared for

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant Ave, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801

Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. ______________________________ Jessica Black Task Order Manager

Reviewed by

______________________________ Joey Hickey Program Manager

iii June 14, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1

3. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS .................................................... 2 3.1 June 2010 Investigation ............................................................................... 2 3.2 October 2010 Investigation ......................................................................... 2 3.3 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model ............................................................ 2 3.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................. 2 3.5 Contamination Sources ................................................................................ 3 3.6 Nature and Extent of Contamination ........................................................... 3

3.6.1 Soil .................................................................................................. 3 3.6.2 Groundwater .................................................................................... 3 3.6.3 Detection Summary ......................................................................... 3 3.6.4 Nature and Extent ............................................................................ 4

3.7 Contaminants of Interest .............................................................................. 4 3.7.1 Surface Soil (0-3 Feet bgs) .............................................................. 4 3.7.2 Subsurface Soil ............................................................................... 4 3.7.3 Groundwater .................................................................................... 4

3.8 Exposure Pathway Analysis ........................................................................ 5 3.8.1 Potential Human and Ecological Receptors .................................... 5 3.8.2 Exposure Pathways for Soil ............................................................ 5 3.8.3 Exposure Pathways for Groundwater ............................................. 5

3.9 Regulatory Considerations .......................................................................... 6 3.9.1 State Cleanup Values ...................................................................... 6 3.9.2 RCRA Classification ....................................................................... 7 3.9.3 Miscellaneous Hazardous Substances Laws and Regulations ........ 8

4. ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ....................... 8 4.1 Remedial Action Area ................................................................................. 8 4.2 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................. 9 4.3 Evaluation Framework ................................................................................ 9 4.4 Hot Spot Analysis ...................................................................................... 10

4.4.1 Hot Spot Evaluation ...................................................................... 10

iv June 14, 2013

4.5 Definition and Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives ................................ 11

4.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................. 11 4.5.2 Alternative 2 – Excavation of All Soils Above RBCs with Off-site Disposal .................................................................................................... 11 4.5.3 Alternative 3 – Excavation of RCRA Listed Soils with Off-site Disposal and Installation of a Cap ............................................................ 13 4.5.4 Alternative 4 – Installation of a Cap ............................................. 14

5. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION .................. 15

6. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 15

7. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 16

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 17

v June 14, 2013

TABLES

Table 1: Engineering Estimate – Alternative 2 Table 2: Engineering Estimate – Alternative 3 Table 3: Engineering Estimate – Alternative 4 Table 4: Engineering Score Sheet

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Plan Layout

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: 2010 Site Investigation – Tables and Figures

1 June 14, 2013

1. INTRODUCTION This Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) report has been prepared for the former Ostwald Machine Shop (Site) located at 2430 Balm Street in Baker City, Oregon (Figure 1). This ABCA was completed under Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Task Order No. 21-13-8 and in general accordance with the Budget and Assumptions Proposal (BAP) dated April 24, 2013.

Our understanding is the Northeast Oregon Economic Development District (NEOEDD) is working with the Baker School District to facilitate the transfer of the property ownership from the Ostwald Estate to the School District. The services described herein were funded by NEOEDD’s “Baker, Union and Wallowa Counties Community-Wide Brownfield Assessments” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cooperative Agreement through an Intergovernmental Agreement with the DEQ.

This ABCA was completed to meet the requirements of Oregon Coalition Brownfields Cleanup Fund Program and the applicable DEQ regulatory requirements. Cleanup alternatives were evaluated in a manner consistent with the EPA ABCA process as required prior to implementation of a cleanup design. More specifically, the purpose of the ABCA document is to present viable cleanup alternatives based on site-specific conditions, technical feasibility and preliminary cost evaluations.

This ABCA includes information regarding:

• Information about the site and contamination issues (i.e., exposure pathways, identification of contaminant sources, etc.), cleanup standards, applicable laws, alternatives considered and the proposed cleanup;

• Effectiveness, implementability, and the cost of alternatives, including the preferred or proposed cleanup alternative;

• A comparative analysis of the alternatives considered; and • An assessment of whether additional land-use controls will be necessary after

the remediation is complete.

2. BACKGROUND The Site is a rectangular-shaped property comprised of approximately 0.2 acres of developed land. The former machine shop and four other structures referred to as sheds (sheds #1 through #4) are located on the Site. Currently the Site is vacant. Figure 2 shows the layout of the property.

Based on historical documents, the machine shop operated at the Site from at least 1927 through approximately 2005.

2 June 14, 2013

3. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS The following sections summarize the previous environmental investigations that were completed at the Site.

3.1 June 2010 Investigation In June 2010, Steve Ritch Environmental Construction completed a limited soil and groundwater investigation at the Site, which included the advancement of three direct push explorations. Various contaminants of interest (COI) were detected, including arsenic, lead, chromium, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to soil at concentrations above risk-based screening levels. Arsenic was also document in groundwater above RBCs.

3.2 October 2010 Investigation A baseline Site Investigation (SI) was completed by GeoEngineers at the Site in October 2010 to further evaluate soil and groundwater conditions. A total of 23 soil explorations were advanced at the Site from depths ranged from 1 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater was generally encountered between 6 and 8 feet bgs. Sampling activities confirmed the presence of elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead, and chromium as well as the presence of PAHs. Section 3.6 of this ABCA details the nature and extent of the contamination.

3.2.1 Preliminary Conceptual Site Model A conceptual site model (CSM) defines the potentially complete exposure pathways through which human or ecological receptors may be exposed to site contaminants under current or anticipated future land use conditions. A discussion of Site geology and hydrogeology, potential contaminant sources, and the nature and extent of contamination are presented in Sections 3.6.1 through 3.6.3. An evaluation of current and reasonably likely future receptor-exposure pathway analysis is presented in Section 3.7. Appendix A contains copies of the pertinent tables and figures from the 2010 SI.

3.2.2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology Surface topography at the Site is generally flat and the surface elevation is approximately 3,432 feet above sea level. Based on previous investigations at the Site, the subsurface geology consists of 1 to 5 feet of brown silt and clay overlying poorly-graded gravel with silt. Groundwater beneath the Site has been encountered between 6 to 8 feet bgs and the anticipated direction of groundwater flow is to the northwest (GeoEngineers, 2010).

3 June 14, 2013

3.2.3 Contamination Sources Contamination at the Site is likely a result of years of machine shop operations. The use of petroleum compounds and metals is well documented in historic machine shop operations.

3.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination

3.3.1 Soil Low concentrations of gasoline-, diesel- and oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are present in soil at the site. PAHs- and metals were detected in soil at concentrations above DEQ risk based concentrations (RBCs) in the upper 2 feet of the soil found within the footprint of machine shop and shed #1. Arsenic, chromium and lead were also detected at concentrations above RBCs in the soil between 4 and 8 feet bgs under these two structures. (GeoEngineers, 2010).

3.3.2 Groundwater Gasoline-, diesel- and oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, PAHs, dissolved metals and PCBs were detected in groundwater samples at concentrations less than the DEQ RBCs. Dissolved arsenic was detected in groundwater at concentrations greater than the DEQ RBCs for the ingestion and inhalation from tap water pathways for residential, urban residential and occupational exposure in eleven of the samples collected for analysis.

An onsite groundwater well was identified in previous site visits. GeoEngineers attempted to collect a sample from this well using the existing well pump without success. A power supply was unavailable on site at the time of sampling so the drilling personnel temporarily wired the pump to operate using a portable generator. The pump operated under portable power and primed using distilled water, but did not produce water.

3.3.3 Detection Summary The following constituents were reported in one or more of the soil samples analyzed:

• Gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations ranging from 3.69 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 5.97 mg/kg;

• Diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons at a concentration of 19.9 mg/kg; • Oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations ranging from 72.3 mg/kg

to 4,960 mg/kg; • Acetone at a concentration of 0.0529 mg/kg; • Several PAHs at concentrations ranging from 0.008 mg/kg to 0.465 mg/kg;

4 June 14, 2013

• Total and soluble (filtered) metals including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver;

• PCBs, specifically Aroclor 1260, at concentrations ranging from 0.016 mg/kg to 0.0953 mg/kg.

The following constituents were reported in one or more of the groundwater samples analyzed:

• Cis-1,2-dichloroethene at a concentration of 2.44 micrograms per liter (µg/L); and

• Several dissolved metals at concentrations ranging from 0.11 µg/L to 140 µg/L.

3.3.4 Nature and Extent The nature and extent of contamination consists of shallow soils underneath and around the machine shop and shed #1. In general, contamination was noted in the upper 3 feet of soil. Figure 2 shows the lateral extent of the impacted area.

3.4 Contaminants of Interest COI for the site include chemicals that were detected in soil and groundwater during the 2010 SI and previous investigations.

3.4.1 Surface Soil (0-3 Feet bgs) The following COI were identified in subsurface soil (0-3 feet bgs):

• Gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons. • Diesel- and oil-range petroleum hydrocarbons. • VOCs: acetone. • PAHs: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorine, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene

• Metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and silver. • PCBs.

3.4.2 Subsurface Soil The following COI were identified in subsurface soil (>3 feet bgs):

• Metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and silver.

3.4.3 Groundwater The following COI were identified in groundwater:

5 June 14, 2013

• VOCs: cis-1,2-dichloroethene. • Dissolved metals: arsenic, barium cadmium, lead, and selenium.

3.5 Exposure Pathway Analysis The following elements comprise a potentially complete pathway: 1) a chemical source; 2) a mechanism of chemical release to the environment; 3) an environmental transport medium; 4) an exposure point where contact between the contaminated medium and the receptor occurs; and 5) an exposure route at the exposure point.

As part of the 2010 SI, GeoEngineers conducted a Beneficial Land and Water Use (BLWU) survey and evaluated potential exposure pathways. An evaluation of potential receptors and exposure pathways is discussed below.

3.5.1 Potential Human and Ecological Receptors Potential human receptors for the site were determined to include:

• Adults and children in a residential scenario

• Adults in an occupational, construction or excavation worker scenario No ecological receptors are anticipated because the site is located in an urban setting. In addition, no ecologically valuable habitat is present on site.

3.5.2 Exposure Pathways for Soil The following summarizes the potential exposure pathways for soil.

• Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation – These exposure pathways are considered complete for residential, occupational, construction and excavation workers.

• Volatilization to Outdoor Air – This exposure pathway is considered complete for residential and occupational workers.

• Vapor Intrusion into Buildings – This exposure pathway is considered complete for residential and occupational workers.

• Leaching to Groundwater – This exposure pathway is considered complete for residential and occupational workers. The site maintains a water well that could be used for drinking water purposes.

3.5.3 Exposure Pathways for Groundwater The following summarizes the potential exposure pathways for groundwater.

• Ingestion and Inhalation from Tapwater – These exposure pathways are considered complete for residential and occupational workers due to the on-site well.

6 June 14, 2013

• Volatilization to Outdoor Air – This exposure pathway is considered complete for residential and occupational workers.

• Vapor Intrusion into Buildings – This exposure pathway is considered complete for residential and occupational workers.

• Groundwater in Excavation– This exposure pathway is considered complete for occupational workers.

3.6 Regulatory Considerations The following are applicable laws and regulations for the COI present at the Site.

3.6.1 State Cleanup Values Cleanup values will be based on the most current DEQ RBCs (June 2012) and/or State of Oregon default background metal concentrations (March 2013). The following provides a summary of the COI that were detected above the most conservative RBC or default background metal concentration.

Soil

COI Applicable Cleanup

Value (mg/kg)

Source

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.015 Residential RBC for surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation pathway

Benzo(a)anthracene 0.15 Residential RBC for surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation pathway

Benzo(b)fluranthene 0.15 Residential RBC for surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation pathway

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.015 Residential RBC for surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation pathway

Naphthalene 0.072 Residential RBC for leaching to groundwater pathway

Arsenic 14 State of Oregon regional default background metal concentrations for Blue Mountains

7 June 14, 2013

Lead 400 Residential RBC for soil ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation pathway

Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) was detected in the duplicate soil sample collected during the 2010 investigation. Due to the lack of methylene chloride in the primary sample and the fact that methylene chloride is a common lab contaminant, the detection was not included in the remedial action area.

Groundwater During the 2010 investigation, dissolved arsenic was detected in 11 of the 13 groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 2.4 µg/L. The residential RBC for ingestion and inhalation from tapwater is 0.038 µg/L. While dissolved arsenic was detected in most of the shallow groundwater samples, it was not included in the remedial action. The reasoning for this includes:

• Dissolved arsenic was detected ubiquitously across the site at consistent concentrations. There was not a decrease in concentrations on the assumed upgradient side of the machine shop, nor increased concentration on the assumed down gradient side.

• The EPA maximum contaminant limit (MCL) is 10 µg/L. All of the detections at the site were below the MCL.

• A review of the Oregon Public Health Department’s groundwater sampling for the Baker City public water supply system (PWS #00073) arsenic has been detected in the groundwater wells that supply the public water system at concentrations up to 4.04 µg/L

Based on this additional information, the DEQ concluded that the concentration of arsenic in the shallow groundwater is most likely due to naturally occurring arsenic in the formation and the detected concentrations appear to be consistent with or lower than those for the public water supply system.

3.6.2 RCRA Classification During the 2010 Investigation, the surface soil sample from DP-17 exhibited a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) value for lead of 18.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which exceeds the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste determination value of 5 mg/L. Therefore, the soil in the vicinity of DP-17 (0-1) is considered a D008 listed hazardous waste.

8 June 14, 2013

3.6.3 Miscellaneous Hazardous Substances Laws and Regulations Other state and federal regulations that may be applicable include, but are not limited to, the current revision of the EPA and State of Oregon Hazardous Waste Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 260-282, 22a-209 and 22a-449(c), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200), OSHA Hazardous Waste and Emergency Response Regulations (29 CFR 1910.120), United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulation (49 CFR 171-180), OSHA, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and all other laws and regulations.

4. ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES The purpose of this ABCA is to identify and evaluate relevant cleanup alternatives that reduce contaminant concentrations to levels that are protective of human health and the environment. This ABCA was completed in general accordance with EPA guidelines for conducting an ABCA and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) for conducting feasibility studies (OAR 340-122-085). This ABCA contains the following elements:

• Remedial action area. • Evaluation of proposed cleanup alternatives. • Presentation of the recommended alternative. • Discussion of the residual risks associated with the recommended alternative.

4.1 Remedial Action Area Three main zones of contamination were considered as part of the remedial action area.. The first includes shallow soils within the footprint of the machine shop and limited soils inside shed #1 on the north side. During the 2010 investigation, shallow soils samples from DP-7, DP-9, DP-15, DP-16, DP-17, DP-18 and DP-21 contained concentration of either VOCs, arsenic or lead above the applicable standards discussed in Section 3.6. All of the elevated concentrations except for one were detected in samples at depths less than 2-feet bgs. Lead was detected in DP-16 above the 400 mg/kg cleanup value at a depth of 4-feet bgs. Based on the detections, the remedial action area around the machine shop consists of shallow soils (0-3) feet in the area shown on Figure 2. Due to the detection of lead in DP-16 at greater depths, we have assumed that the remedial action area will extend down to 5-feet in the vicinity of DP-16.

The second zone in the remedial action area consists of shallow soils in the vicinity of DP-23, which was advanced inside of Shed #1. The remedial action area within Shed #1 consists of soils from 0-3 feet bgs, from a 5’x 5’ square centered around DP-23.

Within the remedial action area, approximately a 10’x10’ area will be considered a D008 RCRA listed hazardous waste.

9 June 14, 2013

The third zone in the remedial action area consists of the onsite water well. As discussed in Section 3.6.1, the low level detections of arsenic in groundwater are not considered a risk, we have determined that the onsite water well should be decommissioned. This is based on the fact that it is an unregistered well and the construction methods and details for the well are unknown.

4.2 Remedial Action Objectives Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the property have been developed to protect receptors and provide the underlying basis for developing and evaluating remedial actions. The RAOs for the Site are:

• Reduce or prevent potential risk to human health and/or the environment from hazardous substances at the Site, during Site re-development; and

• Prevent or limit potential exposure of current and future Site users, workers, or ecological receptors to hazardous substances.

4.3 Alternatives Considered The objective of each of the following alternatives is to reduce exposure by managing contaminants present at the site to levels protective of human health and the environment. Because of the nature of the contaminants, the urban nature of the site and the limited remedial action area, only a few remedial alternatives warrant detailed evaluation. For this reason, the following four remedial alternatives are evaluated for this ABCA.

• No action (baseline). • Excavation and off-site disposal for all soils that exceed residential RBCs with

the decommissioning of groundwater well. • Excavation of soils that are considered a RCRA hazardous waste, the

implementation of engineering controls and the placement of a surface cap. Decommissioning of the groundwater well.

• Use of engineering controls and surface cap. Decommissioning of groundwater well.

4.4 Evaluation Framework Each alternative was evaluated for effectiveness, implementability and cost. The feasibility of the alternative involves a determination whether the alternative is a practical solution for addressing the cleanup of contaminants at the site. Factors considered include: 1) technical feasibility; 2) administrative feasibility; 3) availability of services and materials; 4) state acceptance; and 5) community acceptance.

The effectiveness of the alternative involves its ability to meet the objectives of the overall project. Criteria considered in evaluating the effectiveness of the alternatives include: 1) protection of public health and the environment; 2) compliance with

10 June 14, 2013

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements; 3) long-term effectiveness and permanence; 4) reduction of the hazard; and 5) short-term effectiveness.

4.5 Hot Spot Analysis Oregon DEQ Cleanup Rules specify that the balancing factors used in final remedy selection be weighted differently for media that is considered a contamination "hot spot" as compared to media that is not. If a hot spot is identified, DEQ Cleanup Rules require treatment and/or excavation and off-site disposal of hot spots to the extent that such actions are feasible. If a hot spot is present, the feasibility of treatment or excavation is evaluated based on the balancing factors with a higher threshold on the reasonableness of cost.

This section of this report provides a preliminary evaluation of the presence of screening level-based hot spots and an evaluation of the reasonableness of cost for treating or excavating these preliminary hot spots versus the benefits created through risk reduction.

4.5.1 Hot Spot Evaluation OAR 340-122-115(32)(b) defines hot spots in media (other than water) as hazardous substances that present a risk to human health or the environment exceeding the acceptable risk level determined through a risk assessment and that meet any of the following criteria:

• Are highly concentrated contaminants present in concentrations exceeding risk-based concentrations;

• Are highly mobile; and • Are not reliably containable, as determined in a feasibility study.

The following subsections evaluate each of the hot spot criteria.

4.5.1.1 Highly Concentrated Hot Spot Criteria The DEQ Hot Spot Guidance (DEQ, 1998 and DEQ Hot Spot Table June 7, 2012) includes pre-calculated “highly concentrated” hot spot levels in soil for human exposure via ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact. None of the detected COI concentrations from the previous sampling events exceed the June 7, 2012 hotspot criteria look up values. As such, the remedial action area is not considered a highly concentrated hot spot as defined by the DEQ Hot Spot Guidance.

4.5.1.2 Highly Mobile Hot Spot Criteria If hazardous substances in soil can migrate to groundwater or surface water and cause significant adverse effects to the beneficial uses of the water, and if treatment is reasonably likely to restore or protect such beneficial uses within a reasonable time, the area of impacted soil is considered a "highly mobile" hot spot. The cleanup rules clearly

11 June 14, 2013

contemplate that this mobility includes mobility that may be associated with infiltration and leaching of contaminants in subsurface soils into groundwater; it may also be associated with stormwater runoff into surface water. The leaching to groundwater pathway is not considered significant in this hot spot evaluation because it is unlikely that shallow groundwater at the site will be used for beneficial purposes in the future. With the decommissioning of the water well, the onsite use of groundwater will be eliminated.

Hazardous substances from the site could also be considered hot spots if they are reasonably likely to migrate to such an extent that they would create an unacceptable risk in media other than water, such as in sediments, and that risk is "highly concentrated" as defined above, or the hazardous substances are uncontainable as determined in a feasibility study. This risk is minimal because the nearest surface water is over 1,000 feet from the area of assumed contamination. Therefore, no “highly mobile” hot spot areas are identified.

4.5.1.3 Not Reliably Containable Hot Spot Criteria The extent to which hazardous substances cannot be reliably contained is generally evaluated in the feasibility study. As discussed in future sections of this report, all the potential remedies considered except the “No Action” alternative can reliably and effectively contain soil contaminants. Therefore, there are no "not reliably containable" hot spot areas identified.

4.6 Definition and Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives The remedial alternatives are defined and discussed below.

4.6.1 Alternative 1 – No Action This alternative is included for baseline purposes only and is not considered a long-term solution to environmental issues present at the site. This alternative would not include any activities to remove, treat, monitor, or manage site contamination. If impacted soil were left in place, human exposure to surface soil is possible and the potential for contaminant migration would exist. This alternative is not protective of human health and the environment and RAOs would not be achieved. This alternative is not further evaluated because it will not achieve the RAOs.

4.6.2 Alternative 2 – Excavation of All Soils Above RBCs with Off-site Disposal Alternative 2 would consist of removing soil containing COI at concentrations above applicable RBCs and disposing of the material at an off-site permitted landfill. Assuming an average excavation depth of 3 feet bgs, the estimated volume of material to be removed is 140 cubic yards (approximately 200 tons). The actual volume of soil could be lower or higher. Approximately 12 cubic yards of the excavated material

12 June 14, 2013

would be considered a RCRA listed waste (D008). Soil would be loaded into trucks using one or more excavators and hauled to the landfill.

In order to complete the excavation under the former machine shop the structure will need to be demolished. In order to demolish the machine shop a hazardous building material (HBM) survey will need to be completed. This survey will identify any asbestos containing material (ACM) or lead based paint (LBP) that may need to be addressed prior demolition. As such, Alternative 2 includes the demolition and off-site disposal of both structures.

Upon completion of the building demolition and excavation, the area would be backfilled with ¾-inch minus rock to a depth of 18-inches bgs. The upper 18-inches of each excavation would be backfilled with top soil. Due to limited volume of soil planned for excavation in Shed #1, the removal will be conducted using either hand tools or using an air knife (vacuum truck excavation).

Alternative 2 also includes the decommissioning of the onsite water well. At this time the specifications on the well are unknown. We have assumed the well has a casing diameter of 6-inches with a total depth of 100 feet. The well would be decommissioned via over-drilling with subsequent grouting of the former well.

4.6.2.1 Effectiveness Successful removal of the impacted soil with elevated concentrations of COI and the decommissioning of the well would eliminate the potential for future human exposure and require no long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) monitoring. Alternative 2 would be effective in achieving the goals of reduction of health risks and facilitating the redevelopment of the site.

4.6.2.2 Implementability Soil removal and well decommissioning use common construction equipment and is readily implementable. Excavation and well decommissioning could be implemented with little difficulty because these construction services are widely used and well understood. Excavation and off-site disposal can be completed using standard construction procedures and conventional earthmoving equipment.

4.6.2.3 Costs A breakdown of the anticipated cost for this alternative is provided in Table 1. The estimated cost for Alternative 2 including a 15 percent contingency is approximately $126,000.

13 June 14, 2013

4.6.3 Alternative 3 – Excavation of RCRA Listed Soils with Off-site Disposal and Installation of a Cap

The excavation portion of Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 except that only soils that are considered a RCRA hazardous waste would be excavated and disposed of off-site. Assuming an excavation depth of 3-feet bgs, the estimated volume of D008 listed waste that will be generated is approximately 12 cubic yards (17 tons). As noted in Alternative 2, the machine shop would need to be demolished to obtain access to the soils. It may be possible to remove the soils within the machine shop using an air knife system, but due to the dry soils and the limited access, we have provided costs for the demolition of the structure. Upon completion of the excavation, the area would be backfilled with ¾-minus rock to the existing ground surface.

Upon completion of the excavation of listed waste, the remedial action area would be paved with asphalt. The asphalt cap would effectively isolate the contaminated soil from direct human contact.

As described in Alternative 2, the on-site well would also be decommissioned as part of Alternative 3.

Alternative 3 would include the implementation of institutional controls through the implementation of an equitable easement and servitude (EE&S) document. The institutional controls would require that future site use would not disturb the asphalt cap and the soils under the cap. In addition, this alternative would require the development of a contaminated media management plan (CMMP) for the site. The CMMP would document how to identify, classify and properly handle contaminated media at the site.

4.6.3.1 Effectiveness Alternative 3 would be effective in achieving the goal of reducing potential exposures to COI in soils. The use of an asphalt cap will require long-term monitoring and maintenance. The cap will need to be evaluated periodically and failures will need to be repaired or replaced.

Institutional controls do not change the magnitude of contamination present in the soil, but they can be effective in preventing exposure to contamination at a site. The effectiveness of the institutional controls depend on successful implementation and long-term maintenance. Appropriate mechanisms to manage the institutional controls would need to be incorporated into the existing land use management processes.

Alternative 3 would be less effective than Alternative 2 in achieving the goals of reduction of health risks and facilitating the redevelopment of the site.

4.6.3.2 Implementability Implementation of Alternative 3 is similar to Alterative 2. Soil removal and placement of a cap utilizes common construction equipment and is readily implementable.

14 June 14, 2013

Institutional controls could be easily implemented and there is minimal capital cost associated with this alternative. The long term O&M costs would depend on the duration of monitoring program and other regulatory requirements.


4.6.4 Alternative 4 – Installation of a Cap Alternative 4 involves the demolition and disposal of the machine shop, with the subsequent capping of the remedial action area with an asphalt cap. No soils would be removed from the site. The asphalt cap would effectively isolate the contaminated soil from direct human contact.

As described in Alternatives 2 and 3, the on-site well would also be decommissioned as part of Alternative 4.

Alternative 4 would include the implementation of institutional controls that would require that future site use would not disturb the asphalt cap and the soils under the cap.

4.6.4.1 Effectiveness Alternative 4 would be effective in achieving the goal of reducing potential exposures to COI in soils. The use of an asphalt cap will require long-term monitoring and maintenance. The cap will need to be evaluated periodically and failures will need to be repaired or replaced.

Institutional controls do not change the magnitude of contamination present in the soil, but they can be effective in preventing exposure to contamination at a site. The effectiveness of the institutional controls depends on successful implementation and long-term maintenance. Appropriate mechanisms to manage institutional controls would need to be incorporated into the existing land use management processes.

Alternative 4 would be less effective than Alternative 2 and 3 in achieving the goals of reduction of health risks and facilitating the redevelopment of the site.

4.6.4.2 Implementability Implementation of Alternative 4 is similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. Placement of a cap utilizes common construction equipment and is readily implementable.

Institutional controls could be easily implemented and there is minimal capital cost associated with this alternative. The long term O&M costs would depend on the duration of monitoring program and other regulatory requirements. In addition, this alternative would require the development of a contaminated media management plan

15 June 14, 2013

(CMMP) for the site. The CMMP would document how to identify, classify and properly handle contaminated media at the site.


5. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION An ABCA has been completed for Ostwald Machine Shop in Baker City, Oregon. Four alternatives were considered for implementability, effectiveness and cost:

• Alternative 1 - No action (baseline). • Alternative 2 - Excavation and offsite disposal. • Alternative 3 - Limited excavation of soils, engineering controls and surface

cap. • Alternative 4 - Engineering controls and surface cap.

Alternatives 1 through 4 are evaluated on Table 4. The preferred alternative for this Site is Alternative 2. The following text provides the primary rationale for selecting this alternative.

• Alternative 1 (No Action) does not meet the RAOs, provides no long-term reliability, and inhibits beneficial reuse.

• Alternative 2 meets all the RAOs outperformed Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 in all categories.

• Alternative 3, while it meets RAOs, scored lower than Alternative 2 because the long term reliability is relatively uncertain, the need for long-term monitoring, and additional institutional controls (no disturbance of soil cap). In addition, Alternative 3 has a higher estimated cost.

• Alternative 4, , while it meets the RAOs, scored lower than Alternative 2 and 3 due to the lack of removal of any contaminated soil.

Based upon an evaluation of these criteria, and the limited nature of the contamination, Alternative 2 – Excavation of all soils above RBCs is the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 also includes the decommissioning of the onsite.

6. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS EPA guidance for conducting ABCAs establishes provisions to protect ecological receptors and endangered species, cultural resources and public interest. GeoEngineers

16 June 14, 2013

has not conducted an endangered species survey of the site. Prior to the implementation of the chosen alternative, the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC) should be contacted for a listing of endangered species within a 2-mile radius of the site. Since this site is considered an urban area, it is unlikely that site remedial activities will endanger critical habitat.

In addition, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will need to be consulted to determine the cultural (archeological) or historical implication of performing remedial actions at the site.

ABCA provisions also provide for a public comment period. It is our understanding that this ABCA will be made available to the public for review and comment prior to implementing the selected remedial alternative.

7. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this ABCA for use by the Oregon DEQ and the Baker City School District. This ABCA is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices in this area at the time this ABCA was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.

17 June 14, 2013

8. REFERENCES GeoEngineers, 2010. Site Investigation Report, Ostwald Machine Shop, 2430 Balm

Street, Baker City, Oregon, 14 December 2010.

Means, Environmental Remediation Cost Data Assemblies, 2003.

Means, Environmental Remediation Estimating Methods, 2003.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Guidance for Consideration of Land Use in Environmental Remedial Actions, 1998.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment: Levels I, II, III, IV Final, 1998.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Guidance for Identification of Hot Spots. April 23, 1998.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Pre-Calculated Hot Spot Look-Up Tables. October 20, 1998 (updated May 31, 2005).

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites, Including Table of Generic Risk-Based Concentrations for Petroleum Constituents and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Generic Remedy for Simple Risk-Based Sites, 2003, revised June 2012.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Development of Background Metal Concentrations in Soil, March 2013

State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Cleanup Site Information Database: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecsi/ecsi.htm

http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecsi/ecsi.htm

TABLES

Activity Unit Amount Unit Cost Extended Cost Assumptions/ Estimate Source

Decommissioning of water well ls 1 $30,000 $30,000

Assumes the well is 6-inches in diameter and 100-feet deep. Also assumes well will need to be over drilled with an air rotary rig. Daily cost is $7,500 per day. If the well can be grouted in place, estimated cost is $10,000.

Completion of HBM Survey ls 1 $6,000 $6,000Mobilization/Demobilization of excavation equipment ls 1 $6,000 $6,000

Demolition and disposal of maintenance shop ls 1 $9,000 $9,000Soil Excavation cy 140 $20 $2,800

Soil Transportation for non-haz ton 190 $30 $5,700Soil Transportation for haz ls 1,000 $1 $1,000

Soil Disposal for non-haz ton 200 $40 $8,000Soil Disposal for haz ton 17 $270 $4,536

Supply and placement of backfill ton 210 $25 $5,250Consultant oversight day 5 $1,200 $6,000

Permitting ls 1 $2,500 $2,500Confirmation soil sampling ls 1 $800 $800

Subtotal $87,586

Project management and administration ls 1 $5,200 $5,200 Assumes approximately 5% of the estimated project total without contingency.

Development of implementation Work Plan ls 1 $7,500 $7,500Closeout report ls 1 $8,000 $8,000

Subtotal $20,700Project Subtotal $108,286

15% Contingency $16,243$124,529

Notes:

hr = hourea = each

ls = lump sumcy = cubic yard

Other assumptions: Costs were derived from cost assemblies in Means 2003, vendor quotes and Geosyntec's previous project experience.

TABLE 1ENGINEERING ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 2

OSTWALD MACHINE SHOPBaker City, Oregon

Field Activities

Reporting and Project Management

ALTERNATIVE 2 TOTAL





Demolition and disposal of maintenance shop ls 1 $9,000 $9,000Soil Excavation cy 12 $50 $600

Soil Transportation for haz ls 1,000 $1 $1,000Soil Disposal for haz ton 17 $270 $4,536

Supply and placement of backfill ton 17 $25 $425Purchase and placement of asphalt cap ls 1 $8,000 $8,000

Consultant oversight day 3 $1,200 $3,600Permitting ls 1 $2,500 $2,500

Confirmation soil sampling ls 1 $600 $600Subtotal $72,261

5 year reviews in Years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 ls 6 $4,000 $24,000 Assumes 5-year annual reports requiredSubtotal $24,000


Preparation of CMMP and institutional controls ls 1 $10,000 $10,000Development of implementation Work Plan ls 1 $7,500 $7,500

Closeout report ls 1 $8,000 $8,000Subtotal $31,600

Project Subtotal $127,86115% Contingency $19,179

$147,040

Notes:

hr = hourea = eachls = lump sumcy = cubic yard





Field Activities

Operation and Maintenance Costs

ALTERNATIVE 3 TOTAL





Demolition and disposal of maintenance shop ls 1 $9,000 $9,000Purchase and placement of asphalt cap ls 1 $8,000 $8,000

Consultant oversight day 3 $1,200 $3,600Permitting ls 1 $2,500 $2,500

Confirmation soil sampling ls 1 $600 $600Subtotal $65,700

5 year reviews in Years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 ls 6 $4,000 $24,000 Assumes 5-year annual reports requiredSubtotal $24,000


Preparation of CMMP and institutional controls ls 1 $10,000 $10,000Development of implementation Work Plan ls 1 $7,500 $7,500

Closeout report ls 1 $8,000 $8,000Subtotal $31,250

Project Subtotal $120,95015% Contingency $18,143

$139,093

Notes:

hr = hourea = eachls = lump sumcy = cubic yard





Field Activities

Operation and Maintenance Costs

ALTERNATIVE 3 TOTAL

Criteria Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 2 - Excavation of All Soils

Above RBCs

Alternative 3 - Excavation of Hot Spots

with use of a Cap

Alternative 4 - Cap Only

Effectiveness 0 1 0.5 0.5Reliability 0 1 0.5 0.5Implmentability 0 1 0.75 0.75Implementation Risk 0 1 0.75 0.75Cost 1 0.75 0.5 0.5

Summary 1 4.75 3 3

Notes:Score of "1" - This alternative is the most favorable for this criterion compared to the other alternatives.Score of "0.5" - This alternative is equal to other alternative.Score of "0" - This alternative is the least favorable for this criterion compared to other alternatives.Score of "0.25" or "0.75" - This alternative is slightly more favorable for this criterion compared to other alternatives.

TABLE 4ENGINEERING SCORING SHEET


FIGURES

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),TomTom, 2013

P:\GI

S\PN

G057

3_Os

twald

Mac

hine S

hop\

proje

ct\2

0130

5_AB

CA\F

ig1_S

iteLo

catio

n.mxd

³

Site Location

Site Location MapOstwald Machine Shop

Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA)2430 Balm Street

Baker City, Oregon

Project No: PNG0573

Legend

Site Location

Map Sources Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS,Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),TomTom, 2012

0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles

Figure

1

APPENDIX A

Gasoline-Range Hydrocarbons

(Northwest Method NWTPH-Gx) (Northwest Method NWTPH-Dx)(mg/kg) (mg/kg)

SampleIdentification

DateSampled

Sample depth (feet bgs)

Headspace Vapor (ppm) Sheen Gasoline Diesel Oil

DP-1 (1.5-2.5) 10/18/2010 1.5-2.5 <10 NS <2.88 <17.3 <57.7DP-1 (5-6.3) 10/18/2010 5-6.3 <10 NS <3.49 <20.9 <69.7DP-2 (6-7.8) 10/18/2010 6-7.8 <10 NS <2.79 <16.7 <55.7DP-3 (6.5-7.6) 10/18/2010 6.5-7.6 <10 NS <2.74 <16.5 <54.9DP-4 (5-7) 10/18/2010 5-7 <10 NS <2.58 <15.5 <51.7DP-5 (0-1.5) 10/18/2010 0-1.5 <10 NS <2.73 <16.4 <54.6DP-6 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 <10 NS <2.81 <16.9 <56.2

DP-7 (0-1.5) 10/18/2010 0-1.5 -- -- <2.86 <17.2 <57.2

DP-8 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 <10 NS <2.85 <17.1 <56.9

DP-9 (1-2) 10/19/2010 1-2 -- -- <2.73 <16.4 <54.7

DP-10 (7-8.2) 10/19/2010 7-8 <10 NS <2.65 <15.9 <53.0

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <10 NS <2.58 <15.5 <51.6

Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- -- -- <2.60 <15.6 <52.1

DP-12 (1-2) 10/19/2010 1-2 <10 NS <2.61 <15.7 <52.3

DP-13 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <10 NS <2.65 <15.9 <53.0

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 -- -- 5.97 <17.1 4,960

DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 <10 NS <3.08 19.9 72.3

DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <10 NS <2.65 <15.9 635

DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <10 NS <2.79 <16.8 265

DP-17 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 <10 NS <3.29 <19.7 <65.8

DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <10 NS 3.69 <84.0 3,500

DP-18 (1-2.5) 10/18/2010 1-2.5 <10 NS <3.13 <18.8 <62.7

DP-19 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <10 NS <2.79 <16.8 <55.9

DP-20 (1-2.3) 10/18/2010 1-2.3 <10 NS <2.75 <16.5 <55.1

DP-21 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 <10 NS <2.99 <17.9 <59.8

DP-22 (0-2.5) 10/19/2010 0-2.5 <10 NS <2.65 <15.9 <53.0

Duplicate-2 10/19/2010 -- -- -- <2.74 <16.4 <54.8DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-0.5 -- -- 4.05 <15.3 3,830

DEQ Generic Risk-Based Concentrations (mg/kg) 3

Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation

Residential 740 3,900 9,800

Urban Residential 1,500 8,300 20,000

Occupational 22,000 70,000 *

Construction Worker 13,000 23,000 40,000

Excavation Worker * * *

Volatilization to Outdoor Air

Residential 5,100 * *

Urban Residential 5,100 * *

Occupational 100,000 * *Vapor Intrusion into Buildings

Residential 160 * *Urban Residential 160 * *Occupational * * *

Leaching to GroundwaterResidential 26 2,800 *Urban Residential 26 2,800 *Occupational 110 * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon

2See Appendix A for a description of the field screening methods and a description of the sheen classifications used for this project. NS = no sheen.3Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Risk Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petrolium-Contaminated Sites, revised September 2009.

*This RBC is either; 1) not established, 2) exceeds the solubility limit or 3) is greater than a concentration where free product would be present.

-- = not analyzed

bgs = below ground surface

mg/kg= milligrams per kilogram

ppm = parts per million

<10 = analyte not detected above method detection limit value shown.

Bold indicates analyte detection.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA1

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONSOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON

Field Screening Results2

Diesel- and Oil-Range Hydrocarbons

File No. 2787-059-00Table 1, December 14, 2010 Page 1 of 1


DateSampled

Sample depth

(feet bgs) Ace

tone

Ben

zene

Bro

mob

enze

ne

Bro

mod

ichl

orom

etha

ne

Bro

mof

orm

Bro

mom

etha

ne

But

ylbe

nzen

e, n

-

But

ylbe

nzen

e, s

ec-

tert

-But

ylbe

nzen

e

Car

bon

tetr

achl

orid

e

Chl

orob

enze

ne

Chl

orod

ibro

mom

etha

ne

Chl

oroe

than

e

Chl

orof

orm

Chl

orom

etha

ne

2-C

hlor

otol

uene

4-C

hlor

otol

uene

1,2-

Dib

rom

o-3-

Chl

orop

ropa

ne

1,2-

Dib

rom

oeth

ane

Dib

rom

omet

hane

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 0.0529 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-0.5 <0.05 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Applicable DEQ Risk-Based Concentrations 3

Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and InhalationResidential * 7.3 * 3 81 46 * * * 3.3 530 7.6 * 5.1 1400 * * * 0.14 *Urban Residential * 24 * 12 210 92 * * * 10 1100 20 * 22 2900 * * * 0.53 *Occupational * 34 * 15 360 710 * * * 15 8,300 34 * 25 25000 * * * 0.68 *Construction Worker * 340 * 210 2,700 330 * * * 150 4,300 260 * 380 25,000 * * * 8.1 *Excavation Worker * 9,500 * 5,800 76,000 9,200 * * * 4,100 * 7,200 * 11,000 * * * * 230 *

Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential * 10 * 2.1 * 170 * * * 5.2 * * * 3.4 * * * * 0.13 *Urban Residential * 27 * 5.7 * 170 * * * 14 * * * 9.2 * * * * 0.35 *Occupational * 50 * 11 * 700 * * * 26 * * * 17 * * * * 0.65 *

Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential * 0 * 0.13 * 1.3 * * * 0.042 59 * * 0.027 24 * * * 0.0095 *Urban Residential * 0 * 0.35 * 1.3 * * * 0.11 59 * * 0.074 24 * * * 0.026 *Occupational * 1 * 1.9 * 17 * * * 0.63 * * * 0.41 300 * * * 0.14 *

Leaching to GroundwaterResidential * 0.0093 * 0.0025 0.22 0.098 * * * 0.013 6.5 0.016 320 0.0033 2.2 * * * 0.000081 *Urban Residential * 0.042 * 0.012 0.76 0.2 * * * 0.055 13 0.055 650 0.017 4.5 * * * 0.00039 *Occupational * 0.053 * 0.013 1.6 0.41 * * * 0.073 27 0.11 1400 0.017 9.4 * * * 0.00044 *

Volatile Organic Compounds

(EPA Method 8260B)

(mg/kg)

TABLE 2SUMMARY OF SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA1

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON



DateSampled

Sample depth (feet

bgs) 1,2-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,3-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

Dic

hlor

odifl

uoro

met

hane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

cis-

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

tran

s-1,

2-D

ichl

oroe

then

e

1,2-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

opro

pene

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

cis-

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pene

tran

s-1,

3-D

ichl

orop

rope

ne

2,2-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

2-H

exan

one

Ethy

lben

zene

Hex

achl

orob

utad

iene

Isop

ropy

lben

zene

p-Is

opro

pylt

olue

ne

2-B

utan

one

(MEK

)

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-0.5 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020


Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and InhalationResidential 2,200 * 13 * 52 3.2 1800 780 590 * * * * * * * 30 * 3,500 * *Urban Residential 4,400 * 62 * 190 12 3,500 1600 1200 * * * * * * * 110 * 7,000 * *Occupational 35,000 * 63 * 250 15 27,000 10,000 9,200 * * * * * * * 140 * 53,000 * *Construction Worker 19,000 * 1200 * 2,900 180 12,000 3,100 4,500 * * * * * * * 1,600 * 24,000 * *Excavation Worker * * 34,000 * 81,000 5,000 * 86,000 * * * * * * * * 44,000 * * * *

Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential * * 7.1 * 49 3 * * 2,000 * * * * * * * 31 * * * *Urban Residential * * 19 * 130 8.1 * * 2,000 * * * * * * * 85 * * * *Occupational * * 36 * 240 15 * * * * * * * * * * 160 * * * *

Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential * * 1.1 * 0.39 0.039 54 * 16 * * * * * * * 0.82 * * * *Urban Residential * * 3 * 1.1 0.11 54 * 16 * * * * * * * 2.2 * * * *Occupational * * 17 * 6 0.59 680 * 200 * * * * * * * 12 * * * *

Leaching to GroundwaterResidential 70 * 0.081 * 0.037 0.0014 11 6 2.5 * * * * * * * 0.16 * * * *Urban Residential 140 * 0.43 * 0.18 0.0068 22 12 5 * * * * * * * 0.77 * * * *Occupational 290 * 0.41 * 0.2 0.0077 45 24 10 * * * * * * * 0.9 * * * *

OSTWALD MACHINE SHOPBAKER CITY, OREGON


(EPA Method 8260B)

(mg/kg)


VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS



DateSampled

Sample depth (feet

bgs) Dic

hlor

omet

hane

(M

ethy

lene

Chl

orid

e)

4-M

ethy

l-2-p

enta

none

(M

IBK

)

MTB

E (m

ethy

l t-b

utyl

et

her)

Nap

htha

lene

Pro

pylb

enze

ne, n

-

Styr

ene

1,1,

1,2-

Tetr

achl

oroe

than

e

1,1,

2,2-

Tetr

achl

oroe

than

e

Tetr

achl

oroe

then

e (P

CE)

Tolu

ene

1,2,

3-Tr

ichl

orob

enze

ne

1,2,

4-Tr

ichl

orob

enze

ne

1,1,

1-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

1,1,

2-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Tric

hlor

oflu

orom

etha

ne

1,2,

3-Tr

ichl

orop

ropa

ne

1,2,

4-Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

1,2,

3 Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

1,3,

5-Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

Viny

l chl

orid

e

Xyl

enes

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- 0.0699 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-0.5 <0.050 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.030


Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and InhalationResidential 68 * 220 4.6 * 7,900 * * 1.1 5800 * * 53,000 5.2 0.83 7,600 * 110 * 94 0.34 1,400Urban Residential 200 * 720 25 * 16,000 * * 3 12,000 * * * 19 2.9 15,000 * 220 * 190 0.76 2,900Occupational 310 * 1,000 23 * * * * 5.1 77,000 * * * 25 3.9 * * 2,000 * 1,600 3.9 25,000Construction Worker 2,700 * 10,000 580 * 51,000 * * 40 24,000 * * * 290 43 63,000 * 2,000 * 1,500 30 19,000Excavation Worker 75,000 * * 16,000 * * * * 1,100 * * * * 8,100 1,200 * * 54,000 * 42,000 830 *

Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential 170 * 300 5.4 * * * * 13 * * * * 4.9 0.86 * * 230 * 200 5.3 *Urban Residential 450 * 810 15 * * * * 36 * * * * 13 2.4 * * 230 * 200 6.5 *Occupational 830 * 1,500 27 * * * * 66 * * * * 24 4.3 * * 980 * * 89 *

Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential 1.3 * 4.9 6.5 * * * * 0.11 * * * * 0.18 0.0083 190 * 82 * 12 0.043 100Urban Residential 3.6 * 13 18 * * * * 0.29 * * * * 0.49 0.023 190 * 82 * 12 0.053 100Occupational 20 * 74 99 * * * * 1.6 * * * * 2.7 0.13 * * 1000 * 150 2.2 *

Leaching to GroundwaterResidential 0.038 * 0.092 0.087 * 390 * * 0.0054 140 * * 400 0.0046 0.0023 72 * 16 * 3.1 0.00051 25Urban Residential 0.15 * 0.41 0.47 * 770 * * 0.019 280 * * 800 0.022 0.011 140 * 33 * 6.3 0.0012 50Occupational 0.23 * 0.52 0.44 * * * * 0.037 * * * * 0.025 0.012 300 * 68 * 13 0.01 100

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical of Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. September 2009.

*This RBC is either: 1) not established; 2) exceeds the solubility limit or 3) is greater than a concentration where free product would be present.

EPA = U.S. Environmental Proection Agency.

RBC = Risk-based concentration.

DEQ = Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram;

"<50" indicates analyte not detected above the method reporting limit.


ND- Not Detected

Shading indicates concentration exceeds one or more of the DEQ's RBCs for complete exposure pathways.


C:\Documents and Settings\jmichaud\My Documents\SharePoint Drafts\278705900 SI report\[278705900_Tables_amw.xlsx]T2


(EPA Method 8260B)

(mg/kg)


VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON


Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(EPA Method 8270-SIM or 8270C)

(mg/kg)

TABLE 3


POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONSOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON

Sample Identification Date Sampled

Depth of Sample

(bgs) Ant

hrac

ene

Ace

naph

then

e

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

Ben

zo(b

)fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zo(k

)fluo

rant

hene

Chr

ysen

e

Dib

enz(

a,h)

anth

race

ne F

luor

anth

ene

Flu

oren

e

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-cd)

pyre

ne

Nap

htha

lene

Phe

nant

hren

e

Pyr

ene

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667

Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 0.00733 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 <0.00667 0.012 <0.00667 <0.00667 0.0167 0.0247 0.012

DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 0.0147 <0.00667 0.0173 0.0367 0.034 0.0327 0.052 0.0513 0.0807 0.014 0.0813 0.0133 0.0287 0.163 0.175 0.0733

DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 0.014 <0.00667 0.0153 0.0653 0.0627 0.0413 0.094 0.0653 0.196 0.253 0.22 0.008 0.038 0.058 0.261 0.167

DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 0.056 0.00867 0.032 0.266 0.243 0.128 0.416 0.0953 0.317 0.05 0.0107 0.02 0.122 0.0913 0.455 0.465

DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 0.0113 <0.00667 0.008 0.026 0.0413 0.02 0.0393 0.0553 0.132 <0.00667 0.13 <0.00667 0.0207 0.0487 0.27 0.119DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-1 0.0113 <0.00667 <0.00667 0.0653 0.0393 0.0247 0.07 0.056 0.0673 <0.00667 0.103 <0.00667 0.018 0.0393 0.123 0.07


Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and InhalationResidential 23,000 4,700 * 0.15 0.015 * 0.15 1.5 15 0.015 2,300 3,100 0.15 4.6 * 1,700Urban Residential 47,000 9,400 * 0.34 0.034 * 0.34 3.4 34 0.034 4,600 6,300 0.34 25 * 3,400Occupational * 61,000 * 2.7 0.27 * 2.7 27 270 0.27 29,000 41,000 2.7 23 * 21,000Construction Worker 93,000 19,000 * 21 2.1 * 21 210 2,100 2.1 8,900 12,000 21 580 * 6,700Excavation Worker * * 590 59 * 590 5,900 59,000 59 * * 590 16,000 * *

Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5.4 * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 * *

Occupational * * * * * * * * * * * * * 27 * *

Vapor Intrusion into Buildings

Residential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.5 * *

Urban Residential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 * *

Occupational * * * * * * * * * * * * * 99 * *Leaching to Groundwater

Residential * * * 3.5 0.9 * * * * 3.4 * * * 0.072 * *Urban Residential * * * 4 1 * * * * 3.8 * * * 0.15 * *Occupational * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0.41 * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality risk based decision making for the remediation of petrolium-contaminated sites. September 2009.


EPA = U.S. Environmental Proection Agency; RBC = Risk-based concentration.


mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram





File No. 2787-059-00Table 3, December 14, 2010

Total Metalsmg/kg

TABLE 4


TOTAL METALS IN SOILOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON


DateSampled

Sample depth (feet bgs) Ar

seni

c

Bar

ium

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Lead

Mer

cury

Sele

nium

Silv

er

DP-1 (1.5-2.5) 10/18/2010 1.5-2.5 <1.85 137 <0.0926 34.9 <1.85 0.017 <1.85 <1.85

DP-2 (6-7.8) 10/18/2010 6-7.8 <1.72 132 0.121 10.3 <1.72 0.0938 <1.72 <1.72

DP-4 (2.5-3.2) 10/18/2010 2.5-3.2 <1.85 164 <0.0926 35.3 <1.85 0.0177 <1.85 <1.85

DP-7 (0-1.5) 10/18/2010 0-1.5 22 175 0.3 35.1 5.32 0.08 <2.00 <2.00

DP-7 (5-7) 10/18/2010 5-7 2.74 43.6 <0.0893 8.74 <1.79 <0.0114 <1.79 <1.79

DP-8 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 9.04 160 <0.0893 38.7 1.85 0.241 <1.79 <1.79

DP-8 (5-7) 10/18/2010 5-7 2.08 41.6 <0.0781 13.1 <1.56 <0.0132 <1.56 <1.56

DP-9 (1-2) 10/19/2010 1-2 28.3 185 0.306 34.4 7.56 0.774 <1.85 2.39

DP-10 (1-2) 10/19/2010 1-2 3.57 116 <0.0926 22.3 <1.85 0.0239 <1.85 <1.85

DP-10 (7-8.2) 10/19/2010 7-8.2 1.96 58.6 <0.0658 11.6 <1.32 <0.0157 <1.32 <1.32

DP-11 (0.5-2) 10/19/2010 0.5-2 6.34 116 0.226 22 17.3 0.025 <1.61 <1.61

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 3.41 53.4 <0.0714 13.4 <1.43 <0.0132 <1.43 <1.43

Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- <1.92 54.5 <0.0962 11.4 <1.92 <0.0132 <1.92 <1.92

DP-12 (1-2) 10/19/2010 1-2 6.47 91.6 <0.100 16.2 <2.0 0.023 <2.00 <2.00

DP-12 (5-7) 10/19/2010 5-7 3.67 70.3 0.0833 11.6 <1.39 <0.0157 <1.39 <1.39

DP-13 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <1.79 378 <0.0893 50.7 <1.79 0.0216 <1.79 <1.79

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 3.13 186 1.54 46.6 131 0.0519 <1.85 <1.85

DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 <1.52 191 <0.0758 22.3 1.7 0.0134 <1.52 <1.52

DP-15 (4-6.2) 10/18/2010 4-6.2 3.62 57.1 <0.0806 16.6 3.71 0.0235 <1.61 <1.61

DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 2.12 153 0.0986 22.9 4.61 <0.0167 <1.41 <1.41

DP-16 (3-4) 10/18/2010 3-4 6.92 174 1.3 54.4 1,210 0.745 <1.28 2.69

DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 3.95 226 0.898 47.8 685 0.686 <1.85 <1.85

DP-17 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 7.48 117 0.129 46.8 3.68 0.241 <1.61 <1.61

DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 2.62 252 0.188 29.4 4.77 0.0274 <1.56 <1.56

DP-18 (1-2.5) 10/18/2010 1-2.5 31.4 180 0.364 39.2 5.29 0.619 <1.69 2.73

DP-19 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <1.92 155 <0.0962 24.9 2.97 0.0327 <1.92 <1.92

DP-19 (2-2.8) 10/18/2010 2-2.8 5.11 128 0.137 29.4 <1.96 0.0238 <1.96 <1.96

DP-20 (1-2.3) 10/18/2010 1-2.3 8.49 139 0.144 28.8 2.51 0.0578 <1.37 <1.37

DP-21 (1-2) 10/18/2010 1-2 22.6 195 0.312 39.4 7.09 0.319 <1.45 1.94DP-22 (0-2.5) 10/19/2010 0-2.5 9.05 120 0.144 30 2.38 0.0442 <1.52 <1.52

Duplicate-2 10/19/2010 -- 7.38 151 0.144 33.1 <1.92 0.0446 <1.92 <1.92DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-0.5 2.23 187 1.01 30.1 178 0.0858 <1.56 <1.56

DEQ Generic Risk-Based Concentrations (mg/kg) 2

Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and InhalationResidential 0.39 15,000 39 38 400 23 * 390Urban Residential 1.0 31,000 78 210 400 47 * 780Occupational 1.7 * 500 190 800 310 * 5,100Construction Worker 13 60,000 150 920 800 93 * 1,500Excavation Worker 370 * 4,300 26,000 800 2,600 * 43,000

Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential * * * * * 300 * *Urban Residential * * * * * 810 * *Occupational * * * * * 1,500 * *

Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential * * * * * 4.9 * *Urban Residential * * * * * 13 * *Occupational * * * * * 74 * *

Leaching to GroundwaterResidential * * * * 30 * * *Urban Residential * * * * 30 * * *Occupational * * * * 30 * * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. September 2009.




mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram






mg/l

TABLE 5


TCLP METALS IN SOILOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON

TCLP Metals


DateSampled

Sample depth (feet bgs) Ar

seni

c

Bar

ium

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Lead

Mer

cury

Sele

nium

Silv

er

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <0.100 0.468 <0.0050 0.053 <0.100 <0.000100 <0.100 <0.0500

Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- <0.100 0.732 <0.0050 0.262 <0.100 <0.000100 <0.100 <0.0500

DP-13 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.100 0.611 <0.0050 <0.0250 <0.100 <0.000100 <0.100 <0.0500

DP-16 (3-4) 10/18/2010 3-4 <0.100 0.696 0.01 0.052 0.786 <0.000100 <0.100 <0.0500

DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.100 0.541 0.0575 0.0435 18.7 <0.000100 0.136 <0.0500DP-18 (1-2.5) 10/18/2010 1-2.5 <0.100 0.741 <0.0050 <0.0250 <0.100 <0.000100 <0.100 <0.0500

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon.mg/l = milligrams per liter

"<0.100" indicates analyte not detected above the method reporting limit.




Depth(feet bgs)

DP-11 (5-7.5) 10/19/2010 5-7.5 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333Duplicate-1 10/19/2010 -- <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333

DP-14 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 0.016 <0.000333 <0.000333DP-15 (0-2) 10/18/2010 0-2 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 0.064 <0.000333 <0.000333DP-16 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 0.0387 <0.000333 <0.000333DP-17 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 0.0273 <0.000333 <0.000333DP-18 (0-1) 10/18/2010 0-1 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 0.0953 <0.000333 <0.000333DP-23 (0-0.5) 10/19/2010 0-0.5 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 <0.000333 0.0293 <0.000333 <0.000333

Applicable DEQ Risk-Based Concentrations 2,3

Surface Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation

Residential 0.22 * * * * * * * *

Urban Residential 0.6 * * * * * * * *

Occupational 0.98 * * * * * * * *

Construction Worker 4.4 * * * * * * * *

Excavation Worker 120 * * * * * * * *


Residential * * * * * * * * *

Urban Residential * * * * * * * * *

Occupational * * * * * * * * *

Vapor Intrusion into Buildings

Residential * * * * * * * * *

Urban Residential * * * * * * * * *Occupational * * * * * * * * *

Leaching to GroundwaterResidential 0.64 * * * * * * * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * * *Occupational * * * * * * * * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Risk Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petrolium-Contaminated Sites,

revised September 2009.3The RBC for PCBs is based on total PCBs.

*This RBC is either; 1) not established, 2) exceeds the solubility limit or 3) is greater than a concentration where free product would

be present.

-- = not analyzed or not applicable

mg/kg= milligrams per kilogram


C:\Documents and Settings\jmichaud\My Documents\SharePoint Drafts\278705900 SI report\[278705900_Tables_amw.xlsx]T6 _amw.xlsx]T6 _amw.xlsx]T6

TABLE 6


POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN SOILOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON

PCB 1262 PCB 1268

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (EPA Method 8082)(mg/kg)


DateSampled PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260


Gasoline-Range Hydrocarbons Diesel- and Oil-Range Hydrocarbons

(Northwest Method NWTPH-Gx) (Northwest Method NWTPH-Dx)Sample Date (µg/l) (µg/l)

Identification Sampled Gasoline Diesel OilDP-1W 10/18/2010 <100 <86.8 <217

DP-2W 10/18/2010 <100 <92.1 <230

DP-3W 10/18/2010 <100 <83.4 <209

DP-4W 10/18/2010 <100 <78.7 <197

DP-5W 10/18/2010 <100 <82.1 <205

DP-6W 10/18/2010 <100 <83.9 <210

DP-7W 10/18/2010 <100 <87.1 <218

DP-8W 10/18/2010 <100 <88.0 <220

DP-9W 10/19/2010 <100 <88.4 <221

DP-10W 10/19/2010 <100 <88.1 <220

DP-11W 10/19/2010 <100 <90.1 <225

DP-12W 10/19/2010 -- <88.6 <221

Duplicate (of DP-12W) 10/19/2010 <100 <88.7 <222DP-15W 10/18/2010 <100 <86.0 <215

QA/QC Samples

Rinsate Soil 10/19/2010 <100 <83.7 <209

Rinsate Water 10/19/2010 <100 <82.8 <207

DEQ Generic Risk-Based Concentrations (µg/l) 2

Ingestion and Inhalation from Tap WaterResidential 100 90 *Urban Residential 100 90 *Occupational 420 360 *

Groundwater Volatilization to Outdoor Air

Residential * * *

Urban Residential * * *

Occupational * * *

Groundwater Vapor Intrusion into Buildings

Residential * * *

Urban Residential * * *

Occupational * * *

Groundwater in Excavation

Construction and Excavation Worker 13,000 * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical of Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Risk Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petrolium-Contaminated Sites, revised September, 2009.


QA/QC = Quality Assurance/Quality Control

-- = not analyzed

µg/l = micrograms per liter

< 250 indicates analyte not detected above the method reporting limit.

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA1

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONSOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON



(EPA Method 8260B)

(µg/l)


Date Sampled A

ceto

ne

Acr

ylon

itri

le

Ben

zene

Bro

mob

enze

ne

Bro

mod

ichl

orom

etha

ne

Bro

mof

orm

Bro

mom

etha

ne

n-B

utyl

benz

ene

sec-

But

ylbe

nzen

e

tert

-But

ylbe

nzen

e

Car

bon

disu

lfide

Car

bon

tetr

achl

orid

e

Chl

orob

enze

ne

Chl

orod

ibro

mom

etha

ne

Chl

oroe

than

e

Chl

orof

orm

Chl

orom

etha

ne

2-C

hlor

otol

uene

4-C

hlor

otol

uene

1,2-

Dib

rom

o-3-

Chl

orop

ropa

ne

1,2-

Dib

rom

oeth

ane

Dib

rom

omet

hane

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,3-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

1,4-

Dic

hlor

oben

zene

Dic

hlor

odifl

uoro

met

hane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ane

1,1-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

cis-

1,2-

Dic

hlor

oeth

ene

tran

s-1,

2-D

ichl

oroe

then

e

1,2-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

Duplicate (of DP-12W) 10/19/2010 <50.0 <5.00 <0.300 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 2.44 <1.00 <1.00

QA/QC SamplesRinsate Soil 10/19/10 <50.0 <5.00 <0.300 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00Rinsate Water 10/19/10 <50.0 <5.00 <0.300 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00Trip Blank 10/19/10 <50.0 <5.00 <0.300 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <2.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00


Ingestion and Inhalation from Tap Water

Residential * 0.043 0.39 * 0.12 7.2 8.7 * * * * 0.19 91 0.68 21,000 0.19 190 * * * 0.0063 * 370 * * * 2.3 * 340 360 110 *

Urban Residential * 0.19 1.7 * 0.59 25 17 * * * * 0.82 180 2.3 42,000 0.98 380 * * * 0.031 * 740 * * * 11 * 680 730 210 *

Occupational * 0.24 2.2 * 0.6 52 36 * * * * 1.1 380 4.9 88,000 0.99 790 * * * 0.034 * 1,500 * * * 13 * 1,400 1,500 450 *


Residential * 1,800 2,800 * 1,800 * 40,000 * * * 430 * * * 1,100 500,000 * * * 190 * * * 4,000 * 15,000 1,900 550,000 * 430,000 *

Urban Residential * 4,900 7,600 * 5,000 * 40,000 * * * 1,200 * * * 3,000 500,000 * * * 520 * * * 11,000 * 40,000 5,100 550,000 * 430,000 *

Occupational * 9,000 14,000 * 9,300 * 170,000 * * * 2,200 * * * 5,500 2,100,000 * * * 960 * * * 20,000 * 73,000 9,500 * * 1,800,000 *


Urban Residential * 1,500 510 * 1,000 * 2,800 * * * 57 55,000 * 2,800,000 220 26000 * * * 130 * * * 1,000 * 2,900 690 27,000 * 28,000 *

Occupational * 8,500 2,800 * 5,600 * 36,000 * * * 320 * * * 1,200 320,000 * * * 690 * * * 5,700 * 16,000 3,800 340,000 * 350,000 *


Construction & Excavation Worker * 240 1,700 * 450 150,000 1,200 * * * 770 10,000 13,000 2,400,000 720 22,000 * * * 28 * 37,000 * 1,500 * 10,000 630 43,000 120,000 14,000 *


TABLE 8SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA1

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS



(EPA Method 8260B)

(µg/l)


Date Sampled 1,

1-D

ichl

orop

rope

ne

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

cis-

1,3-

Dic

hlor

opro

pene

tran

s-1,

3-D

ichl

orop

rope

ne

2,2-

Dic

hlor

opro

pane

Ethy

lben

zene

Hex

achl

oro-

1.3-

buta

dien

e

2-H

exan

one

Isop

ropy

lben

zene

p-Is

opro

pylt

olue

ne

2-B

utan

one

(MEK

)

Met

hyle

ne C

hlor

ide

4-M

ethy

l-2-p

enta

none

(M

IBK

)

Met

hyl t

ert-

buty

l eth

er

Nap

htha

lene

n-P

ropy

lben

zene

Styr

ene

1,1,

1,2-

Tetr

achl

oroe

than

e

1,1,

2,2-

Tetr

achl

oroe

than

e

Tetr

achl

oroe

then

e

Tolu

ene

1,2,

3-Tr

ichl

orob

enze

ne

1,2,

4-Tr

ichl

orob

enze

ne

1,1,

1-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

1,1,

2-Tr

ichl

oroe

than

e

Tric

hlor

oeth

ene

Tric

hlor

oflu

orom

etha

ne

1,2,

3-Tr

ichl

orop

ropa

ne

1,2,

4-Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

1,2,

3 Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

1,3,

5-Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

Viny

l chl

orid

e

Xyl

enes

, Tot

al

Duplicate* 10/19/2010 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <3.00

QA/QC SamplesRinsate Soil 10/19/10 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <3.00Rinsate Water 10/19/10 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <3.00Trip Blank 10/19/10 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <1.00 <1.00 <10.0 <20.0 <20.0 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <1.00 <3.00


Ingestion and Inhalation from Tap Water

Residential * * * * * 1.4 * * 680 * * 4 * 12 0.14 * 1,600 * * 0.093 2,300 * * 9,100 0.23 0.039 1,300 * 15 * 12 0.025 200

Urban Residential * * * * * 6.7 * * 1,400 * * 18 * 53 0.78 * 3,200 * * 0.34 4,600 * * 18,000 1.1 0.18 2,600 * 29 * 25 0.059 410

Occupational * * * * * 7.8 * * 2,800 * * 27 * 67 0.72 * 6,700 * * 0.64 9,200 * * 38,000 1.3 0.22 5,400 * 61 * 52 0.52 850


Residential * * * * * 8,200 * * * * 66,000 * 230,000 3,100 * * * * 1,800 * * * * 3,800 170 590,000 * * * * 400 *

Urban Residential * * * * * 22,000 * * * * 180,000 * 610,000 8,400 * * * * 5,000 * * * * 10,000 470 590,000 * * * * 500 *

Construction & Excavation Worker * * * * * 41,000 * * * * 330,000 * 1,100,000 16,000 * * * * 9,200 * * * * 19,000 870 * * * * * 6,800 *


Urban Residential * * * * * 1,300 * * * * 18,000 * 110,000 1,800 * * * * 260 * * * 1,200,000 1,600 27 27,000 * 5,000 * 3,200 22 58,000

Occupational * * * * * 7,400 * * * * 99,000 * 590,000 10,000 * * * * 1,400 * * * * 8,800 150 340,000 * * * 41,000 910 *


Construction & Excavation Worker * * * * * 4,400 * * * * 32,000 * 62,000 500 * 160,000 * * 240 200,000 * * 1,100,000 990 160 160,000 * 1,700 * 1,400 1,200 23,000

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical of Clackamas, Oregon2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. September 2009.





ug/l = micrograms per liter



*The primary sample containers for DP-12W were broken duing transport.



TABLE 8

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSSUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLE CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL DATA1


Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(EPA Method 8270-SIM or 8270C)

(µg/l)

TABLE 9


POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONSOSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON

Sample Identification Date Sampled Ace

naph

then

e

Ace

naph

thyl

ene

Ant

hrac

ene

Ben

zo(a

)ant

hrac

ene

Ben

zo(a

)pyr

ene

Ben

zo(g

,h,i)

pery

lene

Ben

zo(b

)fluo

rant

hene

Ben

zo(k

)fluo

rant

hene

Chr

ysen

e

Dib

enz(

a,h)

anth

race

ne F

luor

anth

ene

Flu

oren

e

Inde

no(1

,2,3

-cd)

py

ren e

Nap

htha

lene

Phe

nant

hren

e

Pyr

ene

DP-12W 10/19/2010 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475 <0.0475Duplicate (of DP-12W) 10/19/2010 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486 <0.0486

QA/QC Samples

Rinsate Soil 10/19/2010 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 <0.0495 0.119 <0.0495 <0.0495Rinsate Water 10/19/2010 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485 <0.0485


Ingestion and Inhalation from Tap WaterResidential 2,200 * * 0.029 0.0029 * 0.029 0.29 * 0.0029 * * * 0.14 * *Urban Residential * * * 0.088 0.088 * 0.088 * * 0.088 * * * 0.78 * *Occupational * * * 0.56 0.056 * 0.56 * * 0.056 * * * 0.72 * *

Groundwater Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3,100 * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8,400 * *Construction & Excavation Worker * * * * * * * * * * * * * 16,000 * *

Groundwater Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 670 * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1,800 * *Occupational * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10,000 * *


Construction & Excavation Worker * * * 9.1 0.53 * * * * 0.21 * * * 500 * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical of Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality risk based decision making for the remediation of petrolium-contaminated sites. September 2009.




J = The analyte was analyzed for and positively identified, but the associated numerical value is an estimated quantity.



EPA = Environmental protection Agency



µg/l

TABLE 10


DISSOLVED METALS IN GROUNDWATEROSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON

Dissolved Metals


DateSampled Ar

seni

c

Bar

ium

Cadm

ium

Chro

miu

m

Lead

Mer

cury

Sele

nium

Silv

er

DP-1W 10/18/2010 <1.0 110 0.16 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 1.4 <0.10DP-2W 10/18/2010 1.6 110 0.43 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 2.4 <0.10DP-3W 10/18/2010 1.3 93 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 2.3 <0.10DP-4W 10/18/2010 2.5 100 0.22 <1.0 0.19 <0.10 2.0 <0.10DP-5W 10/18/2010 1.3 94 0.11 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 2.2 <0.10DP-6W 10/18/2010 1.5 100 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10DP-7W 10/18/2010 1.3 73 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 2.0 <0.10DP-8W 10/18/2010 <1.0 99 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10DP-9W 10/19/2010 2.4 140 <0.10 <1.0 0.22 <0.10 1.1 <0.10DP-10W 10/19/2010 1.4 72 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 1.8 <0.10DP-11W 10/19/2010 <1.0 120 0.15 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 1.4 <0.10DP-12W 10/19/2010 2.1 130 0.26 <1.0 1.9 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10

Duplicate 10/19/2010 1.0 120 0.17 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 1.5 <0.10DP-15W 10/18/2010 2.2 88 <0.10 <1.0 0.21 <0.10 1.2 <0.10

QA/QC Samples

Rinsate Soil 10/19/2010 <1.0 <1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10Rinsate Water 10/19/2010 <1.0 <1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <0.10

DEQ Generic Risk-Based Concentrations 2

Ingestion and Inhalation from TapwaterResidential 0.038 7,300 18 110 15 11 * 180Urban Residential 0.130 15,000 37 220 15 22 * 370Occupational 0.270 29,000 73 440 15 44 * 730

Volatilization to Outdoor AirResidential * * * * * * * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * *Occupational * * * * * * * *

Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential * * * * * * * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * *Occupational * * * * * * * *

Groundwater in ExcavationConstruction and Excavation Worker 5,800 25,000,000 57,000 190,000 * * * 1,000,000

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. September 2009.


EPA = U.S. Environmental Proection Agency

RBC = Risk-based concentration



"<1.0" indicates analyte not detected above the method reporting limit





DP-12W 10/19/2010 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198 <0.0198

Duplicate (of DP-12W) 10/19/2010 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211 <0.0211

QA/QC Samples

Rinsate Soil 10/19/2010 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196 <0.0196Rinsate Water 10/19/2010 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194 <0.0194

Applicable DEQ Risk-Based Concentrations 2,3

Ingestion and Inhalation from Tapwater

Residential 0.028 * * * * * * * *Urban Residential 0.098 * * * * * * * *

Occupational 0.20 * * * * * * * *


Residential * * * * * * * * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * * *Occupational * * * * * * * * *

Vapor Intrusion into BuildingsResidential * * * * * * * * *Urban Residential * * * * * * * * *Occupational * * * * * * * * *


Construction and Excavation Worker 1.9 * * * * * * * *

Notes:1Chemical analytical analyses were performed by Specialty Analytical in Clackamas, Oregon.2Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Risk Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petrolium-Contaminated Sites,

revised September 2009.3The RBC for PCBs is based on total PCBs.

*This RBC is either; 1) not established, 2) exceeds the solubility limit or 3) is greater than a concentration where free product would

be present.

RBC = risk-based concentrations

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls



DateSampled

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (EPA Method 8082)(µg/l)

PCB 1016 PCB 1262 PCB 1268PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260

TABLE 11


POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN GROUNDWATEROSTWALD MACHINE SHOP

BAKER CITY, OREGON


Baker City Golf Club

Baker College

Central School

Brooklyn School

Baker High School

South Baker School

North Baker School

Stack Junior High School

Saint Francis High School

Seventh Day Adventist School

P Po ow wd de er r RRiivveerrOOlldd SSeettttlleerrss SSlloouugghh

Baldo

ck D

itch

Baldo

ck D

itch

G St

Place St

H St

2Nd St

Ash

St

Baker St

F St

A St

B St

Indiana Ave

Gro

ve S

t

5Th

St

Elm

St

Birc

h S

t

Resort St

L St

Failing Ave

A St

Place St

84

8430

86

7

7

9Th S

t

Hughes Ln

Oak S

t

1St S

t

Clar

k St

S Bridge St

Campbell St

Indiana Ave

Auburn St

Estes St

Vicinity Map

Figure 1

Ostwald Machine Shop2430 Balm Street

Baker City, Oregon

84

82

I d a h oO r e g o n

W a s h i n g t o nM o n t a n a

2,000 2,0000

Feet

Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2008US Topographic Map from ESRI ArcGIS Online

Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983North arrow oriented to grid north

Offi

ce: P

OR

TP

ath:

P:\2

\278

7059

\00\

GIS

\278

7059

00_F

1_V

M.m

xd

MW

J:C

RC

Map

Rev

ised

: Dec

embe

r 14,

201

0 SITE

Baker City

TREE

TREE

S2-MSW2-MS

S1-MS

W1-MS

S3-MS

ALLEY

SHED #2

SHED #1

SHED #3

SHED #4

BALM STREET

MA

CH

INE

SH

OP

FLOOR COVEREDBY WORK BENCHES

DP-3

DP-2

DP-1

DP-4

DP-13DP-23

DP-14

DP-5

DP-9

DP-8

DP-7 DP-19

DP-20DP-22

DP-21

DP-11

DP-15DP-17

DP-16DP-18

DP-6

DP-12

DP-10

Reference: Drawing created from sketch provided by GeoEngineers' personnel.


Baker City, Oregon

Site Plan with Sample Locations

Figure 2

Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.

LEGEND:

PREVIOUS SAMPLE LOCATIONS

DIRECT PUSH OR HAND AUGER LOCATIONS

S1-MS

WATER WELL

DP-1

LOCALITY OF FACILITY

Com-Gen

Res-Med-D

Res-Low-DRes-High-D

Industrial

Industrial

Res-High-D

Zoning Designation Map

Figure 3


Baker City, Oregon

500 5000

Feet

Data Sources:Data Sources: Bing Imagery HybridZoning digitized from Baker City GIS Zoning Map,December, 2010.



Offi

ce: P

OR

TP

ath:

P:\2

\278

7059

\00\

GIS

\278

7059

00_Z

onin

g.m

xd

CR

CM

ap R

evis

ed: D

ecem

ber 1

4, 2

010

Project Site

Zoning Designation

Commerical

Industrial

Residential-High-Density

Residential-Med-Density

Residential-Low-Density

F

E

B

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

24

23

22

2120

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

D, G

A, C

10, 11

T9SR40E16

Well Location Map

Figure 4


Baker City, Oregon

1,000 1,0000

Feet

Data Sources:Data Sources: Bing Imagery HybridWater Rights data downloaded from Oregon Water Resources Department, http://www.wrd.state.or.us.



Offi

ce: P

OR

TP

ath:

P:\2

\278

7059

\00\

GIS

\278

7059

00_W

ellL

ocs.

mxd

C

RC

Map

Rev

ised

: Dec

embe

r 14,

201

0

Project Site

Well Locationand Map Label

Section Line

Half Mile Buffer

Map Label Well Log ID1 BAKE 10822 BAKE 10833 BAKE 10854 BAKE 10845 BAKE 10816 BAKE 18587 BAKE 503388 BAKE 503409 BAKE 5035310, 11 BAKE 50392, 5041512 BAKE 5046013 BAKE 5047414 BAKE 5048515 BAKE 5050816 BAKE 5073117 BAKE 5074218 BAKE 5090919 BAKE 5095720 BAKE 5126521 BAKE 5130622 BAKE 109123 BAKE 5058924 BAKE 51156A, C BAKE 1092, 1093B BAKE 1097E BAKE 1089D, G BAKE 1094, 1726F BAKE 1807

T9SR40E16

Water Rights Map

Figure 5


Baker City, Oregon

1,000 1,0000

Feet

Data Sources:Data Sources: Bing Imagery HybridWater Rights data downloaded from Oregon Water Resources Department, http://www.wrd.state.or.us.



Offi

ce: P

OR

TP

ath:

P:\2

\278

7059

\00\

GIS

\278

7059

00_W

ater

Rig

hts.

mxd

C

RC

Map

Rev

ised

: Dec

embe

r 14,

201

0

Project Site

Water Right Points of Diversion

Water Right Place of Use

Section Line

Half Mile Buffer

R4SBCx

R3UBH

PEMA

PEMA

PUBFxPUBFx

T9SR40E16

National Wetlands Inventory Map

Figure 6


Baker City, Oregon

1,000 1,0000

Feet

Data Sources:Data Sources: Bing Imagery HybridNWI data from US Fish and Wildlife.



Offi

ce: P

OR

TP

ath:

P:\2

\278

7059

\00\

GIS

\278

7059

00_N

WI.m

xd

CR

CM

ap R

evis

ed: D

ecem

ber 1

4, 2

010

Project Site

NWI Wetlands

Section Line

Half Mile Buffer

Wetland ClassificationPEMA: Palustrine, Emergent Vegetation, Temporarily FloodedPUBFx: Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom, Semipermanently Flooded, ExcavatedR3UBH: Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently FloodedR4SBCx: Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated

Figure 7

Conceptual Exposure Model

Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached

document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is storedby GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.


Baker City, Oregon