## Third Five-Year Review Report for 

## Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site Sonoma County, California September 23, 2010

Prepared By: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 Approved by:

Michael Montgomery, Assi stant Director Date Federal Facilities and Cleanup Branch Superfund Division EPA Region IX SDMS DOCID# 1123226This page left blank intentionallyn_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX i 

# Contents

Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Executive Summary Five-Year Review Summary Form
Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Site Chronology Section 3 Background 3.1 Physical Char acteristics ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Land and Resource Use ........................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 History of Contamination ....................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Basis for Taki ng Action ............................................................................................ 3-3
Section 4 Remedial Actions 4.1 Remedy Selection ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Remedy Implementation ......................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 System Operat ions/ O&M ...................................................................................... 4-3 Section 5 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 5.1 2005 Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement ................................................ 5-1 5.2 Status of 2005 Five-Year Review Issues ................................................................. 5-1
Section 6 Five-Year Review Process 6.1 Administrative Components................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Community Notification and Involvement .......................................................... 6-1 6.3 Document Review .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Data Review .............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.5 Site Inspection ........................................................................................................... 6-5 6.6 Interviews ................................................................................................................ .. 6-6
Section 7 Technical Assessment Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision document? ........ 7-1 Question B : Are the exposure assumptions, to xicity data, clean-up levels, and RAOs used at the time of the re medy selection st ill valid? ............................................ 7-2 Question C: Has any other information come to lig ht that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................ 7-4
Section 8 IssuesContents

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX ii Section 9 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Section 10 Protectiveness Statement
Section 11 Next Review
References

Appendices Appendix A Copy of Property Restriction Appendix B Documents Reviewed Appendix C Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist Appendix D Site Inspection Photographs Appendix E Five-Year Review Interview Forms Appendix F ARARs Review Technical Memorandum Appendix G HHRA Review Technical MemorandumContents

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX iii 

# Tables

2-1 Chronology of Site Events ...................................................................................... 2-1 4-1 ROD-Specified MCLs and Drinking Water Standards ........................................ 4-2 5-1 Actions Taken Since the Se cond Five-Year Review ............................................. 5-1 6-1 Depth to Groundwater and VOC Monitoring Since October 2005 ................... 6-2 6-2 Shallow Aquifer Groundwater Elevation Since October 2005 ........................... 6-3 6-3 Shallow Aquifer Maximum Groundwater Concentrations of 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1,1-TCA Since October 2005 ........................................................ 6-4 7-1 Groundwater Concentrations, MCLs, Target Groundwater Concentrations, and Groundwater ESLs for Vapor Intrusion into Indoor Air ............................ 7-3 8-1 Summary Table of Issues ......................................................................................... 8-1 9-1 Summary Table of Issues, Recommend ations, and Follow-Up Actions ........... 9-1 

# Figures

1 Site Vicinity Map 2 Monitoring Wells Locations 3 Concentration of 1,1-DCA in W-27 from 1997 to 2009Table of Contents

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX iv 

# Acronyms & Abbreviations

ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements bgs below ground surface CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CCR California Code of Regulations CDM Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. CZV Carl Zeiss Vision, Inc. CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Re sponse, Compensation , and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC constituents of concern CSDHS County of Sonoma – Department of Health Services CSPRMD County of Sonoma – Permit and Resource Management Department DWR Department of Water Resources DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control 1,1-DCA 1,1-dichloroethane 1,2-DCA 1,2-dichloroethane 1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethene EHD Environmental Health Division EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESL environmental screening level FS Feasibility Study GWTS groundwater extracti on and treatment system HCS Harvest Christian School HHRA human health risk assessment IC institutional control IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LFR Levine Fricke, Inc. MCL maximum contaminant level msl mean sea level μg/L micrograms per liter mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter MNA monitored natural attenuation ND non-detect; not detected NCP National Contingency Plan NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priority ListContents

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX v OSWER Office of Solid Wast e and Emergency Response OEHHA California EPA Office of Envi ronmental Health Hazard Assessment O&M operation and maintenance PRP potentially responsible party RI Remedial Investigation RNM RNM Properties/RNM Cader, LLC ROD Record of Decision RAO Remedial Action Objectives SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Site Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site Sola Sola Optical USA, Inc. TI Technical Impracticability PCE tetrachloroethene TBC to be considered tDCE trans-1,2-dichloroethene 1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane 1,1,2-TCA 1,1,2-trichloroethane TCE trichloroethene UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compound Water Board California Regional Water Qualit y Control Board – San Francisco Bay RegionThis page left blank intentionallyn_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX ES-1 

# Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has completed this Third Five-Year Review of the remedial action at the former Sola Optical USA, Inc. (Sola) Facility (Site), located in Petaluma, Calif ornia, in Sonoma County. Sola Optical manufactured ophthalmic lenses from 197 8 through 2001. The facility was comprised of one manufacturing building and an adjoin ing administration office building. The manufacturing process involved the use of 1, 1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), acetone, and methanol. Six 1,000-gallon underground stor age tanks (USTs) that stored solvents were located behind the north corner of the manufacturing building. In 1985, the tanks and surrounding soil were removed. Confirmation samples analyzed for selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) revealed the presence of acetone, ranging from 1.1 to 54 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 1,1- dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) detected at 0.010 mg/kg. Groundwater at the site was demonstrated to be contaminated with 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), and methylene chloride. Active groundwater extraction and treatment remediation occurred at this site for eight years, from 1988 to 1997. In March 2007, EPA signed the Record of Decision (R OD) Amendment, which included the new remedy of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and institutional controls (ICs). In July 2007, three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7) were abandoned. No additional wells have been installed on the Site. The remedy at the Sola Site currently pr otects human health and the environment because the groundwater contamination has been reduced below drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels [M CLs]) in all but a very limited area around one well, no exposure pathways to the remaining contamination exist, and no one is using the groundwater resource. Ho wever, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following ac tions need to be taken to ensure long-term protectiveness:

 The well permitting restriction IC within the County of Sonoma – Permit and Resource Management Department (CSPRMD) Permits Plus system must be properly implemented to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy.

 Determine whether the restrictive covenant IC is required to protect human health in the short-term, and implement it if so.1 

## Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name: Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site

EPA ID: CAD981171523 CERCLIS ID : CAD981171523
Region: IX State: CA City/County: Petaluma / Sonoma County

SITE STATUS NPL status: Q Final R Deleted R Other (specify) ____________________________________

Remediation status (choose all that apply) : Q Operating R Complete
Multiple OUs? R YES Q NO Construction completion date: August 4, 1992

Has site been put into reuse? Q YES R NO

REVIEW STATUS Reviewing agency: Q EPA R State R Tribe R Other Federal Agency

__________________
Author name: Dante Rodriguez

Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: EPA Region IX
Review period: March 1 – April 15, 2010
Date(s) of site inspection: March 17, 2010
Type of review: R Statutory Q Policy R Post-SARA R Pre-SARA R NPL-Removal only R Non-NPL Remedial Action Site R NPL State/Tribe-lead Q Regional Discretion

Review number: R 1 (first) R 2 (second) Q 3 (third) R Other (specify) Triggering action: R Actual RA On-site Construction at OU __ R Actual RA Q Previous Five-Year Review Report 20052 R Construction Completion R Other (specify)

_______________________________________________________ Triggering action date: September 2005
Due date (five years after triggering action date): September 2010
Issues : The following issues were noted during the Third Five-Year Review: 

### Issue #1 Although no additional wells have been installe d on the Site since 2005, the well permitting restriction IC is not properly in place, whic h impacts the protectiveness of the 2007 ROD Amendment remedy. 

### Issue #2 The restrictive covenant IC has not yet been implemented

. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: This section presents the recommendations from this Third Five-Year Review.

1. The County of Sonoma needs to be contacted to ensure that the Permits Plus system is corrected so that the notice regarding the Site well installation restriction comes up when a well permit application is entered into the system.

2. Determine whether the restrictive covenant IC is required to protect human health in the short-term, and implement it, if so.

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the Sola Site currently protects human health and the environment because the groundwater contamination has been reduced belo w drinking water standards (MCLs) in all but a very limited area around one well, no exposure pathways to the remaining contamination exist, and no one is using the groundwater resource. Howe ver, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need to be taken:

 The well permitting restriction IC within the CS PRMD Permits Plus system must be properly implemented to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy.

 Determine whether the restrictive covenant IC is required to protect human health in the short-term, and implement it if so.This page left blank intentionallyN_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 1-1 

# Section 1 Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the Third FiveYear Review of the remedial action implemen ted at the Sola Optical USA, Inc. (Sola) Superfund Site (Site) located in the City of Petaluma in Sonoma County, California (Figure 1). This document, prepared in accordance with EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA 540-R-01-007(EPA, 2001), presents the results of the Third FiveYear Review conducted for the Site. EPA is preparing this five-year review consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Po llution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA Section 121(c), as amended, states: If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the Site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each 5 y ears after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and th e environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In additi on, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require su ch action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews. The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states: If a remedial action is selected that resu lts in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action. Consequently, this Five-Year Review is co nsidered a policy review because clean-up levels have not yet been achieved, and until they are, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Si te above target clean-up levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.Figure 1Site Vicinity MapSola Optical USA, Inc.Third Five Year Review ReportPetaluma, CaliforniaN_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 2-1 

# Section 2 Site Chronology

Table 2-1 provides a chronology of events at the Site.
Table 2-1 Chronology of Site Events Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA Date Event 1978-2001 Sola operates as ophthalmic lens manufacturing facility. 1978-1985 Six 1,000-gallon underground stor age tanks (USTs) are used to store 1,1,1- trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), acetone, and methanol. 1982 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are detected in shallow groundwater in immediate vicinity of USTs. 1983 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board) orders a gr oundwater investigation. July 1985 Sola removes six 1,000-gallon USTs. July 1986 Sola conducts soil gas and soil bor ing investigation. Maximum detection of 150 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 1,1,1-TCA in soil gas. November 1986 Trace concentrations of VOCs are detected in City of Petaluma Station 5 municipal water supply well, located approximatel y 300 feet downgradient of the Site. April 1987 Water Board issues Site Clean Up Order (Docket # 87-038) requiring Sola to construct a groundwater extraction and treatment system (GWTS). May 1987 Water Board refers site to EPA for inclusion on the Nati onal Priorities List (NPL). May 1987 EPA Special Notice Letter pr oposes additional Re medial Investigation (RI) activities and preparation of a Feasibility Study (FS) for the Site. October 1987 Sola installs a GWTS, which is fully operational by August 1988. June 1988 City of Petaluma ceases operation of Station 5 well. October 1989 Sola and City of Petaluma enter writt en agreement to cease operations at Station 5 well until such pumping would no longer have the potential to impede any remedial measures at the Site. October 1989 EPA issues administrative order (Docket # 89-22) for RI/FS; additional soil and soil gas sampling conducted under EPA oversight. February 1990 Site was placed on the NPL. April 1990 Use of Stero’s priv ate water supply well discontinues; Sola removes pumping system and agrees to pay for municipal water supply. December 1990 Sola submits RI. June 1991 Sola submits FS with detailed evaluati on of enhancements to current GWTS remedy, i.e., installing two additional shallow extraction wells and converting two deep monitoring wells into extraction wells. September 1991 EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD ), selecting expansion and continued operation of the existing GWTS system, with off-site disposal of treated effluent. Concludes that soils do not pose unacceptable risk. January 1992 EPA issues Administrative Order (D ocket # 92-07) for Remedial Design/Remedial Action.Section 2 Site Chronology

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 2-2 Table 2-1 (Continued) Date Event February 1992 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan submitted to EPA. Specified enhanced GWTS system. July 1992 Enhanced extraction sy stem started. This included two new shallow monitoring wells and the conversion of two deep monitoring wells into extraction wells. August 1992 Construction complete and interim closeo ut report signed: eight extraction wells, liquid phase carbon treatment. January 1993 Public Health Assessment Report conc ludes no apparent public health hazard at the Site because contaminated groundwater is no t currently a source of drinking water. Future exposures were considered unlikel y if the groundwater extraction system reduces concentrations to levels below health concerns. November 1996 Sola submits request for a Technical Impracticability (TI) Waiver because the California Department of Public Health maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) had not been achieved throughout the Site with active groundwater extraction after eight years of pumping. March 1997 EPA stated that a TI waiver could not be determined without additional information, including turning off the extraction wells and treatment system for two quarters and evaluating potential rebound during quarterly monitoring for six months. GWTS shut down at this time. November 1997 No rebound noted during end of 6 -month test period. Sola abandons 17 groundwater monitoring wells and 4 piezometers that have been at non-detect (ND) levels or below the MCLs and decreases monitoring frequency from quarterly to semiannual. September 2000 First Five-Year Review and site inspection. April-May 2001 Abandonment of 34 monitoring , extraction and piezometers at site April 2001 Extraction wells E-5, E-6, E-7, and E-11 were decommissioned in preparation for proposed development of adjacent property (pumps pulled and wellhead piping removed). November 6, 2001 to January 13, 2002 Dismantling of GWTS system completed. Ex traction wells E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, and E-10 were also decommissioned at this time. May 2001 MW-19 destroyed to accommodate site development. E-7 added to monitoring program as a replacement well. September 2002 EPA requests a work plan to implemen t monitored natural attenuation (MNA) at the Site. October 2002 Sola submits Work Plan to implemen t MNA (Levine Fricke [LFR], 2002b). Also submits request to abandon and destroy six former monitoring and extraction wells. December 2002 EPA approves the MNA Evaluation Report/Work Plan. Groundwater monitoring plan further modified in January 2003. April 2004 Six groundwater monitoring and former extraction wells located at the Site were abandoned (W-14, LF-25, LF-26, E-6, E- 10, and E-11), under Destruction Permit # 4245, County of Sonoma – Department of Health Services (CSDHS). June 2005 Sola submits Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report (LFR, 2005). This report included data from groundwater monitoring events from May 2003 through May 2005. September 2005 Second Five-Year Revi ew and site inspection (EPA, 2005a).Section 2 Site Chronology

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 2-3 Table 2-1 (Continued) Date Event August 2006 Sola submits Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report (LFR, 2006). This report included data from groundwater monitoring events in October 2005 and June 2006. This report also included a request to abandon three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7). January 2007 EPA submits Proposed Plan to public entitled EPA Proposes Amending the Clean-up Plan for Contaminated Groundwater, Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site (EPA, 2007a). February 2007 Sola submits Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report (LFR, 2007a). This report included data from the groundwater monitoring event in October 2006 and also included a request to abandon three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7). March 2007 EPA issues a ROD Amendment, selecting MNA to achieve groundwater clean-up standards, institutional controls (ICs) to protect against inappropriate use of the contaminated groundwater unt il the clean-up standards are achieved, and monitoring of both of the remedy components until clean- up standards are achieved and sustained. The goal for MNA is aquifer restoration (EPA, 2007b). August 2007 A Conditional Use Permit application is submitted to the City of Petaluma – Community Development Department to relocate the Harvest Christian School (HCS) to 1500 Cader Lane (HCS, 2007). Sola submits report regarding the well abandonment activities in July 2007 (LFR, 2007c). September 2008 Sola submits Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report (LFR, 2008a). This report included data from the groundwater monitoring event in April 2008. This report also described the work as sociated with the conversion of the W-27 stove-pipe well box to a flush mounted well box. This work was conducted at the request of RNM Properties, which is an agent to RNM Cader, LLC (RNM), the current owners of the auxiliary 11 acres, in order for them to install a parking lot in the area of the well as part of site development activities (LFR, 2008a). November 2008 The CSDHS submits a Notice of Potential Gr oundwater Contamination letter to constituents who own property within 1⁄4-mile of the Sola Site (CSDHS-EHD, 2008). December 2008 Sola submits Groundwater Monitoring Report (LFR, 2008b). This report included data from the groundwater monitori ng event in September 2008. September 2009 Sola submits Groundwater Monitoring Report (LFR/Arcadis, 2009). This report included data from the groundwater monitoring event in May 2009. On-going Semi-annual groundwater monitoring of one remaining shallow groundwater wells. The next monitoring report is due in May-June 2010.N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 3-1 

# Section 3 Background 3.1 Physical Characteristics The Site is located in Sonoma County, inthe southeastern edge of the City of Petaluma, California, just east of Lakeville Highway’s intersection with Interstate Highway 101, as shown on Figure 1. Adobe Creek lies 0.3 mile west of the Site and flows into the Petaluma River one mile from the Site. The Site is essentially flat, and a manufacturing building and adjoining admini stration office building occupy the property. Six USTs were formerly located behind the north corner of the manufacturing part of the facility. The Site building is occupied by three companies, which access the main facility building and th e loading docks. There is a fence located along the eastern Site boundary. Since 2005, an asphalt parking lot and four building pads with the associated below grade infr astructure (i.e., electrical and plumbing) have been constructed on th e auxiliary 11 acre lot. The topography of the area, including the Site , gently slopes 50 feet per mile from low hills in the east towards the Petaluma River, located approximately one mile southwest of the Sola building. Adobe Cr eek, located 0.3 mile west of the Sola building, runs north-south and flows intermit tently into the Petaluma River one mile south from the Site. . Geologic investigations indicate that the depo sitional sediments at the Site consist of a complex sequence of alluvial deposits cons isting of interbedded clays, silts, and sands, with lesser amounts of gravel. At de pths of approximately 80 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs), thicker clay intervals are present, which appear to be relatively continuous over distances of hundreds of feet. Interbedded within the clay are silt, sand, and gravel layers of various thickn esses. These deeper sediments probably represent complex alluvial and estuarin e depositional environments (LFR, 1989). Since October 2005, groundwater in the shallow sediments is generally encountered from 6 to 18.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). The aquifer is unconfined and the groundwater flows south/southwesterly towa rds the Petaluma River, most likely the point of discharge. Natural recharge occurs at the base of the foothills to the north/northeast. The shallow aquifer extends to approximately 30 feet below msl and has been classified by EPA as a Class IIa drinking water source aquifer. Below the shallow aquifer, the intermediate aquifer is approximately 30 to 60 feet below msl. The deep aquifer is from approximately 60 to 100 feet below msl, the deeper aquifer from approximately 100 to 200 feet below msl, and the deepest aquifer is greater than 200 feet below msl (LFR, 1990). 

## 3.2 Land and Resource Use The 35-acre Sola property is zoned for indu strial use. Land-use in the surrounding area is industrial, commercial, residentia l, and undeveloped land (Figure 1). The adjacent property to the west of the Site was previously owned by Stero Company, a manufacturer of dishwashers. There are re sidential subdivisions to the north andSection 3 Background

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 3-2 northwest of the Site, approximately 200 feet away. Property east of the Site is used for office space and the Harvest Christian School. Approximately 11 previously undevelope d acres (889,060 square feet) in the southwest portion of the Site were purchas ed by RNM for development. An asphalt parking lot and four building pads with the associated below grade infrastructure (i.e., electrical and plumbing ) have been constructed on th is lot since the previous five-year review. The remaining 24 acres of the Sola property, including the buildings, were sold to Kland, LLC in 2002. Buildings on the Site facility parcel include the original manufacturing building, an adjoinin g administration office building, and a parking lot surrounding the buildings. Thr ee commercial tenants currently occupy the Site building: Petaluma Poultry, Reynol ds Packaging, and Scott Laboratories. Petaluma Poultry conducts sales and distri bution of poultry; Reynolds Packaging conducts storage and distribution of food packaging materials; and Scott Laboratories conducts manufacturing and finishing of cork for the wine industry. The City of Petaluma uses the unconfined aquifer in the area as a drinking water source. In the vicinity of the Site, one acti ve City of Petaluma municipal water supply well (Station #5, screened from 180 to 512 feet bgs) and two private wells (Stero industrial well and Crandell residential well) were previously used. In addition, one City of Petaluma well (screened from 60 to 280 feet bgs) was installed at the Site but never used. All of these wells have been shut down and/or abandoned

 In 1989, Sola entered into a written agreement with the City of Petaluma whereby the City agreed to disconti nue using the Station #5 well and to refrain from using the newly installed on-site municipal well, for the stated purpose of ensuring that Sola’s ground water clean-up operation (at that time comprising groundwater extraction and ex-situ treatment) would not be disrupted by local pumping effects. The newer City of Petaluma well that was screened from 60 to 280 feet bgs was destroyed in 2001 (LFR, 2001). Sola alsoreached an agreement with the City to abandon and replace the Station #5 well with another comparable water supply well (LFR, 2001).

 The two private wells (Stero and Crande ll wells) were shut down in 1990.

 The Crandell well was permanently abandoned, and the pumping apparatus was removed from the Stero well (EPA, 2005a). 

## 3.3 History of Contamination Sola manufactured ophthalmic lenses from 1978 through 2001. The facility consisted of one manufacturing building and an adjoin ing administration office building. The manufacturing process involved the injection of a catalyzed, thermosetting resin into a cavity between polished glass molds. The mold assembly was then placed in an air oven to cure the resin. The assembly wa s removed from the oven and subsequently put through a cleaning process before the production was repeated. The six USTs located behind the rear north corner of th e manufacturing part of the facility were used to store solvents such as 1,1,1-TCA, acetone, and methanol.Section 3 Background

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 3-3 In May 1982, Sola found low concentrations of VOC contamination in the groundwater beneath the Site, near the six USTs. In 1983, the Water Board directed Sola to investigate the contamination and 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), methylene ch loride, and 1,1,1-TCA were identified in the groundwater. In July 1985, Sola exca vated and removed the six USTs. When the tanks were removed, there were no signs of leakage from the tanks; however, observations of the tank fill pipes and su rrounding backfill showed staining on the pipes and in the adjacent backfill (LFR, 1990) . It was concluded that the groundwater contamination might be a result of accidental spillage adjacent to, or leakage from, the fill pipes. The tank removal included excavation of gr avel backfill materials and three to five feet of native soil from the sides and bo ttom of the excavation pit. Confirmation sampling identified the presence of three contaminants: acetone, 1,1-DCE, and trans1,2-dichloroethene (tDCE). Based on these findings, an additional two feet of soil was excavated from the eastern wall of the fo rmer tank area. Further confirmation sampling demonstrated the presence of VO Cs, including acetone. No additional excavation was performed (LFR, 1990). In July 1986, soil gas samples were collected from 40 locations, ranging from three to five feet bgs, to determine if VOCs were migrating from shallow groundwater and to aid in selection of locations for ground water monitoring and extraction wells. Chemicals detected in the soil gas included : chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1- DCA, 1,1-DCE, tetrachloroethene (PCE), and 1,1,1-TCA. Maximum concentrations were found approximately 70 feet downgradient from the location of the former USTs (CH2M Hill, 1991). In 1987, Sola constructed and began operating a GWTS. Treated groundwater was discharged under a National Pollution Disc harge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the Water Board into Adobe Creek nort hwest of the Site. The extraction system operated from 1988 through 1997. The site was placed on the NPL in 1990 (EPA, 2000). 

## 3.4 Basis for Taking Action Although remedial actions – interim pump ing and treatment of groundwater, and removal of tanks and contaminated soil – have reduced Site risks, groundwater beneath the Site still exceeds drinking water standards, reducing its full beneficial use as drinking water. Twelve chemicals of pote ntial concern were identified in the 1991 ROD: acetone, butanone, 1,1-DCA, 1,2-dich loroethane (1,2-DCA), 1,1-DCE, Freon 113, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, PCE, toluene, 1,1,1-TC A, 1,1,2-trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA), and trichloroethene (TCE). Contamination was fo und in the soil (acetone ranging up to 54 mg/kg and 1,1-DCE at 0.051 mg/kg), and in the groundwater (primarily 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and Freon-113). The highest contaminant concentration in groundwater was 1,1-DCE (3,300 micrograms per liter [μg/L]) detected in shallow well W-14 located downgradient of the former UST area. The wells on the downgradient edge of the Site indicate d that the lateral extent of the VOC contamination within the Sola property was at or below the clean-up standards (EPA, 1991).Section 3 Background

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 3-4 The risk assessment presented in the ROD indicated an excess lifetime cancer risk based on use of on-site contaminated groundwater for drinking water of 1x10 -4 (1 person out of 10,000 people), primarily from 1,1 DCE. The non-carcinogenic risk estimate for contaminated groundwater in dicated that no adverse noncarcinogenic health effects are expected. The ecological assessment identified Adobe Creek as the closest surface water body to the Site and as a site of a local project to reintroduce anadromous steelhead trout to the creek. However, water quality samples from groundwater monitoring wells installed between the Sola property and Adobe Creek have not detected any contaminants, indicating that discharge of contaminants to surface water has not occurred. In addition, contaminants detect ed in groundwater at the Site are below their corresponding federal surface water qua lity criteria for the protection of aquatic life.N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 4-1 

# Section 4 Remedial Actions

This section summarizes the selected remedi al actions, remedy implementation, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of remedial systems. 

## 4.1 Remedy Selection The ROD for the Site was signed on September 27, 1991 (EPA, 1991). The Remedial Action Objective (RAO) is to restore grou ndwater to its beneficial use, which is drinking water. The selected site cleanup remedy consisted of the following elements:

 Groundwater monitoring to assure captur e of contaminated groundwater and to demonstrate restoration of groundwater to cleanup standards throughout the aquifer

 Operation of existing extraction wells (8)

 Construction and operation of two a dditional shallow extraction wells

 Conversion of monitoring wells LF-13 and LF-17 to deep extraction wells

 Construction and operation of additional piping for the new and converted wells

 On-site treatment and discharge off-site or discharge to the City of Petaluma sewage treatment system The enhanced GWTS, which began operating in 1992, was expected to restore the shallow groundwater to clean-up standards in 15 to 20 years. The system’s deep extraction wells were needed to prevent fu rther migration of contaminants into the deeper portion of the aquifer. The remedy in cluded constructing a carbon filtration system at the facility to treat the extr acted groundwater. The treated water was discharged off-site to Adobe Creek (EPA, 1991). The groundwater cleanup standards were set at state or federally promulgated drinking water standards, known as MCLs. The applicable drinking water standards and the MCLs listed in the ROD are shown in Table 4-1.Section 4 Remedial Actions

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 4-2 Table 4-1 ROD-Specified MCLs and Drinking Water Standards Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA

Chemical Drinking Water Standard (μg/L) RAO (μg/L) State Federal 1,1-DCE 6 7 6 1,1-DCA 5 NE 5 1,1,1-TCA 200 200 200 Freon 113 1,200 NE 1,200 NE = none established In 1997, the groundwater extraction system was turned off. After two years, the groundwater extraction system was decommissioned and a number of the monitoring wells and piezometers were destroyed. Ba sed on the groundwater monitoring data during this time, Sola requested that EPA consider MNA as a final remedy (LFR, 2001). The 2007 ROD Amendment was signed on March 30, 2007 and modified the previously selected remedy for the Site (EPA, 2007b). The 2007 ROD Amendment addressed the two issues that prompted th e remedy change: 1) groundwater clean-up, and 2) ICs. The new remedy included in the 2007 ROD Amendment includes the following (EPA, 2007b):

 MNA to achieve groundwater clean-up standards

 ICs to protect against inappropriate use of the contaminated groundwater until the clean-up standards are achieved

 Monitoring of both of the remedy components until clean-up standards are achieved and sustained. The 2007 ROD Amendment did not change the RAOs stated in the original ROD to restore groundwater to its beneficial use, which is drinking water. 

## 4.2 Remedy Implementation In March 2007, EPA signed the ROD Amendment that included the additional remedy of MNA and ICs to achieve and sust ain clean-up standards at the Site. 

### Monitored Natural Attenuation Since 2005, Sola has continued groundwate r monitoring with semi-annual sampling performed from June 2006 through De cember 2009. The groundwater sampling results from these events are discussed in Section 6. In July 2007, three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7) were abandoned. In accordance with the 2007 ROD Amendment, no additional wells have been installed on the Site.Section 4 Remedial Actions

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX 4-3 

### Institutional Controls ICs are non-engineering methods by which access to contaminated environmental media is restricted. The 1991 ROD did not include ICs as part of the remedy (EPA, 1991). The ROD evaluated the need for ICs and concluded that none were necessary, on the basis that groundwater at the Site would soon be cleaned up to federal and state groundwater standards, rendering it available for domestic uses. The Second Five-Year Review report, however, determined that ICs would address an existing risk to human health and the en vironment during the clean-up period (EPA, 2005a). Accordingly, the 2007 ROD Amendment added a requirement that ICs be implemented to protect against i nappropriate use of the contaminated groundwater until the clean-up standards ar e achieved. The primary IC selected for the Site is a restrictive covenant, a type of proprietary control that is signed by the property owner and recorded with a coun ty recorder’s office (EPA, 2007b). The objective of the restriction is to prevent us e of the groundwater that could result in unacceptable exposure of humans or the en vironment to contaminants. The restrictive covenant has not yet been implemented.
The 2007 ROD Amendment includes an additional IC, which involves the local well permitting process. The County of Sonoma – Permit and Resource Management Department (CSPRMD) is responsible for i ssuing all well installation permits (EPA, 2007b). The CSPRMD has a computerized system called Permits Plus that is used to maintain information about properties in Sonoma County (EPA, 2007b). As described in the 2007 ROD Amendment, EPA requeste d that the CSPRMD place a note within the Permits Plus system regarding the Si te parcel that lies directly above the contaminated groundwater. This note would indicate that the parcel is part of a Superfund site and that well permits should not be issued before consulting with the CSPRMD and EPA. If anyone requests a perm it for the Sola Site parcel, this note would appear within the Permits Plus sy stem and the CSPRMD would review the permit request within the contex t of the Site requirements. 

## 4.3 System Operations/ O&M O&M for the MNA remedy consists of conduc ting semi-annual sampling. Since 2005, LFR/Arcadis have conducted groundwater mo nitoring events on a semi-annual and annual basis on behalf of Sola. In April 2010, LFR/Arcadis reported in an email that the Site annual O&M costs are approxim ately $14,500/year for the groundwater monitoring (Roth, 2010).N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 5-1 

# Section 5 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

The conclusions and recommendations made in the Second Five-Year Review are provided below. 

## 5.1 2005 Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement From the Second Five-Year Review, the fo llowing statements were made regarding the protectiveness of the selected remedy for the Site: “The remedy at the Sola Site currently protects human health and the environment because the groundwater contamination has b een reduced below drinking water standards (MCLs) in all but a very limited area around one well, and no exposure pathways to the remaining contamination exist. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure long-term protectiveness:

 EPA must identify and select institutional controls in a decision document, then monitor the effectiveness of th ese controls that will be relied upon to prevent use of the groundwater that still exc eeds the clean-up standard.

 The groundwater clean-up standard for 1,1- DCA must be attained in well W-27.” 

## 5.2 Status of 2005 Five-Year Review Issues

Table 5-1 Actions Taken Since the Second Five-Year Review Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA Issues from

Previous Review Recommendations/ Follow-Up Actions Party Responsible Milestone Date The 1,1-DCA concentration in well W-27 remains above the MCL. MNA performance data should continue to be reviewed and enhancements to the MNA system should be assessed. Sola Spring 2006

Action Taken and OutcomeSince 2005, Sola has continued MNA performance monitoring with semiannual groundwater sampling performed from June 2006 through December 2009. In February 2007, Sola proposed no enhancements to the MNA system, rather proposed abandoning 3 monitoring and three former extraction wells. EPA approved this change in June 2007. In July 2007, three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three former extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7) were abandoned. No additional wells have been installed onsite. Date of Action June 2006 through December 2009Section 5 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 5-2 Table 5-1 (Continued) Issues from

Previous Review Recommendations/ Follow-Up Actions Party Responsible Milestone Date MNA had been proposed and implemented as an interim measure at the Site, but the ROD has not been amended yet to reflect the use of MNA to achieve the remaining clean-up needed. After assessing possible enhancements to the MNA system, a ROD Amendment or Explanation of Significant Differences should be prepared to reflect any re medy change. EPA Autumn 2006

Action Taken and Outcome In March 2007, EPA signed the ROD Amendment which included the new remedy of MNA to achieve and sustain clean-up standards at the Site. The need for enhancements to the MNA system was considered but no enhancements were recommended. Instead, the removal of six wells from the monitoring network was recommended. Date of Action March 2007

The 1991 ROD did not include any ICs and groundwater contamination was still present onsite. ICs should be identified and selected in a ROD Amendment to limit the use of groundwater at the Site until clean-up goals are achieved. EPA Autumn 2006

Action Taken and Outcome The ROD Amendment signed in March 2007 included ICs to limit the use of groundwater at the Site until clean-up goals are achieved. Date of Action March 2007N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 6-1 

# Section 6 Five-Year Review Process

The following sections discuss the Five-Y ear Review data gathering process and findings. 

## 6.1 Administrative Components This Third Five-Year Review for the Sola Site was led by Dante Rodriguez, the EPA Remedial Project Manager for the Site. The five-year review consisted of community notification, document review, data review, institutional controls review, human risk assessment, and site inspection. This work was initiated on February 23, 2010, and extended through June 2010. 

## 6.2 Community Notification and Involvement For this Five-Year Review, EPA published a public notice in the Petaluma Argus Carrier on April 15, 2010 announcing the beginni ng of the five year review process. No responses to the public notice were re ceived. Following the release of the third Five-Year Review, EPA will produce and dist ribute a fact sheet to the community near the Site. The fact sheet will summarize the findings of the Five-Year Review and instructions on how to access a copy of the review. The report will also be placed in the local information repository near the Site. 

## 6.3 Document Review As part of the Third Five-Year Review for th e Sola Site, documents relevant to the Site since 2005 were reviewed (Appendix B). Docu ments were chosen for review focusing primarily on actions that hav e occurred during the past five years, but ranged in publication date from 1989 to the present. Appendix B provides a list of the reviewed documents. The most significant documents reviewed were the groundwater monitoring reports. Based on these documents, the ensuing sections describe the findings of this Five-Year Review. 

## 6.4 Data Review The following sections describe the find ings from the periodic monitoring and reporting, documented in the groundwater monitoring reports that were reviewed. 

### Performance Monitoring Program Table 6-1 summarizes the monitori ng schedule during the past five years as stated in the groundwater monitoring reports.Section 6 Five-Year Review Process

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 6-2 Table 6-1 Depth to Groundwater and VOC Monitoring Since October 2005 Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA

Date Monitoring Wells W-22 W-25 W-27 LF-2 E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-7 10/20/2005 ●○ ●○ ●○ ●○ ● ● ●○ ● ●○ ●○ 06/06/2006 ● ●○ ●○ ● ● ● ●○ ● ●○ ● 10/26/2006 ●○ ●○ ●○ ●○ ● ● ●○ ● ●○ ●○ 04/11/2007 ● ●○ ●○ ● ● ● ●○ ● ●○ ● 07/3-5/2007 * * * * * * 10/19/2007 ●○ ● ● ● 04/04/2008 ●○ a ● ● ● 09/29/2008 ●○ ● ● ● 05/15/2009 ●○ ● ● ● 12/30/2009 ●○ ● ● ● Notes:
● = Groundwater Elevation
○ = Groundwater sample collected and analyzed for VOCs * = W-22, W-25, LF-2, E-3, E-5, and E-7 were destroyed in July 2007. a = On October 31, 2007, the stovepi pe well box was replaced with a flush-mounted well box. The well casing was cut and finished several inches below grade. In 2005, 2006, and early 2007, ten wells were monitored for groundwater elevation semi-annually, seven wells were sampled for VOCs annually, and four wells were sampled for VOCs semi-annually. In July 2007, three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7) were destroyed and sealed in accordance with Department of Water Resources (DWR) guidelines (LFR, 2007b). Sampling had shown that VOC concentrations in these wells had been consistently below clean-up standards. The well destruction was performed under CSDHS – Environmental Health Division (EHD) permit number 05582 HMW. Figure 2 shows the status of the monitoring wells in 2010. No intermediate or deep wells remain; all remaining wells are s hallow. One or more of the remaining extraction wells may be used for future sampling if the need is identified. Since October 2007, the remaining four wells have been monitored for groundwater elevation and one of them (W-27) continues to be monitored for VOCs. 

### Elevation and Flow Directions Since May 2005, groundwater at the Site is encountered at approximately 6 to 18.5 feet above msl. The horizontal component of groundwater flow at the Site is to the southwest towards the Petaluma River. In the past five years, no pumping has occurred at the Site. Groundwater elevations at the Site have not changed significantly. Table 6-2 shows the range of groundwater elevations for the monitoring wells since October 2005.Figure 2Monitoring Well LocationsSola Optical USA, Inc.Third Five Year Review ReportPetaluma, CaliforniaSection 6 Five-Year Review Process

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 6-3 Table 6-2 Shallow Aquifer Gro undwater Elevation Since October 2005 Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA

Year Groundwater Elevation (Well) (feet above msl) October 2005 15.39 (W-22) to 19.31 (E-2) June 2006 17.12 (W-22) to 21.84 (E-2) October 2006 15.88 (W-22) to 20.40 (E-2) April 2007 16.87 (W-22) to 21.43 (E-2) October 2007 15.19 (W-27) to 18.15 (E-2) April 2008 20.17 (E-4) to 22.30 (W-27) September 2008 11.25 (E-4) to 14.96 (W-27) May 2009 17.38 (E-4) to 19.44 (W-27) December 2009 12.26 (E-1) to 20.03 (E-4) msl – mean sea level Data Source: Table 2 of the 2009 Arcadis Groundwater Monitoring Report. 

### Groundwater Quality Shallow Aquifer Shallow wells are those screened within the approximate interval of 0 to 30 feet bgs (LFR, 1990). Constituents detected in the shallow aquifer since 2005 include 1,1-DCA, and 1,1,1-TCA. Table 6-3 shows the maximu m concentrations of 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1,1-TCA detected in groundwater samples from the seven shallow wells (W-22, W-25, W-27, LF-2, E-3, E-5, and E-7) over the past five years. (LFR/Arcadis, 2009 and Roth, 2010). The concentrations of all three chemicals in most wells had shown a dramatic decline from high initial concentr ations in 1986 to low concentrations or non-detect by 2005 and later. In well W-27, concentrations of 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1,1-TCA were non-detect in 1986 and rose later. Their concentrations fluctuated until April 1991, when 1,1-DCA started to steadily increase and remained above the MCL through 2009, except for an occasional dip in concentration. As of 2009, only one well (W-27) in the shallow aquifer is currently monitored for VOCs. The concentration of 1,1-DCA in well W-27 currently exceeds the MCL of 5 μg/L, although it has been decreasing sinc e 2005 and has dipped below the MCL. Since 2005, the 1,1-DCE concentration had been below the MCL (6 μg/L) in all locations (Figure 3). Since 2005, 1,1,1-TCA has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from any of the shallow wells on the Site. Groundwater was continuously analyzed and data reported for 1,2-DCA, TCE, and Freon 113, but most often these constituents were non-detect in all of the wells. Since 2005, 1,2-DCA, TCE, and Freon 113 have not been detected in any of the groundwater samples collected from shallow wells on the Site. No emerging constituents of concern (COCs) have been identified in soil or soil gas at the Site (EPA, 2005a).Section 6 Five-Year Review Process

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 6-4 Table 6-3 Shallow Aquifer Maximum Groundwate r Concentrations of 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and 1,1,1-TCA Since October 2005 Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA

Year Maximum Contaminant Concentrations (Well Where Detected) (μg/L) 1,1-DCE 1,1-DCA 1,1,1-TCA
MCL 6 μg/L 5 μg/L 200 μg/L 2005 5.6 (E-5) 16 (W-27) ND
2006 4.7 (E-5) 16 (W-27) ND
2007 2.8 (E-5) 8.8 (W-27) ND
2008 2.2 (W-27) 11 (W-27) ND
2009 0.8 (W-27) 6.5 (W-27) ND μg/L – micrograms per liter MCL – maximum contaminant level ND – non-detect Data Source: Table 2 of the 2009 Arcadis Groundwater Monitoring Report.

Figure 3 Concentration of 1,1-DCA in W-27 from 1997 to 2009

Data Source: Table 2 of the 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report (LFR/Arcadis, 2009 and Roth, 2010).Section 6 Five-Year Review Process

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 6-5 Intermediate and Deep Aquifers Intermediate wells were screened within an approximate interval of 30 to 60 feet bgs (LFR, 1990). All intermediate wells at the Site have been destroyed, and none were monitored during the Third Five-Year Review period. For information on groundwater quality of the intermediate aqui fer at the Site, see the Second Five-Year Review report (EPA, 2005a). Wells installed in three deeper zones referred to as the deep aquifer, deeper aquifer, and deepest aquifer have all been destroyed (LFR, 1990), and none were monitored during the Third Five-Year Review period . For more information on groundwater quality of these aquifers see the Second Five-Year Review report (EPA, 2005a). 

## 6.5 Site Inspection A Site inspection was performed on Marc h 17, 2010. The inspection checklist is included as Appendix C and photographs from the inspection are presented in Appendix D. Representatives of Arcadi s (formerly LFR) and Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM) participated in a site inspection. The inspection included a Site walk and tour of the two parcels of land that make up the Site: (1) the actual facility property, and (2) the adjacent 11-acre lot, currently under development. Both parcels were originally owned by Sola, but have been sold to Kland, LLC and RNM, respectively. The Site facility parcel has been owned by Kland, LLC since 2000. During the Site inspection, the original manufacturing build ing, an adjoining administration office building, and a parking lot surrounding the buildings were observed. Three commercial tenants currently occupy the Site building: Petaluma Poultry, Reynolds Packaging, and Scott Laboratories. The fo rmer USTs and groundwater extraction system were located behind the north corner of the facility. The facility property is only fenced along the southeast property boundary. The extraction wells remaining on the facility property (E-1, E-2, and E- 4) were accessible and viewed during the inspection, as they are located within the paved parking lot. The extraction wells did not appear to be damaged and were secured. Mr. Roth (Arcadis) did not know of any vandalism that has occurred at the Site. There is no fence present between the main lot and the RNM lot, but there is a landscaped berm along a portion of this boundary.
The RNM lot is located southwest of the Si te facility parcel. Since 2005, an asphalt parking lot and four building pads with the associated below grade infrastructure (i.e., electrical and plumbing ) have been constructed on this lot. The groundwater monitoring well (W-27) located within th e asphalt parking lot on the RNM lot had been converted from a standpipe well to a flush-mounted well. The well did not appear to be damaged and was secured. The northwest property boundary of the RNM lot (along Cader Lane) is fenced and the gate was locked. A sign with the name and phone number of the security company (Weinstein Security) is present on this gate. Signs indicating past construction acti vities at the RNM lot were also present.Section 6 Five-Year Review Process

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 6-6 The ICs selected for the Site include a rest rictive covenant with the property owner to restrict groundwater uses that could result in unsafe exposure to people or the environment (EPA, 2007b). The second IC cons ists of restrictions within County of Sonoma’s well permitting process. During the Site visit, no Site were observed that might indicate potentially unsafe exposu res to people or the environment. For example, there were no new wells observed during the Site inspection and there was no ground disturbance ob served on the Site. 

## 6.6 Interviews As part of the Third Five-Year-Review, in terviews were conducted during the Site walk and over the phone with the following parties:

 Mr. Daren Roth, Project Geologist with Arca dis (the contractor for the potentially responsible party [PRP])

 Mr. Scott Seyfried, the Project Manager for the Sola Site from Arcadis

 Mr. Ken Tran, the Site building manager and part owner with Kland, LLC of the 1500 Cader Lane property (active building)

 Mr. Jamie Milliner, the Director of Projec t Management for RNM, who owns the 11 auxiliary acres located southwest of the 1500 Cader Lane property

 Mr. John Anderson, Senior Environmenta l Health Specialist III with the CSDHS– EHD (CSDHS–EHD reviews applications for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells)

 Mr. Bob Swift, the Supervising Environm ental Health Specialist for the CSPRMD– Wells and Septic Division (Wells and Se ptic Division of the CSPRMD reviews permit applications for the installation of water supply and agricultural wells)

 Mr. John Jang, a caseworker with the Water Board All parties concurred that no complaints or violations with respect to the Site had been received or observed and that the re medy appears to be progressing as planned. Mr. Swift indicated that the Permits Plus sy stem, which is used to organize permit applications for the installation of wate r supply and agricultural wells in Sonoma County, does not contain any notice for the Site address that the Site parcel lies directly above the contaminated groundwater and wells should not be constructed on the property. Therefore, the IC portion of the remedy may not be operating as intended. Interview summary forms are presented as Appendix E.N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 7-1 

# Section 7 Technical Assessment

This section evaluates whether the remedy is functioning as intended, the current status of assumptions, and new information affecting the remedy. 

## Question A : Is the remedy function ing as intended by the decision document? Remedial Action Performance The MNA component of the remedy has almost met the 2007 ROD Amendment objective. The objective was to restore th e groundwater to its beneficial uses by reducing the contamination levels to below State and Federal drinking water standards (MCLs). This reduction would resu lt in eliminating the potential risk to human health from exposure to the groundwater. Although the 1,1-DCA concentrations detected at well W-27 remain above the MCL, the 1,1-DCA concentration trend is decreasing. This indi cates that MNA is functioning as intended by the decision document. 

### Opportunities for Optimization No opportunities for optimization were identified during this review. 

### Early Indicators of Potential Issues There are no early indicators of additional potential issues. 

### Implementation of Institutional Controls A review of ICs was conducted for this third five-year review and findings of the review were submitted in an IC Review Technical Memorandum (Appendix F). There are two ICs selected for the Site: a restrict ive covenant and an IC involving the local well permitting process. No restrictive covenant has been implemente d, therefore this institutional control component of the remedy is not functioning as intended by the decision document. However, it is worth noting that, soon after transferring the property between them, Sola Optical and RNM entered into a “L icense and Environmental Restriction,” recorded March 29, 2001, which restricts groundwater extraction. A copy of the license is provided in Appendix A. It prev ents most uses of the groundwater, thereby limiting the risk of unacceptable exposure of humans or the environment, as long as RNM remains the property owner. The IC involving the local well permittingprocess is not operating as intended. Applications for the installation of ground water monitoring wells in Sonoma County follow a review process which includes the Water Board or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), wh o would notify the CSDHS–EHD reviewer that the application was for a Superfun d site. However, applications for the installation of water supply and agricult ural wells are reviewed by a differentSection 7 Technical Assessment

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 7-2 division - CSPRMD–Wells and Septic Di vision. The CSPRMD–Wells and Septic Division relies on the Permits Plus system to organize permit applications for Sonoma County. When the Permits Plus system was recently searched by Mr. Swift of the CSPRMD, he noted that the file for the Site address does not contain any notice indicating that the Site parcel lies direct ly above the contaminated groundwater and that wells should not be constructed on th e property. Although no additional wells have been installed on the Site since 2005, the County of Sonoma well permitting restriction IC has not been fully im plemented, which impacts the future protectiveness of the remedy. Therefore, the IC portion of the remedy may not be operating as intended to prevent future exposure. 

## Question B: Are the exposure assu mptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? Changes in Standards and To Be Considered (TBCs) A review of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) on the March 2007 ROD Amendment was conducted fo r this Third Fve-Year Review and findings of the review were submitted in an ARARs Review Technical Memorandum (Appendix G). The specific regulations cite d for each were reviewed for changes. The current versions of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22 were reviewed to ensure all information is current. The ARARs established in the 2007 ROD Amendment do not require revision to ensure the protectiveness of current remedial actions or to comply with new state or federal requirements. Groundwater clean-up goals for 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE based on federal and state criteria have not been updated from the values contained in the 2007 ROD Amendment. No ARARs were identified that are more stringent than the current clean-up levels for 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE. Since shallow groundwater at the Site could in theory be used as a drinking water source, risk management for the Site includ ed a remedy based on achieving drinking water standards. Groundwater cleanup standards established for the Site were California MCLs. For this Five-Year Revi ew, the target and screening levels considered in the 2005 Five-Year Review for vapor intrusion were updated and reviewed to determine if the focus on MCLs as the Site groundwater cleanup standards remains appropriate. Table 7-1 shows Site groundwater contaminant concentrations and their respective MCLs , target groundwater concentrations and groundwater environmental screening levels (ESLs). The California MCLs presented in this table are the same as MCLs used in the 2005 Five-Year Review, except for Freon 113 (which could be a unit conversion error in the 2005 table). The Water Board updated ESLs in 2008 for vapor intrusion in 2008 (Water Board 2008). These updated values are presented in the table. These target and updated screening levels still exceed the groundwater MCLs. Therefore, th e use of MCLs as the Site groundwater cleanup standards remains appropriate.Section 7 Technical Assessment

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track .DOCX 7-3 Table 7-1 Groundwater Concentrations, MCLs, Ta rget Groundwater Concentrations, and Groundwater ESLs for Vapor Intrusion into Indoor Air Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA

Chemicals Detected in Groundwater at

Sola Optical Superfund Site Range of Site Concentrations Detected October 2005 to December 2009 ( μ g/L) CDPH a Primary

MCL ( μ g/L) Target Groundwater Concentration ( μ g/L) b Water Board Groundwater

Screening Levels ( μ g/L) c 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 200 3,100 130,000 – 360,000 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.8 – 5.6 6 190 6,300 – 18,000 1,1-Dichloroethane 6.5 – 16 5 2,200 1,000 – 3,400 Methylene chloride ND 5 5,800 2,400 – 8,100 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.5 230 200 – 690 Trichloroethylene ND 5 5.3 530 – 1,800 Freon 113 ND 1,200 1,500 NA Notes: a) CDPH = California Department of Public Health, Table updated April 14, 2010 (CDPH, 2010). b) EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (O SWER), 2002. Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusi on Guidance). November 2002 (EPA OSWER, 2002). Target Groundwater Concentration to Target Indoor Air Concentration Where the Soil Gas to Indoor Air Attenuation Factor = 0.001 and Partitioning Across the Water Table Obeys Henry’s Law C gw for cancer risk = 10 -4 and hazard index = 1. c) California Regional Water Quality Control Board S an Francisco Region, 2008. Sc reening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwa ter – Interim Final. Table E-1. Groundwater Screening Levels for Evaluation of Potential Vapor Intrusion C oncerns. November 2007, updated May 2008 (Water Board, 2008). The range of concentrations shown represent resi dential to industrial exposure scenarios, high permeability soils assumed. 

### Changes in Exposure Pathways A review of the 2007 ROD Amendment Hum an Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted for this third five-year review and findings of the review were submitted in an HHRA Review Technical Memorandum (Appendix H). The assumptions made at the time of reme dy selection concerning exposure pathways are generally unchanged. The risk assessment prepared in 1991 and discussed in the 1991 ROD evaluated the Site for hypothetic al future residential for ingestion of contaminated groundwater and inhalation of contaminants in indoor air via vapor intrusion. However, the exposure assumptionof residential use is more conservative than the current land use of industrial/co mmercial, so the exposure assumptions and subsequent clean-up standards remain pr otective of human health. The 1991 ROD risk assessment conducted for the Sola Si te did not evaluate a homegrown produce pathway or an indoor air pathway for on-sit e workers and potential future residents. As part of the 2005 Five-Year Review, a screening-level review was conducted for these two pathways and concluded that the home-grown produce and indoor air pathways do not pose an increased health risk.Section 7 Technical Assessment

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 7-4 

### Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics Toxicity criteria for 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA were also reviewed for this Five-Year Review. EPA’s online Integrated Risk Information System (EPA, 2010) indicates that these have not been revised since 2002 and 1990, respectively. The California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) online toxicity database indicates that toxicity criteria for 1,1-DCA were last reviewed in 2009, however these values have not changed since 1992 (CalEPA, 1992; 2009). OEHHA does not list toxicity criteria for 1,1-DCE. 

### Changes in Risk A ssessment Methods Although EPA has not updated its vapor in trusion guidance document, the California DTSC issued its own vapor intrusion gu idance (Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Va por Intrusion to Indoor Air) in 2004 and updated this guidance in February 2005. Th is document does not provide generic groundwater screening levels; it does, howe ver, provide a conservative mathematical model (Johnson and Ettinger Excel spreadsheet model) for calculating cancer risks and non-cancer hazards from inhalation of vapors migrating from groundwater. These models have been adjusted by DTSC (GW-Screen Version 3.0 April 2003, last modified by DTSC on February 4, 2009) with California toxicity criteria and default parameters assuming a residential recept or. When the maximum Site groundwater concentrations of 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA detected from 2005 to 2010 are entered into the DTSC-adjusted Johnson and Ettinger model using default parameters and assuming a sand vadose zone, the cancer risk for 1,1-DCA is 9 x 10 -7 , which is below the EPA risk management range of 10 -6 to 10 -4 . The hazard quotients for 1,1-DCE (0.04) and 1,1-DCA (0.002) are also well below the target threshold of one. The model printouts for these two chemicals are prov ided in Appendix H. Note that these calculations are not site-specific. Instea d, they use conservative default input parameters to provide a screening level evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion. The Johnson and Ettinger models were not used in the previous risk assessment or Five-Year Review. 

### Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs The remedy of MNA and ICs has almost met the objective to restore the groundwater to its beneficial uses by reducing the cont amination levels to below State and Federal drinking water standards (MCLs). The remedy is progressing as expected. 

## Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question th e protectiveness of the remedy? No new ecological receptors were noted during the Site inspection. No weatherrelated events have affected the protecti veness of the remedy. Exceedances of ROD constituents have been previously discu ssed in this review. There is no other information that calls into questi on the protectiveness of the remedy.N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 8-1 

# Section 8 Issues

Table 8-1 Summary Table of Issues Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA Issues A ffects Current Protectiveness (Y/N) Affects Future Protectiveness (Y/N) 1. Although no additional wells have been installed on the Site since 2005, the well permitting restriction IC is not properly in place, which impacts the pr otectiveness of the 2007 ROD Amendment remedy. No Yes

2. The restrictive covenant IC ha s not yet been implemented. No YesN_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 9-1 

# Section 9 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Table 9-1 Summary Table of Issues, Recomme ndations, and Follow-Up Actions Sola Optical USA, Inc., Sonoma County, CA

Issue Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Party Responsible Over-sight Agency Milestone Date Affects Protectiveness (Y/N) Current Future The well permitting restriction IC is not properly in place. a. The County of Sonoma needs to be contacted to ensure that the Permits Plus system is corrected so that the notice regarding Site well installation restriction comes up when a well permit application is entered into the system. EPA EPA Autumn 2010 N Y

The restrictive covenant IC has not been implemented. b. Determine whether the restrictive covenant IC is required to protect human health in the short-term, and implement it, if so. EPA EPA Spring 2012 N YN_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 10-1 

# Section 10 Protectiveness Statement

The remedy at the Sola Site currently pr otects human health and the environment because the groundwater contamination has been reduced below drinking water standards (MCLs) in all but a very limited area around one well, no exposure pathways to the remaining contamination ex ist, and no one is using the groundwater resource. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need to be taken to ensure long-term protectiveness:

 The well permitting restriction IC within the CSPRMD Permits Plus system must be properly implemented to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy.

 Determine whether the restrictive covenant IC is required to protect human health in the short-term, and implement it if so.N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX 11-1 

# Section 11 Next Review

The Sola Site will continue to have Five-Yea r Reviews in the future until the residual contamination in the groundwater at the Site achieves the clean-up standard. The next Five-Year Review will be conducted in 2015.N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX R-1 

# References

California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2005. Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 2004, updated February 2005. California Department of Public Health. 2010. Table of MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants . Last updated April 14, 2010. California Environmental Protection Agen cy (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 1992. Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Ce rtain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. April.
_________. 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for derivation, listing of available values, and adjustments to allow for early life stage exposures. May. _________. 2010. Online Toxicity Database - http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp, accessed May 10, 2010. California Regional Water Quality Control Bo ard San Francisco Region (Water Board). 2008. Groundwater Screening for Environmental Co ncerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Interim Final . November 2007, updated May 2008.
CH2M Hill. 1991. Public Health Risk Assessment; Sola Optical USA, Inc . April. County of Sonoma Department of Health Services – Environmental Health Division (CSDHS-EHD). 2008. Letter from CSDHS-EHD to constituents within 1⁄4 mile of the Sola Site regarding Notice of Potential Groundwater Contamination. November 6. Harvest Christian School (HCS). 2007. Cond itional Use Permit Application submitted by Harvest Christian School to City of Petaluma – Community Development Department regarding the relocation of a private school to 1500 Cader Lane. August 24. Jang, John. 2010. (Caseworker, California Re gional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay, Oakland, California). Personal communication with Ahnna Westrich of CDM, Walnut Creek, California. April 1. Levine Fricke (LFR). 1989. Evaluation of Implemented Interim Remedial Measures and Proposed Final Remedial Measures at Sola Opti cal, USA Inc. Facility, Petaluma, California

. June 15.
_________. 1990. Remedial Investigation Report; Sola Optical USA, Inc, Petaluma, California . December 3.
_________. 1991. Feasibility Study Report; Sola Optical USA, Inc. Site. June 10.References

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX R-2 _________. 1996a. Request for Technical Impracticability Waiver; Sola Optical USA, Inc. Site . November 22.
_________. 1996b. Excel Charts of VOC removal, influent concentrations, and constituent concentration trends for select wells. May 29.
_________. 2001. Evaluation of Monitored Natural Attenuation as a Remedy to Meet Remedial Action Objectives; Sola Optical USA, Inc. , Site. April 4.
_________. 2002a. Response to Comments and Addendum to the Monitored Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, Sola Optical USA, Inc. Site . April 16.
_________. 2002b. Work Plan to Implement Monitored Natural Attenuation as a Remedial Measure at the Former Sola Optical U.S.A. Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California

. October 22.
_________. 2005. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, May 2003 through May 2005, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. June 9.
_________. 2006. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, October 2005 through June 2006, Former Sola Optica l USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. August 21.
_________. 2007a. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, July through December 2006, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. February 9.
_________. 2007b. Response to United State Environment al Protection Agency, Region 9, May 18, 2007 Letter Regarding Abandonment of Selected Groundwater Monitoring and Former Extraction Wells at the Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. June 7.
_________. 2007c. Abandonment and Sealing of Wells at Former Sola Optical U.S.A., Inc., 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. August 20.
_________. 2008a. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, January through May 2008, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. September 2.
_________. 2008b. Groundwater Monitoring Report, June through November 2008, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. December 12. LFR/Arcadis. 2009. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January through June 2009, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. September 1.References

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX R-3 Milliner, Jamie. 2010. (Project Manager , RNM Properties, Petaluma, California). Personal communication with Ahnna Westri ch of CDM, Walnut Creek, California. March 29. RNM Cader, L.L.C. and Sola International, Inc. 2000. Purchase and Sales Agreement

. September 15. Roth, Daren. 2010. (Project Geologist, Ar cadis, Emeryville, California). Personal communication with Ahnna Westrich of CD M, Walnut Creek, California. March 17. Seyfried, Scott. 2010. (Project Manager, Ar cadis, Emeryville, California). Personal communication with Ahnna Westrich of CD M, Walnut Creek, California. April 2. Swift, Bob. 2010. (Supervising Environmenta l Health Specialist, County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department – Wells and Septic Division, Santa Rosa, California). Personal communicationwith Ahnna Westrich of CDM, Walnut Creek, California. March 31. Tran, Ken. 2010. (Site Building Manager/Part Owner, Kland, LLC, Santa Rosa, California) Personal communication with Ahnna Westrich of CDM, Walnut Creek, California. March 29. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Record of Decision; Sola Optical Site . September 27.
_________. 1993. Public Health Assessment; Sola Optical USA, Inc . January 6.
_________. 2000. First Five-Year Review: Sola Optical, Inc. September.
_________. 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA 540-R-01-007 . June.
_________. 2005a. Second Five-Year Review Report for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Sonoma County, California. September.
_________. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessin g Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. March.
_________. 2007a. EPA Proposes Amending the Clean-up Plan for Contaminated Groundwater, Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site. January.
_________. 2007b. Record of Decision Amendment for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, California. March 30.
_________. 2007c. Letter from EPA to LFR regarding Request to Abandon Wells, Sola Optical Superfund Site. May 18.
_________. 2007d. Letter from EPA to Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding Request to Abandon Wells, Sola Optical Superfund Site. June 11.References

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK .DOCX R-4 _________. 2007e. Letter from EPA to Harvest Christian Sc hool regarding Property at 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA, Sola Optical Superfund Site. September 5.
_________. 2007f. Letter from EPA to Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding Notice to Proceed, Sola Optical Superfund Site. September 27. _________. 2007g. Letter from EPA to City of Petaluma – Community Development Department regarding Application for Conditio nal Use Permit by Harvest Christian School for 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA, File Number 07-CUP-0438. September 27.
_________. 2007h. Personal communication be tween Dante Rodriguez (EPA) and Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding the su bmittal of the well abandonment report

. October 4.
_________. 2008. Letter from EPA to Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding Approval of Remedial Design, Sola Optical Superfund Site. February 20. _________. 2010. Online Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) - http://www.epa.gov/iris/, accessed May 10, 2010. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 2002. Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Ind oor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance) . November.This page left blank intentionally

## Appendix A Copy of Property RestrictionSOLA_2010 5YR Draft Report_060210R.DOC This page left blank intentionallySFUN D RECORD S CT R 

### 211498 7 PURCHAS E AND 1 SAL E AGREEMEN T "

. Thi s PURCHAS E AN D SAL E AGREEMEN T (thi s "Agreement" ) i s mad e a s o f Septembe r I S , 2000 , b y an d betwee n RN M CADER , L.L.C. , aCaliforni alimite d liabilit y compan y ("Buyer" ) an d SOL A INTERNATIONAL , INC. , aDelawar e corporatio n ("Seller")

. Th e abov e dat e i s fo r referenc e purpose s only

. Th e "Effectiv e Date " o f thi s Agreemen t i s a s define d i n Articl e 1

. RECITAL S
A

. Selle r i s th e fe e owne r o f tha t certai n parce l o f unimprove d rea l propert y locate d i n th e Cit y o f Petaluma , Sonom aCounty , Californi aa s mor e particularl y describe d i n Exhibi t "A " attache d heret o (th e "Property")

. B

. Buye r desire s t o purchas e th e Propert y fro mSelle r an d Selle r desire s t o sel l th e Propert y t o Buyer , al l i n accordanc e wit h th e term s an d condition s o f thi s Agreement

. 5 AGREEMEN T
NOW , THEREFORE , in

. consideratio n o f th e mutua l covenant s se t fort h herei n th e partie s heret o agre e a s follows :
1

. DEFINITIONS

. I n additio n t o an y othe r term s define d herein , th e followin g terms , wheneve r use d i n thi s Agreement , shal l hav e th e meaning s se t fort h below

. Additiona l Cash : Th e amoun t o f th e Purchas e Price , (a ) plu s a n amoun t sufficien t t o cove r Buyer' s shar e o f Closin g Cost s a s allocate d herein , (b ) les s th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t place d int o Escrow

. Broker : Meridia n Commercial,Tnc? , agen t fo r Seller

. Busines s Day : An y da y excludin g Saturday , Sunda y an d an y da y whic h i s alega l holida y unde r th e law s o f th e Stat e o f Californi ao r i s ada y o n whic h bankin g institution s locate d i n Californi aar e authorize d o r require d b y la w o r othe r governmenta l actio n t o close

. -j Buyer' s Address : c/ o RN M Lakevill e L.P

. 13 5 Mai n Street , Suit e 114 0 Sa n Francisco , C A 9410 5 Phone : (415)904-1985 ' Fax : (415)543-291 7
Wit h acop y to : La w Office s o f Mar y L u Everet t 42 5 Californi aSt

. Ste

. 180 0 Sa n Francisco , C A 9410 4 Phone:(415)394-570 0 Fax : (415)394-500 3

G \DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0Closing : Th e dat e o n whic h th e Dee d i s recorde d i n th e Officia l Record s o f Sonom aCounty , California

. Closin g Costs : Al l cit y an d count y documentar y transfe r stamp s an d taxes , al l sale s an d excis e taxes , th e fee s an d cost s o f Escro w Agent , titl e insuranc e premium s an d othe r charge s o f Titl e Compan y an d al l othe r title , escro w o r recordin g fee s payabl e i n connectio n wit h th e Closing

. Deed : A gran t dee d i n th e for mo f Exhibi t "B " attache d hereto

. Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date : Tha t da y whic h i s forty-fiv e (45 ) day s followin g th e "Effectiv e Date " a s define d below

. i Du e Diligenc e Period : Th e 45-da y perio d endin g a t 5:0 0 P.M

. (Pacifi c Time ) o n th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date

. Du e Diligenc e Review : (a ) Suc h physica l tests , inspections , environmenta l studies , surfac e an d subsurfac e studies , surveys , an d othe r investigation s a s Buye r elect s (subjec t to-Sectio n 3. 3 hereof ) t o determine , inte r alia , th e suitabilit y o f th e Propert y fo r Buyer' s intende d use , th e likelihoo d o f Buyer' s obtainin g th e necessar y governmenta l approval s fo r Buyer' s developmen t o f th e Property , th e economi c merit s o f Buyer' s propose d developmen t o f th e Property , th e statu s o f th e titl e t o th e Property , th e environmenta l conditio n o f th e Propert y an d othe r aspect s which , i n th e opinio n o f Buyer , ma y affec t Buyer' s decisio n t o purchas e th e Propert y ("Investigations") , an d (b ) arevie w o f th e Investigatio n Material s an d an y othe r document s o r record s relatin g t o th e conditio n o f th e Propert y an d it s propose d use

. Earnes t Mone y Deposit : Th e principa l su m o f $fffj& , consistin g of : (a ) a firs t installmen t ("Firs t Installment" ) i n th e amoun t o f ^MHlBf c du e o n th e Effectiv e Date ; (b ) a n additiona l installmen t ("Secon d Installment" ) i n th e amoun t
o f

^BlB ^ du e whe n an d i f notic e o f approva l o f th e resul t o f Buyer' s Du e Diligenc e Revie w i s delivere d t o Selle r pursuan t t o Sectio n 3. 3 hereo f o n o r befor e th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date ; an d (c ) a n additiona l installmen t ("Thir d Installment" ) i n th e amoun t o f P^JJ ^ du e n o late r tha n on e hundre d
an d twent y (120 ) day s afte r th e Effectiv e Dat e whe n an d i f Buye r ha s obtaine d sit e pla n approva l pursuan t t o Sectio n 3. 5 hereo f an d Buye r approve s th e Environmenta l Indemnificatio n Agreemen t t o b e provide d b y Selle r pursuan t t o Sectio n 3. 6 hereof

. Th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t als o includes , i n additio n t o th e principa l su mse t fort h above , an y interes t earne d o n th e abov e Installments

. Effectiv e Date : Th e da y o n whic h thi s Agreemen t ha s bee n execute d an d delivere d b y bot h partie s hereto

. Escrow : A s define d i n Articl e 7 hereof

.

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v 5 do c 9/14/0 0Escro w Agent : Nort h America n Titl e Co. , Inc. , 275 5 Mendocin o Ave , Sant a Rosa , Californi a95403

. Attn : Lesli e Hudson

. Tel : (707 ) 54 5 5130 ; fa x (707 ) 57 9 5462

. Escro w number : 62225007

. Hazardou s Materials : Oi l an d othe r petroleu mproducts , flammabl e explosives , asbestos , ure aformaldehyd e insulation , radioactiv e materials , an y substance s whic h ar e "wastes" , "hazardou s substances, " "hazardou s wastes, " "hazardou s materials" , "toxi c substances" , "pollutants " o r "contaminants " unde r an y past , presen t o r futur e stat e o r federa l law , ordinanc e o r regulation

. Hazardou s Material s Laws : Al l statutes , ordinances , rule s an d regulation s relatin g t o Hazardou s Materials , -includin g withou t limitatio n thos e relatin g t o th e investigatio n an d remediatio n o f Hazardou s Material s discharge d o r release d t o soi l an d groundwater

. Investigatio n Materials : A s define d i n Sectio n 3. 1 hereof

. Outsid e Closin g Date : Th e on e hundre d an d eightiet h (180th ) da y afte r th e Effectiv e Date

. Owner' s Policy : A standar d Californi afor mALT A o r CLT A owner' s polic y o f titl e insuranc e t o b e issue d b y Titl e Compan y i n th e amoun t o f th e Purchas e Price , insurin g Buyer' s fe e titl e t o th e Propert y subjec t onl y t o th e Permitte d Exceptions

. Permitte d Exceptions : Al l matter s affectin g titl e a s o f th e dat e o f Closin g approve d i n writin g b y Buye r o n o r prio r t o th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Dat e o r a s otherwis e provide d i n Sectio n 3. 2 hereof

. Property

. Th e rea l propert y describe d i n Exhibi t "A " attache d hereto , includin g bu t no t limite d t o (a ) an y improvement s locate d thereon , an d (b ) al l easements , nghts-of-wa y permits , approvals , entitlements , developmen t rights , wate r an d
sewe r rights , buildin g allotment s an d othe r right s appurtenan t thereto

. Purchas e Price:

. ^P ^ pe r squar e foot

. Seller' s surveyo r ha s compute d th e are a o f

Propert y t o betfBlHB^squar e feet

. Base d o n tha t computation , th e Purchas e Pric e i s ^fffftff f Selle r sha H provid e Buye r wit h acertificatio n o f th e squar e footag e o f th e Propert y fro mSeller' s surveyo r durin g th e Du e Diligenc e Period

. Th e principa l amoun t o f an y outstandin g an d unpai d bond s an d assessment s plu s an y accrue d an d unpai d interes t o n suc h bond s o r assessment s whic h ar e lien s agains t th e Propert y shal l b e credite d agains t th e Purchas e Price

. Seller' s Address :
150 0 Cade r Lan e Petaluma , C A 9495 3 Attn : Mr

. Richar d Sanzar i Phone : (707 ) 763-9911 , ext

. 647 0 Fax : (707)763-221 1

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNultyVPurchaseAg t v5.do c 9/14/0 0Wit h acop y to : Green e Radovsk y Malone y & Share , LL P Fou r Embarcader o Cente r Ste

. 400 0 Sa n Francisco , C A 9411 1 Attn : Mar k S

. Hennig h Phone:(415)981-140 0 Fax:(415)777-496 1

Titl e Company : Nort h America n Titl e Co. , Inc

. (Addres s sam e a s Escro w Agent)

. 2 PURCHAS E AN D SALE
. 2. 1 Purchas e an d Sale

. Selle r agree s t o sel l th e Propert y t o Buye r an d Buye r agree s t o purchas e th e Propert y fro m Seller , subjec t th e term s an d condition s se t fort h herein

. 2. 2 Paymen t o f th e Purchas e Pric e

. Th e Purchas e Pnc e shal l b e payabl e a s follows : (a ) O n th e Effectiv e Dat e Buye r shal l deposi t th e Firs t Installmen t o f th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t wit h th e Escro w Agent

. Subjec t t o th e provision s o f Sectio n 3. 3 hereof , Buye r shal l deposi t th e Secon d Installmen t o f th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t wit h Escro w Agen t n o late r tha n whe n notic e o f approva l i s delivere d t o Selle r pursuan t t o sai d Sectio n 3. 3 o n o r befor e th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date

. Buye r shal l deposi t th e Thir d Installmen t o f th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t wit h th e Escro w Agen t n o late r tha n on e hundre d an d twent y (120 ) day s afte r th e Effectiv e Date , subjec t t o Buyer' s righ t t o terminat e th e Agreemen t an d receiv e aretur n o f th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t i f Buye r ha s no t obtaine d sit e pla n approva l fro m th e Cit y o f Petaluma' s Sit e Plannin g an d Architectura l Revie w Committe e (SPARC ) a s provide d i n Sectio n 3. 5 hereo f o r Buye r an d Selle r hav e no t ^agree d upo n th e for m an d substanc e o f th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t an d th e Additiona l Agreemen t a s provide d i n Section s 3. 6 an d 3.7hereof

. Th e partie s shal l direc t Escro w Agen t t o deposi t th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t int o a n interes t bearin g account

. Al l payment(s ) shal l b e i n th e

• for mo f cash , cashier' s chec k o r wir e transfe r o f immediatel y availabl e funds

. Al l interes t earne d o n th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e adde d t o an d becom e par t o f th e Earnes t Mone y Deposit

. Onc e Buye r ha s deposite d th e Secon d Installmen t wit h th e Escro w Agent , th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e non-refundabl e excep t
a s otherwis e expressl y provide d i n thi s Agreemen t an d subjec t t o Buyer' s righ t t o receiv e aful l refun d o f suc h deposi t upo n a

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAg t v 5 do c 9/U/O Oterminatio n o f th e Agreemen t b y Buye r pursuan t t o Section s 3.5 , 3. 6 o r 3.7

. (b ) Prio r t o Closing , Buye r shal l deposi t th e Additiona l Cas h wit h Escro w Agen t i n th e for mo f cash , cashier' s chec k o r wir e transfe r o f

immediatel y availabl e funds

. 3
. DELIVERIES ; DU E DILIGENC E REVIEW ; TERMINATIO N

3. 1 Seller' s Deliveries

. Withi n fiv e (5 ) Busines s Day s followin g th e Effectiv e Date , Selle r shal l mak e availabl e fo r revie w an d copyin g b y Buye r copie s o f al l fina l consultan t an d othe r thir d part y report s relatin g t o th e rea l propert y whic h i s th e subjec t o f th e EP A Orde r (a s define d i n Sectio n 3.6) , togethe r wit h al l othe r document s o f whic h Selle r i s awar e relatin g to : (a ) rea l propert y encumbrances , easements , CC&R' s etc ; (b ) taxe s an d assessments ; (c ) governmenta l notices ; (d ) drawings , plan s an d specifications ; reports ; survey s an d (e ) othe r materia l informatio n relatin g t o th e Property

. Al l document s shal l b e mad e availabl e t o Buye r an d it s representative s a t Seller' s Petalum aoffic e durin g norma l busines s hour s upo n 2 4 hour s advanc e notic e an d Selle r shal l cop y an y an d al l suc h document s requeste d b y Buyer

. Seller , a t it s election , ma y requir e Buyer' s writte n acknowledgmen t o f receip t o f document s copie d an d delivere d b y Selle r t o Buyer

. Referenc e t o document s "o f whic h Selle r i s aware " shal l mea n al l document s o f whic h Roma n Stamo , and/o r Clair e McCarth y (Directo r o f Facilitie s an d forme r Environmenta l Manage r o f Seller , respectively ) ar e actuall y aware , al l o f whic h document s shal l b e mad e availabl e t o Buye r a t th e Petalum aoffic e o f Seller

. Selle r agree s t o cooperat e wit h an d assis t Buye r i n obtainin g an y additiona l informatio n whic h Buye r ma y reasonabl y reques t t o assis t i t i n it s Du e Diligenc e Review , provide d tha t an y out-of-pocke t cost s incurre d b y Selle r t o obtai n th e sam e shal l b e pai d b y Buyer

. 3. 2 Titl e Review

. Durin g th e Du e Diligenc e Period , Buye r shal l hav e th e opportunit y t o revie w an d approv e apreliminar y titl e repor t fo r th e Propert y (th e "Titl e Report" ) t o b e prepare d andj)rovide d b y th e Titl e Compan y o n behal f o f Buye r and , o n o r befor e th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date , Buye r shal l notif y Selle r o f an y objection(s ) tha t Buye r ma y hav e concernin g th e statu s o f titl e t o th e Propert y ("Buyer' s Objections")

. An y exception s t o titl e no t expressl y disapprove d b y Buye r i n writin g o n o r befor e th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Dat e shal l b e deeme d approve d b y Buye r withou t an y furthe r actio n o n it s par t whatsoeve r (th e "Approve d Exceptions")

. I n th e even t tha t Buye r require s a n ALT A polic y o f titl e insurance , th e ALT A surve y shal l b e prepare d b y Buyer , a t Buyer' s sol e cos t an d expense , an d al l surve y exception s reviewe d b y Buye r durin g th e Du e Diligenc e Period

. Selle r shal l attemp t t o satisf y th e Buyer' s Objection s (i f any ) prio r t o th e Closing , bu t shal l no t b e require d t o institut e an y litigatio n o r incu r an y cos t t o d o so

. If , prio r t o th e Closing , Selle r notifie s Buye r i n writin g tha t Selle r wil l no t satisf y an y o f Buyer' s Objections , then , withi n seve n

G.\DATA\mle\6S5 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 5(.7 ) day s o f suc h writte n notic e fro mSelle r (and , i f necessary , th e Closin g shal l b e extende d b y th e numbe r o f day s necessar y t o giv e Buye r thi s ful l 7-da y period) , Buye r shal l notif y Selle r i n writin g tha t Buye r either : (i ) waive s thos e titl e objection s whic h canno t b e satisfie d an d accept s titl e subjec t t o suc h exceptions ; o r

(ii ) terminate s thi s Agreemen t i n accordanc e wit h Articl e 9 hereof

. If , prio r t o th e Closing , Selle r notifie s Buye r i n writin g tha t Selle r wil l satisf y al l o f Buyer' s Objections , Selle r shal l satisf y th e sam e prio r t o an d a s aconditio n t o Buyer' s obligatio n t o clos e Escrow

. Th e Approve d Exception s an d an y othe r exception s whic h Buye r approve s i n writin g shal l b e referre d t o herei n a s "Permitte d Exceptions. "
3. 3 Du e Diligenc e Review

. Commencin g o n th e Effectiv e Dat e an d endin g a t 5:0 0 P.M

. (Pacifi c Time , a s the n i n effect ) o n th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date , Buye r shal l have , th e right , a t it s sol e cos t an d expense , t o conduc t aDu e Diligenc e Review , includin g a n on-sit e inspectio n an d testin g o f th e Property

. A s aconditio n t o Closing , Buye r shal l delive r t o Selle r it s writte n approva l o f it s Du e Diligenc e Revie w o n o r befor e th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Date

. I f Buye r fail s t o provid e suc h notic e o f approval , the n thi s Agreemen t shal l terminat e automaticall y an d withou t furthe r actio n o n th e par t o f eithe r party , an d th e partie s shal l direc t th e Escro w Agen t t o delive r t o Buye r th e Earnes t Mone y Deposit

.

3. 4 Investigations

. Th e Investigation s shal l b e conducte d onl y i n accordanc e wit h th e followin g procedures : (a ) Buye r shal l exercis e du e car e i n enterin g upon , inspectin g an d testin g th e Property , an d shal l perfor mal l suc h entry , inspectio n an d testin g i n aprofessiona l manne r s o a s t o minimiz e damag e o r disruptio n o f th e Property

. (b ) Buye r agree s t o pa y promptl y al l cost s associate d wit h th e Investigation s an d no t t o permi t an y lie n o r encumbranc e t o b e asserte d agains t th e Propert y i n connectio n wit h an y Investigations

. Withi n twent y (20 ) day s afte r receip t o f notic e fro mSeller , Buye r shal l (a ) pa y an d remov e o r (b ) "bon d of f an y mechanic' s lien s relatin g t o th e Investigations

. Buye r shal l obtain , a t Buyer' s sol e cos t an d expense , an y license s o r permit s require d b y Federal , stat e o r

loca l la w i n orde r t o perfor m an y inspection s o r test s on/o f th e Property

. (c ) Buye r shall , a t it s ow n expense , promptl y fil l an d compac t an y holes , an d otherwis e restor e an y damag e t o th e Property , cause d b y th e conduc t o f an y Investigations

. Buye r an d Buyer' s representa

tive s shal l immediatel y thereafte r vacat e th e Property

. (d ) I f Buye r intend s t o perfor man y invasiv e testin g a t th e Propert y o r inspec t th e Propert y fo r th e presenc e o f an y toxi c materials , Buye r

G.\DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAg i v5.do c 9/U/O O 'shal l provid e Selle r wit h a t leas t fiv e (5 ) days ' prio r writte n notic e detailin g th e exten t an d scop e o f suc h testin g o r inspectio n an d obtai n Seller' s prio r approval

. Selle r shal l no t unreasonabl y withhol d o r dela y it s approva l o f suc h testin g an d inspection

. I f an y contaminatio n i s foun d a s aresul t o f suc h testin g o r inspection , Buye r shal l immediatel y provid e Selle r wit h al l informatio n an d copie s o f al l report s relatin g t o suc h testin g o r inspection , an d Buye r covenant s an d agree s no t t o contac t o r infor m an y publi c o r quasi-publi c agenc y concernin g suc h 'Contaminatio n withou t firs t obtainin g th e prio r writte n consen t o f Seller , whic h Selle r ma y withhol d i n it s sol e an d absolut e discretion ; provided , however , tha t Buye r ma y infor m a n applicabl e publi c o r quasi-publi c agenc y concernin g suc h contaminatio n withou t th e prio r writte n consen t o f Selle r i f Buye r i s affirmativel y require d t o infor mtha t publi c o r quasi-publi c agenc y pursuan t t o applicabl e law

. 4 (e ) Al l inspection s o f th e Propert y requirin g acces s t o th e Propert y wil l b e conducte d onl y followin g a t leas t 24-hours ' advanc e notic e t o Selle r and , a t th e reques t o f Seller , wit h arepresentativ e o f Selle r present

. (f ) Buye r shal l defend , indemnif y an d hol d harmles s Seller , SOL A Optica l USA , Inc. , an d SOL A Holdings , Inc

. (collectivel y th e "SOL A Parties" ) fro man d agains t an y an d al l claims , damages , losses , costs , expense s an d liabilitie s (includin g bu t no t limite d t o al l attorneys ' fee s an d cour t cost s pai d o r incurre d b y th e SOL A Parties ) whic h aris e ou t o f o r ar e i n an y wa y connecte d wit h Buyer' s entr y upo n o r inspectio n o r testin g o f th e Propert y (othe r tha n th e Property' s los s o f valu e o r marketabilit y du e t o Buyer' s discover y o f defects)

. Buye r shal l obtai n an d maintai n commercia l genera l liabilit y insuranc e i n th e amoun t offlBBflBPHiamin g th e SOL A partie s a s additiona l insured s an d shal l provid e Selle r wit h evidenc e thereo f prio r t o conductin g it s on-sit e Investigations

. 3. 5 SPAR C Approvals

. Buyer , shal l appl y fo r sit e pla n approva l fro m th e Cit y o f Petaluma' s Sit e Plannin g an d Architectura l Revie w Committe e (SPARC ) fo r Buyer' s intende d developmen t o f th e Propert y promptly

afte r it s executio n an d deliver y o f thi s Agreemen t an d shal l pursu e suc h approva l proces s wit h al l du e diligence

. I f Buye r ha s no t receive d SPAR C approva l o f Buyer' s sit e pla n fo r th e propose d developmen t o f th e Propert y withi n on e hundre d an d twent y (120 ) day s afte r th e executio n an d deliver y o f thi s Agreemen t int o Escrow , Buye r shal l hav e th e right , a t Buyer' s sol e discretion , t o eithe r (i ) waiv e thi s contingenc y an d deposi t th e Thir d Installment , o r (ii ) terminat e thi s Purchas e Agreemen t b y writte n notic e t o Seller , i n whic h even t th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e returne d t o Buye r b y th e Escro w Agen t an d al l obligation s o f th e partie s t o eac h othe r shal l terminate

.

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNuity\PurchaseAg t v5.do c 9/14/0 03. 6 Environmenta l Indemnification

. Selle r ha s disclose d t o Buye r th e presenc e o f Hazardou s Material s i n subsurfac e soil s o n th e Propert y an d th e parce l o f rea l propert y owne d b y Selle r adjacen t t o th e propert y (th e "Adjacen t Parcel" ) an d i n groun d wate r associate d wit h th e Propert y an d th e Adjacen t Parce l (th e "Existin g Environmenta l Conditions" ) an d th e existenc e o f groun d wate r monitorin g well s whic h Selle r wa s require d t o instal l t o monito r suc h groun d wate r environmenta l conditions

. I n June , 1988 , th e Propert y an d th e Adjacen t Propert y wer e propose d fo r listin g o n th e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t ("NPL" ) maintaine d b y th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (th e "EPA" ) pursuan t t o th e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Respons e Compensatio n an d Liabilit y Act

. Th e Propert y an d th e Adjacen t Propert y wer e adde d t o th e NP L i n February , 1990

. Selle r i s currentl y require d t o furnis h periodi c report s t o th e EP A pursuan t t o EP A Orde r #92-0 7 (th e "EP A Order")

. Th e remedy , operatio n an d maintenanc e o f th e remed y an d groun d wate r monitorin g an d reportin g require d b y th e EP A Orde r ar e collectivel y referre d t o herei n a s th e "Remedia l Work"

. A s aconditio n t o closing , Selle r shal l provid e t o Buye r a n "Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreement " execute d b y th e SOL A Partie s i n for man d substanc e satisfactor y t o Buye r i n Buyer' s sol e discretion

. I f Buye r an d Selle r fai l t o agre e o n th e for mfo r th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t withi n 12 0 day s afte r th e Effectiv e Date , eithe r part y shal l hav e th e righ t t o terminat e thi s Agreemen t b y notic e t o th e othe r part y give n prio r t o th e dat e suc h a n agreemen t i s reache d an d th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e returne d t o Buye r upo n suc h terminatio n an d th e partie s shal l hav e n o furthe r obligation s hereunder

. 3. 7 Additiona l Agreement

. Du e t o th e Existin g Environmenta l Conditions , th e partie s desir e t o preven t thos e activitie s o n th e Propert y an d th e Adjacen t Parce l whic h woul d exacerbat e th e Existin g Environmenta l Conditions , an d t o provid e Selle r wit h th e acces s t o th e Propert y require d fo r Seller' s performanc e o f Seller' s Remedia l Work

. A t Closin g th e partie s shal l ente r int o a n agreemen t (th e "Additiona l Agreement" ) wit h respec t t o suc h matters

. Withi n te n (10 ) day s afte r th e Effectiv e Date , Selle r shal l delive r t o Buye r adraf t o f th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t an d th e Additiona l Agreement

. Selle r an d Buye r shal l diligentl y an d i n goo d fait h negotiat e th e term s o f th e tw o (2 ) agreements

. I f Buye r an d Selle r fai l t o agre e o n th e for man d term s o f th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t an d th e Additiona l Agreemen t withi n on e hundre d twent y (120 ) day s afte r th e Effectiv e Date , eithe r part y ma y terminat e thi s Agreemen t b y notic e t o th e othe r part y an d th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e returne d t o Buye r an d th e partie s shal l hav e n o furthe r obligation s hereunder , excep t fo r an y indemnit y obligation s whic h surviv e th e termination

. Th e Additiona l Agreemen t shal l addres s (a ) removal/disturbanc e o f groun d wate r othe r tha n a s require d fo r Buyer' s constructio n o f improvement s o n th e Propert y an d (b ) acces s right s fo r performanc e o f Remedia l Work

. 3. 8 Buyer' s Acknowledgment

. Buye r acknowledge s that , subjec t t o th e representation s an d warrantie s o f Selle r se t fort h i n Sectio n 6. 1 hereo f an d excep t fo r matter s involvin g th e environmenta l conditio n o f th e Propert y whic h matter s wil l b e covere d i n th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t betwee n th e parties ,

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNully\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0Buye r ha s entere d int o thi s Agreemen t wit h th e intentio n o f makin g an d upo n Buyer' s removin g th e 'inspectio n contingenc y pursuan t t o Sectio n 4. 1 (a) , relyin g upon , suc h investigation s o f th e Propert y a s Buye r ha s deeme d necessar y an d appropriate

. Subjec t t o th e foregoing , Buye r acknowledges , fo r itsel f an d fo r it s successors , heir s an d assigns , tha t Buyer : (a ) I s asophisticate d investor , knowledgeabl e an d experience d i n th e financia l an d busines s risk s attendan t t o a n investmen t i n incom e propert y an d capabl e o f evaluatin g th e merit s an d risk s o f enterin g int o thi s Agreemen t an d purchasin g th e Property ; (b ) Ha s entere d int o thi s Agreemen t wit h th e intentio n o f makin g an d relyin g upo n it s ow n (o r it s experts' ) investigation s o f th e physical , (excludin g environmental) , economi c an d lega l conditio n o f th e Property , includin g withou t limitatio n al l document s an d entitlement s relatin g t o th e Property , th e complianc e o f th e Propert y wit h law s an d governmenta l regulation s an d th e operatio n an d propose d us e o f th e Property ; (c ) I s no t relyin g upo n an y representation s an d warranties , othe r tha n thos e specificall y se t fort h i n thi s Agreemen t an d th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreement , mad e b y Selle r o r anyon e actin g o r claimin g t o ac t
o n Seller' s behal f concernin g th e Propert y or : (i ) th e suitabilit y o f th e Propert y fo r an y activitie s o r use ; (ii ) habitability , profitabilit y o r fitnes s fo r aparticula r purpose ; o r (iii ) an y othe r matte r no t expressl y addresse d herein

. - (d ) Ha s bee n give n areasonabl e opportunit y t o inspec t an d investigat e th e Property , eithe r independentl y o r throug h agent s o r expert s o f Buyer' s choosing

. Buye r furthe r acknowledge s tha t i t ha s no t receive d fro m Selle r an y accounting , tax , legal , architectural , engineering , propert y managemen t o r othe r advic e wit h respec t t o thi s transactio n an d i s relyin g upo n th e advic e o f k s ow n accounting , tax , legal , architectural , engineering , propert y managemen t an d othe r advisor s
4 CONDITION S PRECEDENT
. 4. 1 Condition s t o Buyer' s Performance

. Buyer' s obligatio n t o purchas e th e Propert y shal l b e subjec t t o an d contingen t upo n th e satisfactio n o r writte n waive r b y Buye r o f eac h an d ever y on e o f th e followin g condition s precedent : (a ) Buyer' s inspectio n an d approva l o n o r befor e th e Du e Diligenc e Expiratio n Dat e o f al l titl e matter s relatin g t o th e Propert y an d o f al l othe r physical , environmental , legal , economi c an d othe r

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNultyVPurchaseAg t v5.do c 9/14/0 0 9matter s relatin g t o th e Property , a s Buye r may , i n it s sol e discretion , elec t t o investigat e an d (subject , however , t o th e provision s o f Sectio n 3. 4 hereof) ; (b ) Buyer' s receip t o f th e SPARC S approva l an d Seller' s deliver y int o escro w o f a n Environmenta l Agreemen t i n for man d substanc e acceptabl e t o Buyer , dul y execute d b y Seller ; an d (c ) Th e willingnes s of

. th e Titl e Compan y t o issue , upo n th e sol e conditio n o f th e paymen t o f it s regularl y schedule d premium , a n owner' s polic y o f titl e insurance , i n th e for man d wit h suc h endorsement s a s th e Buye r ma y reasonabl y requir e (collectively , th e "Owner' s Policy") , insurin g th e Buye r i n th e amoun t o f th e Purchas e Pric e tha t fe e simpl e titl e t o th e Propert y i s veste d o f
recor d i n th e Buye r o n th e Closin g Date , subjec t onl y t o th e standar d printe d condition s an d exception s o f th e Titl e Polic y an d th e Permitte d Exceptions

. (d ) Seller' s recordatio n o f th e dee d require d t o effec t th e Lo t Lin e Adjustmen t describe d i n Sectio n 5. 2 hereof

. (d ) Th e trut h an d correctnes s o f eac h o f Seller' s representation s an d warrantie s a s se t fort h i n Sectio n 6. 1 hereof

. (e ) Th e satisfactio n o r writte n waive r o f Seller' s performanc e o f eac h
an d ever y covenan t require d t o b e performe d b y th e Seller , hereunder

. (f ) Seller' s du e executio n an d acknowledgemen t o f th e Additiona l Agreemen t i n for man d substanc e acceptabl e t o Buyer

. (g ) Seller' s remova l o f th e designate d monitorin g well s an d existin g structure s an d equipmen t o n th e Propert y a s provide d i n Section s 5. 3 an d 5.4

. 4. 2 Condition s t o Seller' s Performance

. Th e obligation s o f Selle r t o conve y t o Buye r it s interest s i n th e Propert y shal l b e subjec t t o an d contingen t upon : (a ) Th e satisfactio n o r writte n waive r o f Buyer' s performanc e o f eac h
an d ever y covenan t require d t o b e performe d b y th e Buye r hereunder

. (b ) Th e trut h an d correctnes s o f eac h o f Buyer' s representation s an d warrantie s a s se t fort h i n Sectio n 6. 3 hereof , an d (c ) Buyer' s du e executio n an d acknowledgemen t o f th e Additiona l Agreemen t i n for man d substanc e acceptabl e t o Seller

.

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNultyVPurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 1 04. 3 Waive r o r Failur e o f Condition s Precedent

. A t an y tim e o r time s o n o r befor e th e dat e specifie d fo r th e satisfactio n o f th e respectiv e condition , Buye r o r Selle r ma y elec t t o waiv e i n writin g th e benefit s o f an y o f thei r respectiv e condition s se t fort h i n Section s 4. 1 o r 4. 2 hereof , a s applicable

. I n th e .even t tha t an y o f th e condition s se t fort h i n Section s 4. 1 o r 4. 2 hereo f .ar e neithe r waive d no r fulfilled , Buye r o r Selle r (a s appropriate )
ma y terminat e thi s Agreemen t i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f Articl e 9 hereof

. 5

. SELLER' S COVENANT S
5. 1 Conditio n o f Property

. Throug h th e Closin g o r terminatio n o f thi s Agreement , Selle r shal l maintai n th e Property.i n it s curren t conditio n an d shal l no t ente r int o an y contract s affectin g th e use , possessio n o r conditio n o f

th e Property

. 1 5. 2 Lo t Lin e Adjustment

. Th e Propert y consist s o f on e parce l o f approximatel y 15.1 9 acre s an d aportio n (approximatel y 6.0 8 acres ) o f th e Adjacen t Parcel

. Durin g th e Du e Diligenc e Period , an d a s aconditio n t o Closing , Selle r shal l obtai n al l require d approval s fo r alo t lin e adjustmen t
an d effec t suc h lo t lin e adjustmen t s o that , a t th e Closing , th e Propert y wil l consis t o f onl y on e lega l parce l o f approximatel y 21.2 7 acres

. Selle r agree s t o appl y fo r th e lo t lin e adjustmen t promptl y afte r th e dat e o f thi s Agreemen t an d t o pursu e th e approval s fo r suc h adjustmen t wit h du e diligence

. I f thi s conditio n i s no t met , Buye r ma y terminat e thi s Agreemen t upo n notic e t o Selle r an d th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e returne d t o Buye r b y Escro w Agent

. 5. 3 Monitoring , Removin g an d Relocatin g Wells

. Ther e ar e currentl y a numbe r o f monitorin g well s locate d o n th e Property , som e o f whic h ar e i n location s whic h ma y interfer e wit h Buyer' s propose d developmen t fo r th e Property

. A s aconditio n t o Buyer' s obligatio n t o close , subjec t t o Seller' s obtainin g al l approval s require d fro m th e EP A an d al l othe r require d approval s an d permit s (collectively , "Approvals") , Selle r shal l remov e o r relocat e thos e monitorin g vv^ll s designate d b y Buye r whic h conflic t wit h th e sit e pla n fo r Buyer' s propose d developmen t o f th e propert y submitte d t o SPAR C a s provide d i n Sectio n 3. 5 hereof

. Prio r t o th e expiratio n o f th e Du e Diligenc e Period , Buye r ma y designat e t o Selle r th e locatio n o f th e monitorin g well s t o b e remove d o r relocate d t o alocatio n acceptabl e t o Buyer

. Promptl y afte r receip t o f Buyer' s designation , Selle r shal l appl y fo r an d pursu e wit h du e diligenc e al l Approvals

. I f condition s t o Approval s woul d requir e Selle r t o replac e o r relocat e an y o f th e

. designate d wells , Selle r shal l compl y wit h suc h condition s a t it s sol e cos t

. an d expense

. I f th e condition s t o approva l woul d requir e Selle r t o incu r materia l cost s i n exces s o f th e cost s t o replac e o r relocat e th e designate d well s ("Exces s Costs") , Selle r shal l notif y Buye r o f th e anticipate d Exces s Cost s i n whic h even t Buye r a t it s electio n ca n eithe r instruc t Selle r t o

G.\DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAg t v5.do c 9/14/0 0 • 1 1procee d wit h th e approval s an d pa y al l Exces s Costs , (ii ) terminat e thi s Agreemen t an d hav e th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t returne d o r (iii ) waiv e th e relocatio n o r remova l o f thos e well s whic h wil l resul t i n th e Exces s Cost s an d procee d t o Closing

. I f Selle r i s unabl e t o obtai n th e required ' Approval s withi n on e hundre d twent y (120 ) day s afte r th e executio n an d deliver y o f thi s Agreemen t b y bot h parties , th e approva l perio d ( an d th e Outsid e Closin g Date ) shal l b e extende d b y Buye r fo r th e perio d o f tim e reasonabl y require d fo r Selle r t o obtai n th e same , provide d tha t i n n o even t shal l th e Outsid e Closin g Dat e b e extende d beyon d Marc h 30 , 200 1 pursuan t t o thi s Sectio n 5.3

. I f Seller's ' applicatio n i s denie d o r th e Approval s ar e no t obtaine d withi n suc h perio d (a s ma y b e extended) , Buye r ma y elect , b y writte n notic e t o Selle r give n withi n te n (10 ) day s afte r th e perio d i n whic h t o obtai n th e Approval s ha s elapsed , t o eithe r waiv e thi s conditio n o r terminat e thi s Agreement

. . I f Buye r fail s t o s o elect , thi s Agreemen t shal l b e deeme d t o b e terminated

. I n th e even t o f a terminatio n o f thi s Agreemen t pursuan t t o thi s Sectio n 5.3 , th e Earnes t Mone y Deposi t shal l b e refunde d t o Buye r an d th e partie s shal l thereafte r be.release d fro mal l furthe r obligation s hereunder

. 5. 4 Existin g Structures

. Prio r t o Closing , Selle r wil l remov e al l existin g structure s an d equipmen t fro m th e Property-(othe r tha n monitorin g well s whic h ar e no t designate d t o b e remove d o r relocate d pursuan t t o Sectio n 5. 3 above ) an d repai r an y damag e cause d b y suc h removal

. 6 REPRESENTATION S AN D WARRANTIES
. 6. 1 Seller' s Representations

. Selle r hereb y make s th e following ' representation s an d warrantie s t o Buyer , whic h shal l b e effectiv e an d enforceabl e bot h a s o f th e dat e o f thi s Agreemen t an d a s o f th e clos e o f
escrow

. (a ) T o th e bes t o f Seller' s knowledge , th e document s an d material s mad e availabl e t o Buye r a t Seller' s Petalum aoffic e pursuan t t o Sectio n 3. 1 above , includ e al l o f th e document s wit h respec t t o th e Properl y whic h ar e i n Seller' s possessio n o r control

. (b ) Excep t a s ha s bee n provide d t o Buye r i n th e Investigatio n Materials , ther e ar e n o leases , options , right s o f firs t refusal , right s o f

redemptio n o r othe r commitment s relatin g t o th e Property , no r ar e ther e o r an y servic e o r maintenanc e contract s whic h pertai n t o th e Propert y tha t canno t b e terminate d o n thirt y (30 ) days ' prio r notice

. (c ) Selle r ha s al l requisit e lega l powe r an d authorit y t o ente r int o an d perfor mthi s Agreemen t an d th e person s executin g thi s Agreemen t
o n behal f o f Selle r ar e dul y authorize d t o execut e an d delive r thi s

GADATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/11/0 0 1 2Agreemen t o n behal f o f Selle r an d t o perfor mSeller' s obligation s unde r thi s Agreement

. (d ) T o th e bes t o f Seller' s knowledge , ther e i s n o litigation , administrativ e proceedin g o r an y othe r clai mpendin g o r threatene d agains t o r affectin g th e Propert y (includin g rezonin g o r eminen t domai n proceedings) , an d Selle r ha s n o actua l knowledg e o f an y basi s upo n whic h aperso n coul d initiate , asser t o r threate n an y suc h litigation , proceedin g o r othe r claim

. (e ) T o th e bes t o f Seller' s knowledge , Selle r ha s no t receive d an y notic e o f an y violatio n o f an y zoning , environmenta l o r buildin g code s relatin g t o th e Propert y othe r tha n a s ha s bee n disclose d t o Buye r i n th e Investigatio n Materials

. Fo r purpose s o f thi s ''Agreement , th e phras e "t o th e bes t o f Seller' s knowledge " mean s t o th e actua l knowledg e o f Roma n Stam o an d Clair e McCarthy

. 6. 2 Seller' s Disclaimers

. Excep t a s expressl y se t fort h i n thi s Agreemen t an d i n th e '

. Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreement , Selle r make s n o representatio n o r warranty , expres s o r implied , writte n o r oral , concernin g th e Propert y o r an y us e t o whic h th e Propert y ma y o r ma y no t b e put , including , bu t no t limite d t o th e following : (i ) Th e conditio n o f titl e t o th e Property ; (ii ) Th e nature , physica l conditio n o r othe r aspect s o f th e Property ; (iii ) Th e expense s pai d o r incurre d i n connectio n wit h th e Property ; (iv ) Th e suitabilit y o r fitnes s o f th e Propert y fo r an y intende d
us e o r development ; i (v ) Th e dimension s o f th e Propert y o r th e accurac y o f an y squar e footage , sketche s o r revenu e o r expens e projection s relate d t o th e Property ; (vi ) Th e merchantability , marketabilit y o r habitabilit y o f th e property ; an d

' (vii ) Th e complianc e o f th e Propert y wit h an y laws , rules , ordinance s o r regulations

. (viii ) Th e accurac y o f an y report s prepare d b y Seller' s thir d part y consultants

.

G.\DATA\tnle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAg t v5.doc

. 9/14/0 0 ' 1 36. 3 Buyer' s Representations

. Buye r hereb y make s th e followin g representation s t o Seller , whic h shal l b e effectiv e an d enforceabl e bot h a s o f

th e dat e o f thi s Agreemen t an d a s o f th e clos e o f escrow : Buye r ha s al l requisit e powe r an d authorit y t o ente r int o an d perfor mthi s Agreement , an d th e person s executin g thi s Agreemen t o n behal f o f Buye r ar e dul y authorize d .t o execut e an d delive r thi s Agreemen t o n behal f o f Buye r an d t o perfor m Buyer' s obligation s unde r thi s Agreement

.

6. 4 Survival

. Th e representation s an d warrantie s o f th e partie s mad e herei n shal l surviv e th e Closing

. 7
. ESCRO W AN D CLOSING
. 7. 1 Escro w Instructions

. Promptl y followin g executio n o f thi s Agreemen t b y Buye r an d Seller , Buye r an d Selle r shall ' prepar e an d delive r t o Escro w Agen t writte n escro w instruction s consisten t wit h th e term s o f thi s Agreemen t an d reasonabl y satisfactor y t o bot h Buye r an d Seller

. Suc h
escro w instruction s shal l incorporat e th e relevan t provision s o f thi s Agreemen t b y referenc e an d shal l provid e tha t i n th e even t o f an y conflic t betwee n suc h incorporate d provision s o f thi s Agreemen t an d suc h escro w instructions , suc h incorporate d provision s o f thi s Agreemen t shal l prevai l
an d control

. Thi s sal e shal l b e consummate d throug h th e escro w ("Escrow" ) s o establishe d wit h Escro w Agent

. 7. 2 Deposit s Int o Escrow

. No t late r tha n th e dat e require d b y Escro w Agen t fo r atimel y Closing , th e partie s shal l provid e Escro w Agen t wit h suc h information , documents , instrument s an d fund s a s Escro w Agen t may

. reasonabl y requir e t o effec t th e Closing , includin g bu t no t limite d t o th e following:

. (a ) Buye r shal l deposi t th e Additiona l Cas h an d suc h othe r amount s a s Buye r ha s agree d t o pa y unde r thi s Agreement

. (b ) Selle r shal l deposi t afull y completed , execute d an d date d Deed , i n recordabl e form , a ' dul y execute d Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t approve d b y Buye r a s provide d i n Sectio n 3. 6 abov e an d th e dul y execute d Additiona l Agreemen t i n recordabl e for m approve d b y Buye r a s provide d i n Sectio n 3. 7 abov e and , an d a n affidavi t execute d b y Selle r t o th e effec t tha t Selle r i s no t a "foreig n person " withi n th e meanin g o f IR S Cod e 144 5 o r successo r statutes , and'th e equivalen t Californi aform , 7. 3 Furthe r Assurances

. Buye r an d Selle r agre e t o execut e al l instrument s an d document s an d t o .tak e al l action s reasonabl y necessar y an d appropriat e t o consummat e th e purchas e an d sal e o f th e Propert y an d shal l us e thei r bes t effort s t o accomplis h th e Closin g i n atimel y manner

.

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 ' 1 47. 4 Th e Closing

. (a ) Excep t a s expressl y provide d elsewher e herein , th e Closin g shal l tak e plac e o n o r befor e th e Outside.Closin g Date

. Escro w Agen t shal j dos e th e Escro w b y (i ) causin g th e recordin g o f th e Dee d an d

. - th e Additiona l Agreemen t (i n tha t orde r o f priority ) i n th e Officia l Record s o f Sonom aCounty , California , (li ) delivering-t o Selle r al l fund s deposite d int o Escro w b y Buye r i n paymen t o f th e Purchas e Pric e afte r proration s an d deductio n o f an y item s chargeabl e t o Seller' s account , (iii ) causin g Titl e Compan y t o issu e th e Owner' s Polic y t o Buyer , WHE N AN D ONL Y WHE N al l fund s an d document s describe d i n Sectio n 7. 2 hereo f hav e bee n delivere d t o Escro w Agent , an d (iv ) deliverin g t o Buye r th e Environmenta l Indemnit y Agreemen t execute d b y Seller

. (b ) Escro w Agen t shal l prorat e th e followin g betwee n th e partie s a s o f th e Closing : (i ) Al l county , cit y an d specia l distric t taxe s o n th e Propert y shal l b e prorated

. Escro w Agen t shal l bas e th e proratio n o n th e mos t curren t informatio n availabl e t o Escro w Agent

. T o th e exten t an y refunds , rebate s o r othe r payment s resultin g fro mo r connecte d wit h ta x appeal s fo r th e curren t ta x yea r whic h ar e pendin g a s o f th e Closin g becom e payabl e prio r t o o r afte r th e Closing , suc h refunds , rebate s o r

othe r payment s shal l b e prorate d a s o f th e Closing , afte r reimbursemen t i s mad e t o Selle r fo r al l cost s an d expenses , includin g bu t no t limite d t o attorneys ' fee s an d witnes s fees , incurre d b y Selle r i n connectio n wit h th e commencemen t an d prosecutio n o f suc h appeals

. (ii ) Al l prepai d an d al l accrue d bu t unpai d water , electri c power , gas , lightin g and'othe r utilit y costs , al l prepai d an d
accrue d bu t unpai d charge s unde r al l contract s an d suc h othe r prepai d s an d accrue d bu t unpai d expense s incurre d b y Selle r i n connectio n wit h th e operatio n o f th e Propert y a s ar e customaril y prorate d shal l b e prorate d b y Escro w Agent

. (c ) Selle r shal l pa y al l documentar y an d othe r stat e o r loca l transfe r taxe s payabl e i n connectio n wit h th e purchas e an d sal e o f th e Property

. Buye r shal l pa y al l othe r Closin g Cost s includin g al l premium s fo r th e Owner' s Policy , recordin g fee s an d al l escro w fees

. Al l othe r cost s shal l b e allocate d betwee n th e partie s i n accordanc e wit h customar y practic e i n th e Count y o f Sonoma , California

.

GADATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 1 5(d ) Selle r shal l pa y th e Broke r pursuan t t o th e Exclusiv e Sale s Agreemen t betwee n Selle r an d Broker

. Eac h part y t o thi s Agreemen t warrant s t o th e othe r tha t i t ha s no t incurre d an d wil l
no t incu r an y obligation , b y reaso n o f thi s Agreemen t o r th e transactio n contemplate d hereby , fo r an y othe r rea l estat e brokerag e commissio n o r finder' s fe e fo r whic h th e othe r part y woul d b e liable

. Eac h part y shall , an d hereb y agree s to , defend , indemnif y an d hol d th e othe r part y harmles s fro m an d agains t an y an d al l liabilities , damage s an d cost s tha t th e othe r part y ma y incu r b y reaso n o f th e untruth , a s t o th e warrantin g party , o f th e warrant y set.fort h i n th e precedin g sentenc e o f thi s Section , including , bu t
no t limite d to , expense s fo r attorneys ' fee s an d cour t costs

. (e ) , Buye r shal l pa y al l premium s fo r th e ALT A Owner' s Polic y o f titl e insurance

. Th e Owner' s Polic y shal l nam e Buye r a s th e insured , shal l insur e Buyer' s titl e t o th e fe e estat e i n th e Property , shal l b e i n th e amoun t o f th e Purchas e Pric e an d shal l b e delivere d t o Buye r a t

Closing

. (f ) Possessio n o f th e Propert y shal l b e delivere d t o Buye r a t Closing

. CONDEMNATIO N AN D CASUALT Y

. 8. 1 Condemnaticm

. I f prio r t o th e Closin g atakin g o r condemnatio n o f an y portion

- o f th e Propert y ha s occurred , o r i s threatened , eithe r Buye r o r Selle r may , a t it s option , terminat e thi s Agreemen t i n accordanc e wit h Articl e 9 hereo f withi n thirt y (30 ) day s afte r notic e o f suc h event

. I f th e aggregat e are atake n i s les s tha n 1 % o f th e tota l squar e footag e o f th e Propert y an d i s take n fro mth e perimete r an d ha s n o materia l effec t o n Buyer' s propose d developmen t o f th e Property , however , the n neithe r part y shal l hav e th e righ t t o terminate

. I f neithe r part y provide s sai d terminatio n notic e withi n suc h 30-da y period , th e Clos e o f Escro w shal l tak e plac e a s se t fort h i n thi s Agreement , provide d that : (i ) Buye r shal l receiv e acredi t agains t th e Purchas e Pric e i n a n amoun t equa l t o th e condemnatio n awar d actuall y collecte d b y th e Selle r prio r t o th e Clos e o f Escrow ; an d (ii ) Selle r shal l assig n t o Buye r a t th e Clos e o f Escro w al l o f th e Seller' s interes t i n an d t o an y condemnatio n awar d whic h ma y b e du e bu t unpai d t o th e Selle r o n accoun t o f an y suc h occurrence

. r 8. 2

. Casualty

. I f pno r t o th e Clos e o f Escro w th e Propert y shal l sustai n damag e i n exces s o f On e Hundre d Thousan d an d No/10 0 U.S

. Dollar s (U.S

. $100,000.00 ) cause d b y fire , earthquake , landslid e o r othe r casualty , Buye r may , a t it s option , terminat e thi s Agreemen t i n accordanc e wit h Articl e 9 hereo f withi n thirt y (30 ) day s afte r notic e o f suc h event

. Becaus e al l existin g structure s an d equipmen t ar e t o b e remove d prio r to p th e Clos e o f

Escro w pursuan t t o Sectio n 5.4 , damag e t o an y improvement s bein g remove d shal l no t b e considere d fo r th e purpose s o f thi s Sectio n 8.2

. I f

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNultyVPurchaseAg t v5.do c 9/14/0 0 ' 1 6Buye r doe s no t provid e suc h terminatio n notic e withi n suc h 30-da y period , th e Clos e o f Escro w shal l tak e plac e a s se t fort h i n thi s Agreement , provide d that : (i ) Buye r shal l receiv e acredi t agains t th e Purchas e Pric e i n a n amoun t equa l t o th e insuranc e proceed s actuall y collecte d b y Selle r prio r t o th e Clos e o f Escrow ; an d (ii ) Selle r shal l assig n t o Buye r a t th e Close.o f Escro w al l o f Seller' s interes t i n an d t o an y insuranc e proceed s whic h ma y b e du e bu t unpai d t o tha t Selle r o n accoun t o f an y suc h
occurrence

. 9

. TERMINATIO N I n th e even t tha t eithe r Buye r o r Selle r desire s t o exercis e an y expres s righ t t o terminat e thi s Agreement , suc h part y shal l giv e writte n notic e o f terminatio n an d th e reaso n therefo r t o th e othe r parties

. Thereafter , excep t i n th e even t o f aterminatio n base d upo n adefaul t b y either , part y i n th e performanc e o f it s obligation s unde r thi s Agreement , an d effectiv e a s o f th e effectiv e dat e o f suc h notice , eac h part y shal l b e release d fro mit s obligation s hereunde r an d al l monie s an d document s deposite d int p Escro w shal l b e returne d t o th e part y whic h deposite d them , al l document s delivere d b y Selle r t o Buye r relatin g t o th e Propert y shal l b e returne d t o Selle r and , t o th e exten t no t previousl y delivere d t o Seller , acop y o f al l reports , studies , analyse s an d test s prepare d b y o r fo r Buye r relatin g t o th e Propert y shal l promptl y b e delivere d t o Seller ; provided , however , tha t (i ) Selle r shal l no t distribut e suc h report s t o an y thir d part y (othe r tha n t o Seller' s consultant s i n connectio n wit h thi s transaction) ; (ii ) nothin g herei n shal l limi t Buyer' s indemnit y se t fort h i n Sectio n 3. 4 hereof , an d (iii ) Buyer' s deliver y shal l b e withou t representatio n o r warrant y wit h respec t t o th e preparatio n o r conten t o f suc h document s an d shal l b e subjec t t o th e right s o f th e consultant s preparin g th e same

. 10

. DEFAULT

. 10. 1 LIQUIDATE D DAMAGES

. I N TH E EVEN T O F DEFAUL T B Y BUYE R I N TH E PERFORMANC E O F IT S OBLIGATIO N T O CLOS E HEREUNDE R AN D SELLE R I S NO T OTHERWIS E I N MATERIA L DEFAUL T HEREUNDER.

. SELLE R SHAL L HAV E TH E RJGH T T O TERMINAT E THI S AGREEMEN T FORTHWIT H AND , OTHE R THA N FO R TH E INDEMNIT Y OBLIGATION S O F BUYE R SE T FORT H I N SECTIO N 3. 4 HEREOF , NEITHE R SELLER , O N TH E ON E HAND , NO R BUYER , O N TH E OTHE R HAND , SHAL L HAV E AN Y FURTHE R OBLIGATIO N T O TH E OTHE R EXCEP T FO R SELLER' S RIGH T T O A N IMMEDIAT E DISBURSEMEN T AN D RETENTIO N O F TH E EARNES T MONE Y DEPOSI T A S LIQUIDATE D DAMAGE S A S IT S SOL E REMED Y I N LIE U O F AN Y OTHE R RIGH T T O DAMAGE S O R RIGH T T O SPECIFI C PERFORMANC E O F THI S PURCHAS E AGREEMEN T AN D SELLE R WAIVE S AN Y FURTHE R RJGH T T O CLAI M DAMAGE S FRO M BUYE R O R SEE K OTHE R LEGA L O R EQUITABL E REMEDIE S A S A RESUL T O F FAILUR E B Y BUYE R T O COMPLET E TH E PURCHASE

.

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNuIty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 1 7BUYE R AN D SELLE R AGRE E THAT , BASE D UPO N TH E CIRCUMSTANCE S NO W EXISTING , TH E FOREGOIN G AMOUN T I S REASONABL E A S LIQUIDATE D DAMAGES

. RETENTIO N O F SUC H AMOUN T B Y SHAL L CONSTITUT E LIQUIDATE D DAMAGE S PURSUAN T T O CALIFORNI A CIVI L COD E SECTION S 167] , 167 6 AN D 1677

. TH E PARTIE S ACKNOWLEDG E THA T TH E ACTUA L DAMAGE S WHIC H WOUL D RESUL T T O SELLE R A S A RESUL T O F SUC H FAILUR E WOUL D B E EXTREMELY

- DIFFICUL T T O ESTABLISH

. I N ADDITION , BUYE R DESIRE S T O HAV E A LIMITATIO N PU T UPO N IT S POTENTIA L LIABILIT Y T O SELLE R I N TH E EVEN T THA T THI S TRANSACTIO N SHAL L FAI L T O CLOSE

. B Y PLACIN G THEI R RESPECTIV E INITIAL S I N TH E SPACE S HEREINAFTE R PROVIDED , TH E PARTIE S ACKNOWLEDG E THA T UPO N A DEFAUL T B Y BUYE R UNDE R TH E TERM S O F THI S AGREEMENT , SELLE R SHAL L B E ENTITLE D T O LIQUIDATE D DAMAGE S I N TH E AMOUN T O F TH E EARNES T MONE Y DEPOSIT , WHIC H SHAL L B E TH E FULL , AGREED-UPO N AN D LIQUIDATE D DAMAGE S FO R TH E BREAC H O F THI S AGREEMEN T B Y BUYER

.

PLEAS E INITIAL : SELLE R

10. 2 Defaul t b y Seller

. I n th e even t o f adefaul t b y Selle r unde r thi s Agreement , Buye r shal l hav e th e righ t t o pursu e an y remed y availabl e t o Buye r a t la w o r i n equity , includin g withou t limitatio n th e specifi c performanc e o f thi s Agreemen t b y Seller , excep t tha t Selle r shal l no t b e liabl e fo r consequentia l damage s o r los s o f profits.

. 11

. NOTICES

. An y notic e o r othe r communicatio n require d o r permitte d unde r thi s Agreemen t shal l b e i n writing , an d shal l b e (a ) personall y delivered , o r sen t vi a majo r ai r courie r servic e tha t provide s areceip t fo r deliver y o r attempte d delivery , t o th e addres s o f th e part y se t fort h i n Articl e 1 o f thi s Agreemen t o r (b ) telecopie d t o th e fa x numbe r o f th e part y se t fort h i n Articl e 1 o f thi s Agree

ment

. Suc h notic e o r communicatio n shal l b e deeme d give n whe n delivere d t o th e offic e o f th e part y t o who m th e notic e wa s sen t o r o n th e nex t busines s da y i f delivere d o n aweeken d o r holiday

. Notic e o f chang e o f addres s shal l b e give n b y writte n notic e i n th e manne r detaile d i n thi s Articl e 11

. 12
. GENERA L PROVISIONS
. 12. 1 Successor s an d Assigns

. Thi s Agreemen t shal l b e bindin g upo n an d inur e t o th e benefi t o f th e successor s an d assign s o f th e parties

. Buye r intend s t o assig n al l o f it s interes t i n thi s Agreemen t t o acorporatio n o r othe r entit y

G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0

. 1 8unde r commo n contro l a s Buye r whic h wil l assum e al l o f th e Buyer' s obligation s unde r thi s Agreement

. Selle r agree s t o recogniz e an d permi t th e assignmen t provide d th e assigne e assume s al l o f th e Buyer' s obligation s unde r thi s Agreemen t an d Buye r shal l no t b e release d fro man y liabilit y hereunde r unti l th e Closing

. 12. 2 Entir e Agreement ; Amendments.

. Thi s Agreemen t contain s th e entir e agreemen t betwee n th e partie s concernin g th e purchas e an d sal e o f th e Property , an d n o additio n t o o r modificatio n o f an y ter mo r provisio n shal l b e effectiv e unles s i n writing , signe d b y bot h Buye r an d Seller

. 12. 3 Tim e o f Essence

. Buye r an d Selle r hereb y acknowledg e an d agre e tha t tim e i s strictl y o f th e essenc e wit h respec t t o eac h ter man d conditio n o f thi s Agreemen t an d tha t th e failur e t o timel y perfor m an y o f th e term s an d condition s b y eithe r part y shal l constitut e abreac h an d defaul t unde r thi s Agreemen t b y th e part y failin g t o perform

. 12. 4 Partia l Invalidity

. I f an y portio n o f thi s Agreemen t shal l b e declare d b y an y cour t o f competen t jurisdictio n t o b e invalid , illega l o r unenforceable , tha t portio n shal l b e deeme d severe d fro mthi s Agreemen t an d th e remainin g part s shal l remai n i n ful l forc e a s full y a s thoug h th e invalid , illega l o r unenforceabl e portio n ha d neve r bee n par t o f thi s Agreement

. 12. 5 Governin g Law

. Th e partie s inten d an d agre e tha t thi s Agreemen t shal l b e governe d b y an d construe d i n accordanc e wit h th e law s o f th e Stat e o f California

. 12. 6 Jurisdiction

. Eac h part y heret o hereb y submit s t o th e exclusiv e jurisdictio n an d venu e o f th e Superio r Cour t o f th e Stat e o f Californi afo r th e Cit y an d Count y o f Sa n Francisco , o r th e Federa l Distric t Cour t fo r th e Norther n Distric t o f Californi asittin g i n Sa n Francisco , Californi afo r th e purpose s o f an y lega l actio n arisin g i n connectio n wit h thi s Agreement , th e breac h thereo f o r th e transaction s contemplate d herein , an d agree s tha t servic e upo n suc h part y i n an y suc h actio n ma y b e mad e b y firs t clas s mail , certifie d o r registered , t o th e addres s se t fort h above

. 12. 7 Attorneys ' Fee s an d Costs

. I f an y actio n (whethe r lega l o r equitabl e an d whethe r litigatio n o r arbitratio n o r som e othe r proceeding) , includin g an y actio n fo r declarator y relief , enforcement , collectio n o r a n appeal , i s brough t unde r thi s Agreement , th e prevailin g part y (a s shal l b e determine d b y th e cour t o r othe r adjudicator ) shal l b e entitle d t o recove r it s reasonabl e attorneys ' fee s an d cost s o f sui t fro mth e othe r part y i n additio n t o suc h othe r relie f a s ma y b e granted

. Eac h part y t o thi s Agreemen t wa s represente d b y a n attorne y i n th e .negotiatio n an d executio n o f thi s Agreement

.

G.\DATA\mle\685 3 McNuIty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 1 912. 8 Expenses

. Whethe r o r no t th e transaction s contemplate d b y thi s Agreemen t ar e consummated , eac h part y shal l pa y al l expense s incurre d b y i t o r o n it s behal f i n connectio n wit h th e Agreemen t an d th e transaction s contemplate d hereby , excep t a s otherwis e provide d i n th e even t o f abreac h by- aparty

. 12. 9 N o Thir d Partie s Benefited

. N o perso n othe r tha n Buye r an d Selle r an d thei r permitte d successor s an d assign s shal l hav e an y righ t o f actio n unde r thi s Agreement

. 12.1 0 Waivers

. N o waive r b y eithe r part y o f an y provisio n shal l b e deeme d a waive r o f an y othe r provisio n o r o f an y subsequen t breac h b y eithe r part y o f

th e sam e o r an y othe r provision

. 12.1 1 Captions

. Th e caption s an d number s o f th e Article s an d Section s o f thi s Agreemen t ar e fo r convenienc e an d i n n o wa y defin e o r limi t th e scop e o r inten t o f thi s Agreement

. 12.1 2 Counterparts

. Thi s Agreemen t ma y b e execute d i n counterparts , eac h o f whic h shal l b e deeme d a n origina l bu t al l o f which , together , shal l constitut e on e Agreement

. 12.1 3 Exhibits

. Th e Exhibit s attache d t o thi s Agreemen t ar e hereb y incorporate d herei n an d mad e apar t hereo f b y thi s reference

. 12.1 4 No t Recordable

. Thi s Agreemen t shal l no t b e recorde d an d shal l no t b e a lie n agains t th e Property

. 12.1 5 N o Merger

. Th e deliver y o f th e Dee d an d an y othe r document s an d instrument s b y Selle r an d th e acceptanc e an d recordatio n thereo f b y Buye r shal l no t effec t amerger , an d th e representation s an d warrantie s mad e i n Sections

. 6. 1 an d 6. 2 hereo f b y Selle r an d Buyer , respectively , shal l surviv e th e Clos e o f Escrow

. 12.1 6 Californi aWithholdin g Requirement

. I f Selle r fail s t o delive r aResiden t Certificate , Selle r acknowledge s an d agree s tha t Escro w Holde r shal l b e entitle d to : (i ) withhol d fro m th e amoun t du e Selle r a n amoun t equa l t o thre e an d one-thir d percen t (3-1/3% ) o f it s shar e o f th e Purchas e Price ; an d (ii ) pa y suc h withhel d amount s t o th e Franchis e Ta x Boar d o f Californi a withi n twent y (20 ) day s followin g th e Clos e o f Escrow

. 12.1 7 Confidentialit y an d Retur n o f Documents

. Selle r an d Buye r shal l eac h maintai n a s confidential , an d neithe r part y shal l directl y o r indirectl y us e o r

disclose , an y "Confidentia l Information " (a s define d hereafter ) concernin g th e Property , 'th e othe r party , th e othe r party' s asset s o r th e transaction s contemplate d b y thi s Agreemen t t o an y perso n excep t tha t
suc h matter s ma y b e disclose d (i ) t o suc h party' s directors , officers , partners , an d employee s (ii ) t o suc h party' s lega l counsel , lenders ,
G:\DATA\mle\685 3 McNuIty\PurchaseAg t v5.do c 9/14/0 0 2 0accountants , engineers , architects , financia l advisor s an d simila r professional s an d consultant s t o th e exten t suc h part y deem s i t reasonabl y necessar y o r appropriat e i n connectio n wit h th e evaluatio n o f th e transactio n contemplate d hereb y o r Buyer' s developmen t an d us e o f th e Propert y afte r Closing ; (iii ) b y Selle r t o thir d partie s havin g a n ownershi p interes t i n o r relationshi p wit h th e Propert y (suc h a s existin g mortgagees ) t o who mdisclosur e i s necessar y o r desirabl e i n orde r t o facilitat e th e consummatio n o f th e transaction s contemplate d hereby ; (iv ) pursuan t t o th e orde r o r regulatio n o f an y applicabl e cour t o r regulator y agency ; an d (v ) b y Buye r afte r Closin g t o potentia l tenants , investors , lender s an d purchaser s o f th e Property

. Th e partie s referre d t o i n (i ) an d (ii ) abov e ar e referre d t o herei n a s "Seller' s Representative " o r "Buyer' s Representative, " a s applicable

. Neithe r Selle r no r Buye r shal l disclos e an y Confidentia l Informatio n t o Seller' s o r Buyer' s Representatives , a s applicable, ' unti l suc h time s a s Seller' s o r Buyer' s Representative s acknowledg e tha t the y understan d an d agre e t o b e boun d b y th e provision s o f

thi s Sectio n 12.17

. Buye r and/o r Selle r shal l eac h b e responsibl e fo r an y disclosur e o f an y Confidentia l Informatio n b y thei r respectiv e Buyer' s o r

Seller' s Representatives

. Fo r th e purpos e o f thi s Sectio n 12.17 , th e ter m"Confidentia l Information " shal l mea n informatio n whic h i s o r become s know n t o apart y o r it s respectiv e affiliate s o r t o thei r employees , forme r employees , consultant s o r other s i n aconfidentia l relationshi p wit h
suc h party , including , withou t limitation , pursuan t t o th e term s o f thi s Agreement , an d whic h relate s t o th e Property , th e transaction s contemplate d b y thi s Agreemen t o r th e busines s o f eithe r party ; provided , however , tha t confidentia l informatio n shal l no t include : (i ) informatio n tha t i s o r become s generall y availabl e t o th e publi c othe r tha n throug h a violatio n o f la w o r obligatio n hereunder ; (ii ) informatio n that , i n th e opinio n o f counse l t o eithe r party , suc h part y i s require d b y law , cour t order , governmen t orde r o r decre e t o disclose , excep t tha t th e othe r part y ma y a t it s ow n expens e appea l suc h cour t order ; (iii ) informatio n tha t wa s develope d b y suc h part y o n it s own , independen t fro mth e proprietar y informatio n mad e availabl e t o suc h part y hereunder ; an d (iv ) informatio n tha t wa s subsequentl y mad e availabl e t o suc h part y b y athir d part y wh o wa s no t violatin g th e la w o j an y obligatio n hereunde r i n makin g suc h disclosure

. I n th e even t thi s Agreemen t i s terminated , Buye r shal l promptl y retur n t o Selle r al l documents , agreements , report s an d othe r material s o f an y kin d tha t hav e bee n delivere d t o Buye r b y Selle r pursuan t 1 t o th e term s o f thi s Agreement

. Followin g th e Closing , Confidentia l Informatio n shal l b e limite d t o th e Purchas e Pric e of.th e Property

. Further , n o pres s releas e o r publi c announcemen t o f an y kin d shal l b e mad e b y eithe r part y hereunde r concernin g th e purchas e an d sal e transactio n tha t i s th e subjec t o f thi s Agreement , withou t th e prio r writte n approva l o f th e othe r party

.

G:\DATAVmle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 2 1I N WITNES S WHEREOF , th e partie s hav e execute d thi s Purchas e an d Sal e Agreemen t
o n th e date s se t fort h below

. BUYER :
RN M CADE R L.L.C. , aCaliforni alimite d liabilit y compan y By : RN M PETALUMA , INC. , aCaliforni a corporation , it s Manage r

Dated : Septembe r 15 , 200 0 By : Joh n ^R^IcNult y ^ 7 Its : Pres i

Dated : Septembe r 15,200 0 SELLER :
SOL A INTERNATIONAL , INC. , a DelawareOcorporatio n By :
Its : f/Afl k Steve n Nei l 

# do Chie f Financia l Office r

G:VDATA\mle\685 3 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.do c 9/14/0 0 2 2EXIH.IBI T A 

### Lega l Descriptio n Parce l "A "
Bein g a portio n o f Parce l Thre e an d a portio n o f Parce l Tw o a s sai d parcel s ar e show n o n tha t ma p title d Cit y o f Petalum a Parce l Ma p No

. 118 , file d i n th e offic e o f th e Count y Recorde ri n Boo k 25 5 o f Maps , Pag e 39 , Sonom a Count y Records , an d mor e particularl y describe d a s follows : Commencin g a t a poin t marke d b y a n iro n pipe , bein g th e Northwesterl y corne r o f Parce l On e a s sai d parce l i s designate d upo n tha t certai n Recor d o f Surve y file d i n Boo k 51 8 o f Maps' , Pag e 11 , Sonom a Count y Records ; runnin g thenc e Sout h 54 ° 00 " 27 " East , 52,2 9 fee t t o th e Tru e Poin t o f Beginning ;
Thenc e continuin g Sout h 54 ° 00 ' 27 " East , 709.1 0 fee t t o a poin t marke d b y a n iro n pipe , bein g th e mos t Easterl y corne ro f Parce l Thre e a s designate d o n sai d map ; 

### Thenc e continuin g Sout h 54 ° 00 ' 27 " East , 263.8 9 fee t t o th e Southeasterl y boundar y o f Parce l Tw o a s designate d o n sai d map ; Thenc e Sout h 36 ° 00 ' 13 " West , 869.3 0 fee t t o a poin t marke d b y a n iro n pipe , bein g th e mos t Southerl y corne ro f sai d Parce l Two ; Thenc e Nort h 53 ° 59 ' 34 " West , 264.0 6 fee t t o a poin t marke d b y a n iro n pipe , bein g th e mos t southerl y corne ro f sai d Parce l Three ; Thenc e continuin g Nort h 53 ° 59 ' 34 " East , 760.9 1 feet ; Thenc e Nort h 35 ° 59 ' 01 " East , 780.1 3 feet ; t o th e beginnin g o f a curve ; Thenc e alon g sai d non-tangen t curv e concav e northwesterl y fronrwhic h a tangen t bear s Sout h 87 ° 13 ' 46 " West , wit h a radiu s o f 57.0 0 feet/throug h a centra l angl e o f 61 ° 16'46 " fo ra lengt h o f 60.9 6 feet ; Thenc e Nort h 78 ° 40 ' 26 " East , 46.9 6 fee t t o th e Tru e poin t o f Beginning

. Exceptin g ther e fro m an y interes t conveye d b y tha t certai n gran t dee d dedicatio n o f righ t o f wa y fro m Sol a Optica l U.S.A. , Inc. , a Californi a Corporation , t o th e Cit y o f Petaluma , a Municipa l Corporation , date d Novembe r19 , 198 6 an d recorde d Januar y 2 , 198 7 unde rDocumen t No

. 87-000244 , Sonom a Count y Records

. Containin g 20.4 1 acre s , , APN

. 005-040-04 7

wa s prepare d unde rm y direc t supervisio n fo rSOL A holding s i n n d i s bajifle d o n th e abov e reference d Recor d o f Survey ,

Michae l R

. Hogan , PL S 736 2 Dat eEXHIBI T B

RECORDIN G REQUESTE D B Y AN D WHE N RECORDE D MAI L TO :

Attn :

GRAN T DEE D
FO R VALUABL E CONSIDERATION , acknowledged , SOL A INTERNATIONAL , INC. , receip t o f
aDelawar e whic h i s corporation , hereb y hereb y GRANT S t o RN M CADE R L.L.C. , aCaliforni alimite d liabilit y company , tha t certai n rea l propert y locate d i n th e Cit y o f Petaluma , Count y o f Sonoma , Stat e o f California , an d describe d o n Exhibi t A attache d heret o an d b y thi s referenc e incorporate d herei n (th e "Property")

.

Dated : ,200 0
SOL A INTERNATIONAL , INC. , aDelawar e corporatio n By:

. Its "CALIFORNI A ALL-PURPOS E ACKNOWLEDGMEN T

STAT E O F CALIFORNI A ) )Ss : COUNT Y O F SA N MATE O )

O n , 200_ , befor e me , , Notar y Public , personall y appeare d

, personall y know n t o m e t o o r prove d t o m e o n th e basi s o f satisfactor y evidenc e t o b e th e person(s ) whos e name(s ) is/ar e subscribe d t o th e withi n instrument'an d acknowledge d t o m e tha t he/she/the y execute d th e sam e i n his/her/thei r authorize d capacity(is) , an d tha t b y his/her/thei r signature(s ) o n th e instrument'th e person(s) , o r th e entit y upo n behal f o f whic h th e person(s ) acted , execute d th e instrument

. WITNES S m y han d an d officia l seal

.

(SEAL ) Notar y Publi c Signatur eThis page left blank intentionally

## Appendix B
Documents ReviewedThis page left blank intentionallyB-1 

# Appendix B Documents Reviewed

California Department of Public Health. 2010. Table of MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants . last updated April 14, 2010. California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2005. Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 2004, updated February 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 1992. Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Ce rtain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. April.
_________. 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for derivation, listing of available values, and adjustments to allow for early life stage exposures. May. _________. 2010. Online Toxicity Database - http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp, accessed May 10, 2010. California Regional Water Quality Control Bo ard San Francisco Region (Water Board). 2008. Groundwater Screening for Environmental Co ncerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Interim Final . November 2007, updated May 2008. County of Sonoma Department of Health Services – Environmental Health Division (CSDHS-EHD). 2008. Letter from CSDHS-EHD to constituents within 1⁄4 mile of the Sola Site regarding Notice of Potential Groundwater Contamination. November 6. Harvest Christian School (HCS). 2007. Cond itional Use Permit Application submitted by Harvest Christian School to City of Petaluma – Community Development Department regarding the relocation of a private school to 1500 Cader Lane. August 24. Levine Fricke (LFR). 2005. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, May 2003 through May 2005, Form er Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. June 9.
_________. 2006. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, October 2005 through June 2006, Former Sola Optica l USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. August 21.
_________. 2007a. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, July through December 2006, Former Sola Optica l USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. February 9.Appendix B Documents Reviewed

B-2 _________. 2007b. Response to United State Environment al Protection Agency, Region 9, May 18, 2007 Letter Regarding Abandonment of Selected Groundwater Monitoring and Former Extraction Wells at the Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. June 7.
_________. 2007c. Abandonment and Sealing of Wells at Former Sola Optical U.S.A., Inc., 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. August 20.
_________. 2008a. Groundwater Monitoring and Additional Site Activities Report, January through May 2008, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. September 2.
_________. 2008b. Groundwater Monitoring Report, June through November 2008, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. December 12. LFR/Arcadis. 2009. Groundwater Monitoring Report, January through June 2009, Former Sola Optical USA, Inc., Facility, 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California. September 1.
RNM Cader, L.L.C. and Sola International, Inc. 2000. Purchase and Sales Agreement

. September 15. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Record of Decision; Sola Optical Site . September 27.
_________. 2000. First Five-Year Review: Sola Optical, Inc. September.
_________. 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA 540-R-01-007 . June.
_________. 2005a. Second Five-Year Review Report for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Sonoma County, California. September.
_________. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessin g Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. March.
_________. 2007a. EPA Proposes Amending the Clean-up Plan for Contaminated Groundwater, Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site. January.
_________. 2007b. Record of Decision Amendment for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, California. March 30.
_________. 2007c. Letter from EPA to LFR regarding Request to Abandon Wells, Sola Optical Superfund Site. May 18.
_________. 2007d. Letter from EPA to Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding Request to Abandon Wells, Sola Optical Superfund Site. June 11.
_________. 2007e. Letter from EPA to Harvest Christian School regarding Property at 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA, Sola Optical Superfund Site. September 5.Appendix B Documents Reviewed

B-3 _________. 2007f. Letter from EPA to Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding Notice to Proceed, Sola Optical Superfund Site. September 27. _________. 2007g. Letter from EPA to City of Petaluma – Community Development Department regarding Application for Conditio nal Use Permit by Harvest Christian School for 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA, File Number 07-CUP-0438. September 27.
_________. 2007h. Personal communication between Dante Rodriguez (EPA) and Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding the submittal of the well abandonment report

. October 4.
_________. 2008. Letter from EPA to Carl Zeiss Vision and LFR regarding Approval of Remedial Design, Sola Optical Superfund Site. February 20. _________. 2010. Online Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) – http://www.epa.gov/iris/, accessed May 10, 2010. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 2002. Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance) . November.This page left blank intentionally

## Appendix C Five-Year Review Site Inspection ChecklistThis page left blank intentionallyC-1 

# Appendix C Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist

Table C-1 Site Inspection Team Roster Site Inspection- March 17, 2010 Sola Optical USA, Inc.,Sonoma County, CA Name Title Affiliation
Daren Roth Project Geologist Arcadis Peggy Bloisa Professi onal Geologist CDM Walnut Creek Office
Ahnna Westrich Staff Geologi st CDM Walnut Creek OfficeThis page left blank intentionallyFive-year Review Report - 1 

### Site Inspection Checklist

I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: Sola Optical Date of inspection: 3/17/2010 Location and Region: Petaluma, CA, Region 9 EPA ID: CAD981171523 Agency, office, or compan y leading the five-year review: EPA Region 9 Weather/temperature: Sunny – approximately 65 degrees F

Remedy Includes : (Check all that apply)  Landfill cover/containment 9 Monitored natural attenuation  Access controls  Groundwater containment 9 Institutional controls  Vertical barrier walls  Groundwater pump and treatment  Surface water collection and treatment  Other______________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ Attachments: 9 Inspection team roster attached 9 Site map attached II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager

___________________________________________________________________ Name Title Date Interviewed  at site  at office  by phone Phone no. _______________________________ Problems, suggestions;  Report attached ________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

2. O&M staff Daren Roth Project Geologist March 17, 2010 Name Title Date Interviewed 9 at site  at office  by phone Phone no. (510) 596-9558 Problems, suggestions; 9 Report attached _______________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 2 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoni ng office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department – Wells and Septic Division Contact Bob Swift Supervising Environmental Health Specialist March 31, 2010 _(707) 565-1680 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 9 Report attached _______________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________ Agency Sonoma County Environmental Health Department Contact John Anderson Senior Environmental Health Specialist III March 31, 2010 (707) 565-6534 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 9 Report attached _______________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________ Agency Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Contact John Jang Caseworker April 1, 2010 (510) 622-2366 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 9 Report attached _______________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________ Agency __________________________________________________________________________ Contact ____ ________________________

__________________ ________ _____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions;  Report attached _______________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

4. Other interviews (optional) 9 Report attached. Jamie Milliner – RNM Properties Scott Seyfried – Arcadis Project Manager Hahn Nguyen – Carl Zeiss Vision (CDM contacted Mr. Nguyen on March 29, 2010. CDM has yet to hear a response.)Five-year Review Report - 3 III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents  O&M manual  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A  As-built drawings  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A  Maintenance logs  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_ ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan  Readily available  Up to date  N/A  Contingency plan/emergency response plan  Readily available  Up to date  N/A Remarks__Health and safety plan applies to the curre nt site activities (groundwater monitoring events) and conditions. 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records  Readily available 9 Up to date  N/A Remarks___HAZWOPER certifications and medical monitoring __________________________

_________________________________________________ _______________________________ 4. Permits and Service Agreements  Air discharge permit  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A  Effluent discharge  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A  Waste disposal, POTW  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A  Other permits_____________________  Readily available  Up to date  N/A Remarks_____Mr. Roth stated that th ere are no permits for the property.

__________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Gas Generation Records  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Settlement Monument Records  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records  Readily available 9 Up to date  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Leachate Extraction Records  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Discharge Compliance Records  Air  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A  Water (effluent)  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Daily Access/Security Logs  Readily available  Up to date 9 N/A Remarks When a groundwater sampling event occurs, the Arcadis field technician checks in at the Site office building and contacts RNM Properties to have th e gate located on the ad jacent lot opened. The Arcadis field technician locks the gate when the groundwater sampling activities are complete.

_____Five-year Review Report - 4 IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization  State in-house  Contractor for State  PRP in-house 9 Contractor for PRP (Arcadis, formerly LFR)  Federal Facility in-house  Contractor for Federal Facility  Other__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. O&M Cost Records – Daren will check on and provide to CDM  Readily available  Up to date  Funding mechanism/ agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate____________________  Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From 2005 To 2006 $ 14,5000  Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From 2006 To 2007 $ 14,5000  Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From 2007 To_ 2008 $ 14,5000  Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From 2008 To 2009 $ 14,5000  Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From 2009 To 2010 $ 14,5000  Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: __________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS  Applicable  N/A A. Fencing

1. Fencing damaged  Location shown on site map 9 Gates secured  N/A Remarks Neither the main lot or the RNM lot is completely fenced. The main lot is only fenced along the southeast property boundary. There is no fen ce present between the main lot and the RNM lot, but there is a landscaped berm present along a portion of the boundary. The northwest property boundary of the RNM lot (along Cader Lane) is fenced and the ga tes were secured at the time of the inspection. B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and other security measures  Location shown on site map  N/A Remarks Sign with name and phone number of the security company (Weinstein Security) was present on the gate on the RNM lot. Signs indicating construction activities on the RNM lot were also present.Five-year Review Report - 5 C. Institutiona l Controls (ICs)
1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented  Yes 9 No  N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced  Yes 9 No  N/A Type of monitoring ( e.g. , self-reporting, drive by) _________________________________________ Frequency ________________________________________________________________________ Responsible party/agency ____________________________________________________________ Contact ____________________________ __________________ ________ ____________ Name Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date  Yes  No 9 N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency  Yes  No 9 N/A Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met  Yes  No 9 N/A Violations have been reported  Yes  No 9 N/A Other problems or suggestions:  Report attached

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Adequacy  ICs are adequate 9 ICs are inadequate  N/A Remarks The ICs for the Site include a restrictive covenant with the property owner to restrict groundwater uses that could result in unacceptable exposure to humans or the environment (EPA, 2007). The second control exists within Sonoma County’s we ll permitting process. During the Site visit, the site conditions did not imply that the ICs were not properly implemented or that the ICs were not being fully enforced. Since concentrati ons of 1,1-DCA in groundwater samples collected from well W-27 are currently above its maximum contaminant level (M CL) of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L), these ICs continue to be necessary. See comments under Section XI C regarding adequacy of ICs.

____________________________________________ D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing  Location shown on site map 9 No vandalism evident Remarks Mr. Roth was unaware of any vandalism. 2. Land use changes on site  N/A Remarks An asphalt parking lot and four building pads have been constructed on the RNM lot. W-27, located in the asphalt parking lot, has been converted from an above-grade well to a flush-mounted well.

____________________________________________________________________ 3. Land use changes off site 9 N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads 9 Applicable  N/A
1. Roads damaged 9 Location shown on site map 9 Roads adequate  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 6 B. Other Site Conditions Remarks W-27 located on the RNM lot and extraction wells E-1, E-2, and E-4 in the main lot appear to be secure and undamaged.

__________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
VII. LANDFILL COVERS  Applicable 9 N/A A. Landfill Surface
1. Settlement (Low spots)  Location shown on site map  Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks

____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ 2. Cracks  Location shown on site map  Cracking not evident Lengths____________ Widths___________ Depths__________ Remarks

____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ 3. Erosion  Location shown on site map  Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Holes  Location shown on site map  Holes not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Vegetative Cover  Grass  Cover properly established  No signs of stress  Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.)  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Bulges  Location shown on site map  Bulges not evident Areal extent______________ Height____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 7 8. Wet Areas/Water Damage  Wet areas/water damage not evident  Wet areas  Location shown on site map Areal extent______________  Ponding  Location shown on site map Areal extent______________  Seeps  Location shown on site map Areal extent______________  Soft subgrade  Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Slope Instability  Slides  Location shown on site map  No evidence of slope instability Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ B. Benches  Applicable 9 N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runo ff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench  Location shown on site map  N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Bench Breached  Location shown on site map  N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Bench Overtopped  Location shown on site map  N/A or okay Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ C. Letdown Channels  Applicable 9 N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water co llected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1. Settlement  Location shown on site map  No evidence of settlement Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Material Degradation  Location shown on site map  No evidence of degradation Material type_______________ Areal extent_____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Erosion  Location shown on site map  No evidence of erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 8 4. Undercutting  Location shown on site map  No evidence of undercutting Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Obstructions Type_____________________  No obstructions  Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Size____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type____________________  No evidence of excessive growth  Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow  Location shown on site map Areal extent______________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ D. Cover Penetrations  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Gas Vents  Active  Passive  Properly secured/locked  Functioning  Routinely sampled  Good condition  Evidence of leakage at penetration  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Gas Monitoring Probes  Properly secured/locked  Functioning  Routinely sampled  Good condition  Evidence of leakage at penetration  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)  Properly secured/locked  Functioning  Routinely sampled  Good condition  Evidence of leakage at penetration  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks_

__________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 4. Leachate Extraction Wells  Properly secured/locked  Functioning  Routinely sampled  Good condition  Evidence of leakage at penetration  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Settlement Monuments  Located  Routinely surveyed  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 9 E. Gas Collection and Treatment  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Gas Treatment Facilities  Flaring  Thermal destruction  Collection for reuse  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Gas Monitoring Facilities ( e.g. , gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)  Good condition  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ F. Cover Drainage Layer  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected  Functioning  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Outlet Rock Inspected  Functioning  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Siltation Areal extent______________ Depth____________  N/A  Siltation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Erosion Areal extent______________ Depth____________  Erosion not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Outlet Works  Functioning  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Dam  Functioning  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 10 H. Retaining Walls  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Deformations  Location shown on site map  Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement ____________ Vertical di splacement__

_____________ Rotational displacement____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Degradation  Location shown on site map  Degradation not evident Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Siltation  Location shown on site map  Siltation not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Vegetative Growth  Location shown on site map  N/A  Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent______________ Type____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Erosion  Location shown on site map  Erosion not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Discharge Structure  Functioning  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Settlement  Location shown on site map  Settlement not evident Areal extent______________ Depth____________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring__________________________  Performance not monitored Frequency_______________________________  Evidence of breaching Head differential__________________________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 11 IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES  Applicable 9 N/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical  Good condition  All required wells properly operating  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Va lve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Spare Parts and Equipment  Readily available  Good condition  Requires upgrade  Needs to be provided Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxe s, and Other Appurtenances  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Spare Parts and Equipment  Readily available  Good condition  Requires upgrade  Needs to be provided Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________Five-year Review Report - 12 C. Treatment System  Applicable 9 N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)  Metals removal  Oil/water separation  Bioremediation  Air stripping  Carbon adsorbers  Filters_________________________________________________________________________  Additive ( e.g. , chelation agent, flocculent)_____________________________________________  Others_________________________________________________________________________  Good condition  Needs Maintenance  Sampling ports properly marked and functional  Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date  Equipment properly identified  Quantity of groundwater treated annually________________________  Quantity of surface water treat ed annually____

____________ ________ Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)  N/A  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels  N/A  Good condition  Proper secondary containment  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances  N/A  Good condition  Needs Maintenance Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Treatment Building(s)  N/A  Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)  Needs repair  Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)  Properly secured/locked  Functioning  Routinely sampled  Good condition  All required wells located  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ D. Monitoring Data 1. Monitoring Data  Is routinely submitted on time 9 Is of acceptable quality Data is validated in-house by Arcadis___________________________________________________ 2. Monitoring data suggests:  Groundwater plume is effectively contained 9 Contaminant concentrations are decliningFive-year Review Report - 13 E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)  Properly secured/locked 9 Functioning 9 Routinely sampled 9 Good condition 9 All required wells located  Needs Maintenance  N/A Remarks The depth to water is measured on a semi-annual basis at W-27 and extraction wells E-1, E-2, and E-4. A groundwater sample is collected from W-27 on a semi-annual basis. X. OTHER REMEDIES If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility asso ciated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). Currently, the remedy at the property is monitored natural attenuation of 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) at well W-27 to below its MCL of 5 μg/L and institutional controls to prevent the installation of additional groundwater wells onsite. Since 2005, groundwater samples have been collected from W-27 on a semi-annual basis and analyzed for volatile organic compounds. B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy. The ICs for the Site include a restrictive covenant w ith the property owner to restrict groundwater uses that could result in unacceptable exposure to humans or the envi ronment (EPA, 2007). The second control exists within Sonoma County’s well permitting pr ocess. During the Site visit, the site conditions did not imply that the ICs were not properly implemented or that the ICs were not being fully enforced. Since concentrations of 1,1-DCA in groundwater sa mples collected from W-27 are currently above its MCL, these ICs continue to be nece ssary. Monitoring is the only activity that occurs on-Site, therefore the O&M is limited.Five-year Review Report - 14 C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future. On March 31, 2010, CDM conducted a telephone interview with Bob Swift, the Supervising Environmental Health Specialist for the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department – Wells and Septic Division (PRMD). Mr. Swift i ndicated that the Wells and Septic Division of the PRMD reviews permit applications for the installa tion of water supply and agricultural wells. At the request of CDM, Mr. Swift conducted a search of the Permit Plus system for the 1500 Cader Lane address. Per the 2007 ROD Amendment, the EPA as ked the PRMD to place a note in the Permit Plus system regarding the Site parcel that lies directly above the contaminated groundwater. This note should state that the parcel is part of a Superfund site and that well permits should not be issued before consulting with PRMD and EPA. This notation should be seen by anyone applying for a well permit on the Site. According to Mr. Swift, when he conducted a search of the Permit Plus system for the Site, the aforementioned text was not present. Therefore, steps should be taken to ensure that the Permits Plus IC is put in place.

D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. Monitoring has been continually optimized in the past with reductions in the number of wells that are sampled. Between 2005 and 2007, (E-3, E-5, W- 25, and W-27) were sampled for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In July 2007, E-3, E-5, and W-25 were destroyed. Except for the groundwater sample collected in May 2009, the concentrations of 1,1-DCA in groundwater samples collected from well W-27 have remained above the MCL.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

## Appendix D Site Inspection PhotographsThis page left blank intentionallySite Inspection Photographs Sola Optical USA, INC. Superfund Site – Third Five-Year Review Report 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA Date of Photographs: March 17, 2010



###  D-1 Photograph 1: View of former GWET location facing northeast.

Photograph 2: View of former UST location facing northeast.Site Inspection Photographs Sola Optical USA, INC. Superfund Site – Third Five-Year Review Report 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA Date of Photographs: March 17, 2010



###  D-2 Photograph 3: View of extraction wells E-1 and E-2 facing northwest.

Photograph 4: View of extraction well E-4 facing northwest.Site Inspection Photographs Sola Optical USA, INC. Superfund Site – Third Five-Year Review Report 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA Date of Photographs: March 17, 2010



###  D-3 Photograph 5: View of groundwater monito ring well W-27 and the asphalt parking lot on the RNM lot facing southwest.

Photograph 6: View of asphalt parking lot and building pad on the RNM lot facing south.Site Inspection Photographs Sola Optical USA, INC. Superfund Site – Third Five-Year Review Report 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, CA Date of Photographs: March 17, 2010



###  D-4 Photograph 7: View of access gate and security company sign on the RNM lot facing southeast.

## Appendix E
Five-Year Review Interview FormsThis page left blank intentionallyPage 1 of 10 INTERVIEW DOCUMENTATION FORM The following is a list of individual interviewed for this five-year review. See the attached contact record(s) for a detailed summary of the interviews.

Name Title/Position Organization Date
Daren Roth Project Geologist Arcadis March 17, 2010

Ken Tran Building Manager/Owner Kland, LLC March 29, 2010

Jamie Milliner Project Manager RNM Properties March 29, 2010

John Anderson Senior Environmental Health Specialist III Sonoma County Environmental Health Department March 31, 2010

Bob Swift Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department – Wells and Septic Division March 31, 2010

John Jang Caseworker California Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay April 1, 2010

Scott Seyfried Project Manager Arcadis April 2, 2010

Hahn Nguyen Sr. Accounting Manger Carl Zeiss Vision Interview yet to be conducted as of 4/2/10Page 2 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 10:00 Date: 3/17/10 Type:  Telephone X Visit  Other Location of Visit: 1500 Cader Lane, Petaluma, California  Incoming  Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: Daren Roth Title: Project Geologist Organization: Arcadis Telephone No: (510) 596-9558 Fax No: (510) 652-2246 E-Mail Address: daren.roth@arcadis-us.com Street Address: 1900 Powell Street, 12 th Floor City, State, Zip: Emeryville, CA 94608
Summary of Conversation Daren Roth is a project geologist with Arcadis. He has been involved with the site in one aspect or another since May 2005 and sampled the groundwater at the site through 2007. He took over the task management role in 2009. 1. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

x Yes. 2. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

x According to Mr. Roth, the groundw ater analytical results for we ll W-27 have remained above the MCL (5 micrograms per liter (μg/L) for 1,1-DCA, except for the groundwater sample collected during the May 2009 monitoring event when the concentration was 4.7 μg/L, just below the MCL. In December 2009, with a concentr ation of 6.5 μg/L, the groundwat er sample collected from well W-27 exceeded the MCL. 3. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, plea se describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-site present, des cribe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.

x There is no continuous on-site O& M presence. Arcadis conducts groundwater sampling on a semiannual basis. 4. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.

x Mr. Roth stated that the only change in the site activities has been a decrease in the number of wells present on Site. In 2007, LFR requested approval from the EPA to abandon groundwater monitoring wells W-22, W-25, and LF-2 and extraction wells E-3, E-5, and E-7, since 1,1-DCA in samples from these wells had reached and remained below the ma ximum contaminant level (MCL) for two years. LFR obtained approval from the EPA to abandon these 6 wells and they were destroyed in July 2007. 5. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If so, please give detail.

x Mr. Roth indicated that there have not been an y difficulties or additional costs with respect toPage 3 of 10 operation and maintenance (O&M) within the last five years. Mr. Roth indi cated that, since 2005, the annual O&M costs were $14,500. 6. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency.

x No. 7. Do you have any comments suggestions orrecommendations regarding the project?

x No. 8. Anyone else we should interview?

x Mr. Roth indicated that we should talk to Scott Seyfried, the Site project manager from Arcadis.Page 4 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 16:30 Date: 3/29/10 Type: X Telephone  Visit  Other Location of Visit:  Incoming X Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: Ken Tran Title: Site Building Manager/Part Owner Organization: Kland, LLC Telephone No: (707) 542-5888 Fax No: (707) 542-5810 E-Mail Address: kenkland@aol.com Street Address: 5800 River Road City, State, Zip: Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Summary of Conversation
1. What is your role with respect to the Site?

x Mr. Tran is the site building manager and part owner for the 1500 Cader Lane property (active building). Mr. Tran and Kland, LLC have owned the property since 2002. Mr. Tran stated that the current tenants of the building on the property are: Petaluma Poultry, a tenant for six years whose site operations include sales and distribution; Reynolds Packaging, a tenant for five years whose site operations include storage and distribution of food packaging materials, and Scott Laboratories, a tenant for seven years whose site operations include the manufacturing and finishing of cork for the wine industry.

x Mr. Tran indicated that he is aware of when the gr oundwater sampling activities occur, has received copies of the groundwater monitoring reports, and is familiar with the restrictive covenant for the property. Mr. Tran mentioned that the property was re-financed in 2009. As a result, the bank required that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) be conducted on the property (1500 Cader Lane). The results of the Phase I ESA indicat ed that the property was clean and that there was no action required. Mr. Tran does not have a copy of the Phase I ESA Report. 2. What construction activities have occurred on the Site since 2005?

x Mr. Tran stated that there have not been any inspections, construction, or vandalism on the property since 2005. 3. Do you have any comments suggestions orrecommendations regarding the project?

x No. 4. Anyone else we should interview?

x No.Page 5 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 15:00 Date: 3/29/10 Type: X Telephone  Visit  Other Location of Visit: X Incoming  Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: Jamie Milliner Title: Project Manager Organization: RNM Properties Telephone No: (707) 781-2602 Fax No: E-Mail Address: jmilliner@rnmproperties.com Street Address: 1600 Corporate Circle City, State, Zip: Petaluma, CA 94954
Summary Of Conversation
1. What is your knowledge of the Site?

x Jamie Milliner is the Director of Project Manageme nt for RNM Properties, owner of the 11 auxiliary acres (RNM lot) located southwest of the 1500 Cader Lane property. 2. What construction activities have occurred on the RNM lot since 2005?

a. Site activities on the RNM lot include the constructio n of four building pads in 2004/2005 (350,000 ft 2 ) and the construction of the asphalt parking lot and installation of the below grade utilities infrastructure in 2007/2008. 3. Have there been any restrictions on construc tion with respect to the ROD amendment?

x Mr. Milliner stated that there are no restrictions on development and construction activities on the RNM lot. RNM has a development agreement with the City of Petaluma to proceed with construction activities on their lot. In order to ke ep the permits and entitlement active, entitlement maintenance (footings) and uniform building code (UBC) inspections have been conducted by the City of Petaluma twice a year since 2008 and will continue until 2012. Mr. Milliner indicated that per the development agreement RNM Properties will construct one building on the RNM lot within the next five years. 4. Do you have any comments suggestions orrecommendations regarding the project?

x No. 5. Anyone else we should interview?

x No.Page 6 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 11:00 Date: 3/31/10 Type: X Telephone  Visit  Other Location of Visit: X Incoming  Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: John Anderson, R.E.H.S. Title: Senior Environmental Health Specialist III Organization: Sonoma County Environmental Health Division Telephone No: (707) 565-6534 Fax No: (707) 565-6525 E-Mail Address: janderso@sonoma-county.org Street Address: 475 Aviation Blvd., Suite 220 City, State, Zip: Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Summary Of Conversation
Mr. Anderson is a Senior Environmental Health Specia list III with the Sonoma County Environmental Health Division (SCEHD).
1. CDM contacted the Sonoma County Environmental Health Department to discuss the Institutional Control regarding monitoring well permit applications.

x The Sonoma County Environmental Health Divi sion (SCEHD) reviews applications for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells. Mr. Anderson believes that the property located at 1500 Cader Lane in Petaluma, California (Site) is overseen by the Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay (Water Board).

x Mr. Anderson stated that the SCEHD reviews applications for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells. He also indicated that when a groundwater monitoring well application is submitted to the SCEHD, a work plan is also subm itted to, and reviewed by, either the Water Board or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The SCEHD also reviews the field work details within the work plan. Therefore, if a groundwater monitoring well application is submitted for the Site, the SCEHD would be able to determine that the application was for a Superfund site.
2. What is your relationship with the Site? Are there any files on record for the Site?

x Mr. Anderson stated that since 2005, he has had a minimal relationship with the Site and is unaware of Site activities. There have not been any compla ints or violations with respect to the Site.

x Mr. Anderson indicated that there we re no records on file at the SC EHD for the Site and that the old address for the Site was 3600 Lakeville Highway. The SCEHD had one permit on file for the 3600 Lakeville Highway address. This permit, submitted in 2007, was for the destruction of 6 wells on the Site.
3. Has a site inspection been conducted at the Site?

x Mr. Anderson stated that he has not visited or inspect ed the Site in recent years, but that a Site visit may have been conducted by the SCEHD in association with the well destruction in 2007.Page 7 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 13:30 Date: 3/31/10 Type: X Telephone  Visit  Other Location of Visit: X Incoming  Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: Bob Swift Title: Supervising Environmental Health Specialist Organization: Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department – Wells and Septic Division Telephone No: (707) 565-1680 Fax No: E-Mail Address: Street Address: 2550 Ventura Avenue City, State, Zip: Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Summary Of Conversation Mr. Swift is the Supervising Environmental Health Specialist for the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (RRMD) – Wells and Septic Division. 1. CDM contacted the Sonoma Count y Permit and Resource Management Department to confirm that the Institutional Control within the Permits Plus system was in place.

x Mr. Swift indicated that the Wells and Septic Divisi on of the PRMD reviews permit applications for the installation of water supply and agricultural wells . At the request of CDM, Mr. Swift conducted a search of the Permit Plus system for the 1500 Cader Lane address. Per the 2007 ROD Amendment, the EPA asked the PRMD to place a note in the Permit Plus system regarding the Site parcel that lies directly above the contaminated grou ndwater. This note should state that the parcel is part of a Superfund site and that well permits should not be issued before consulting with PRMD and EPA. This notation should be seen by anyone applying for a well permit on the Site. According to Mr. Swift, when he conducted a search of the Permit Plus system for the Site, the aforementioned text was not present.Page 8 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 11:00 Date: 4/1/10 Type: X Telephone  Visit  Other Location of Visit: X Incoming  Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: John Jang Title: Caseworker Organization: Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Telephone No: (510) 622-2366 Fax No: (510) 622-2460 E-Mail Address: jjang@waterboards.ca.gov Street Address: 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 City, State, Zip: Oakland, CA 94612
Summary Of Conversation CDM contacted John Jang with the San Francisco Bay - Regional Water Quality Control Board to discuss the Institutional Controls for the Site. 1. What is your relationship with the Site? Are there any files on record for the Site?

x Mr. Jang indicated that the United States Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency with respect to the Sola Optical Site, and that since 2005 the Water Board has received copies of the groundwater monitoring reports, but has otherwise no t been involved with activities at the Site.Page 9 of 10 

## INTERVIEW RECORD

Site Name: Sola Optical EPA ID No.: CAD981171523 Subject: Site Activities from 2005 to 2010 Time: 10:00 Date: 4/2/10 Type: X Telephone  Visit  Other Location of Visit: X Incoming  Outgoing
Contact Made By:
Name: Ahnna Westrich Title: Staff Geologist Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) Individual Contacted:
Name: Scott Seyfried Title: Project Manager Organization: Arcadis Telephone No: (916) 786-0342 Fax No: E-Mail Address: scott.seyfried@arcadis-us.com Street Address: City, State, Zip:
Summary of Conversation Mr. Seyfried stated that Levine Fricke/LFR/Arcadis have been the contractor for the Site since 1987 and that he has worked with the Site since that time. Mr. Seyfried indicated that there have not been any violations, incidents, or vandalism at the Site and there has been no community concern regarding the Site. 1. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?

x Based on review of the analytical data since 2005, Mr. Seyfried believes that the current Site remedy of monitored natural attenuation and institutional controls is working. 2. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are decreasing?

x Based on review of the analytical data since 2005, which was provided to CDM, Mr. Seyfried indicated that the VOC concentrations are decreasin g and that the current Site remedy of monitored natural attenuation and institutional controls is working. 3. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, plea se describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-site present, des cribe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.

x Arcadis conducts Site semi-annual groundwater monitoring events. Other than these monitoring events, Arcadis does not make any routine Site visits. 4. Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.

x LFR obtained approval from the EPA to abandon three groundwater monitoring wells (W-22, W-25, and LF-2) and three extraction wells (E-3, E-5, and E-7). These 6 wells were destroyed in July 2007. Destruction of these wells has had no impact on the protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy. 5. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the site since start-up or in the last five years? If so, please give detail.

x Mr. Seyfried indicated that he would provide CDM with the O&M costs for the Site activities since 2005. According to Mr. Roth, a project geologist with Arcadis, since 2005, the annual O&M costs for the Sola site were $14,500. 6. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M, or sampling efforts? Please describe changes andPage 10 of 10 resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency.

x No. 7. Do you have any comments suggestions orrecommendations regarding the project?

x No.

## Appendix F
ARARs Review Technical MemorandumThis page left blank intentionally

# 

2010 0924 Sola Optical FYR ARAR Memo.doc 

## Memorandum
To: Dante Rodriguez, USEPA From: Ed Song, CDM Peggy Bloisa, CDM Date: May 21, 2010 (revised September 24, 2010) Subject: Sola Optical USA Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, CA Third Five-Year Review Report 2010 ARAR Review Memorandum

For this five year review, Applicable or Rele vant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) in the 2007 Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment (EPA 2007) were reviewed for any changes, additions, or deletions. The 2007 ROD Amendment (EPA 2007) updated the ARARs to meet the recommendations from the previous Five Year Review. MCLs we re reaffirmed as the applicable groundwater cleanup standards for the current remedy (mon itored natural attenuation) and ARARs for institutional controls were adopted to ensure future protectiveness. A summary of chemicalspecific ARARs is provided in Table 1. The cu rrent version of California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22 was reviewed to ensure all in formation is current. The MCLs for the two contaminants of concern, 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE ha ve not changed. No ARARs were identified that are more stringent than the current clean-up levels for 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE. Review of on-site activities at the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site (Site) since the previous Five Year Review (EPA 2005) indicate that there have been no changes in ARARs or standards affecting the protectiveness of the remedy since the changes adopted in the 2007 ROD Amendment. The selected institutional control (restrictive covenant) continues to prevent groundwater usage at the Site. 

### References United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Second Five-Year Review Report for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Sonoma County, California. September. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Record of Decision Amendment for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, California. March 30.

cc: Rachel Hess, ITSI2010 0924-Table 1 SOLA ARARs updated.docTable 1Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)Sola Optical Superfund SitePetaluma, CAAuthorityMediumRequirementStatusSynopsis of RequirementCHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CRITERIAFederalRegulatoryRequirementGroundwater Federal Primary DrinkingWater Standards 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)Part 141Safe Drinking Water Act 40U.S.C §300Relevant andAppropriateFederal primary MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) protectthe public from contaminants that may be found in drinking water. Theonsite remedies mitigated potential or further degradation of ground water.Ongoing monitoring events are conducted to confirm compliance.State RegulatoryRequirementGroundwater California Primary DrinkingWater StandardsHealth and Safety Code(H&S Code)§4010 et seq.22 California Code ofRegulations (CCR), Division 4,Chapter 15, §64431 and 64444Relevant andAppropriateCalifornia Primary MCLs protect publichealth from contaminants that maybe found in drinking water sources andare at least as stringent as thefederal standard.The onsite remedies mitigated potential or further degradation of groundwater. Ongoing monitoring events are conducted to confirm compliance.ACTION-SPECIFIC CRITERIAFederal and StateRegulatoryRequirementGroundwater Hazardous Waste Regulations40 CFR §264.171-264.17822 CCR §66262.34Substantive provisionsare applicable if waste isdetermined to be RCRAhazardous waste.Onsite hazardous waste accumulation is allowed for up to 90 days as longas the waste is stored in containers or tanks, on drip pads, insidebuildings, is labeled and dated, etc. May be applicable to spent carbon if itis determined to be a hazardous waste.State RegulatoryRequirementGroundwater California Code of Regulations,Title 22, section 67391.1Civil Code Section 1471Applicable Establishes requirementsfor imposing covenant restrictions.

## Appendix G
HHRA Review Technical MemorandumThis page left blank intentionally

# 

2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc 

## Memorandum
To: Dante Rodriguez, USEPA From: Kassandra Tzou, CDM Date: June 2, 2010 (revise d September 27, 2010) Subject: Sola Optical USA Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, CA Third Five-Year Review Report 2010 Ecological and Human Health Ri sk Assessment and Toxicology Review Memorandum

The Ecological and Human Health Risk Asse ssment and Toxicology reviewed for the 2010 Five-Year Review report are those contained in the 2007 Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment (EPA, 2007). In the 1991 ROD, the selected remedy (enhanced groundwater extraction system ) was intended to reduce the present and future on-s ite risk to human health and the environment to a 1x10 -4 (1 in 10,000) cancer risk for 1,1-DCE, and to restore the groundwater to full beneficial use, which for this site is drinking water. More specifically, the objectives for the remedial action at the Site were to cle an-up the groundwater to state or federally promulgated drinking water standards (i.e., Federal and California maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]). The groundwater extraction syst em operated from 1992 to 1997. In 1997, the groundwater extraction system was turned off and potentia l rebound was evaluated. After two years, the groundwater extraction system was decommi ssioned and 17 monitoring wells and 4 piezometers were destroyed. Based on the grou ndwater monitoring data during this time, Sola requested that the Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA) consider monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as a final remedy (LFR, 2001). The 2007 ROD Amendment was signed on March 30, 2007 and modified the previously selected remedy for the Site (EPA, 2007). This amendment changes the site remedy to MNA, but retains MCLs as clean-up targets for groundwater. 

### Ecological Risk Review Based on the Work Plan for the Five-Year Revi ew, assessment of ecological risks was not needed to complete the review. As stated in the 2007 ROD amendment, the 1991 risk assessment included an ecological risk assessmen t that focused on possible impacts to nearby Adobe Creek, the closest surface water body to the Site. Based on data from groundwaterDante Rodriguez June 2, 2010, revised September 27, 2010 Page 2

2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc monitoring wells between the Sola facility and Adobe Creek, EPA determined that no contaminants were moving towards or had re ached the creek. In addition, contaminant concentrations in the groundwater beneath the Sola facility were below federal surface water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic li fe. The assessment also noted that contaminated groundwater from the Sola facility could flow in the direction of Adobe Creek if the groundwater extraction system were shut off. Currently, the site remedy is to achieve MCLs in groundwater through MNA. The extraction system has been eliminated and groundwater flow toward the creek could resume. However, since groundwater concentrations were below water quality criteria in 1991 and have been re duced since then, discharge of water to Adobe Creek would not have any impact on aquatic life in the creek. During the Site inspection for this Five-Year Re view, the Site environmental setting appears to have changed since the 2007 ROD amendment, wi th construction of an asphalt parking lot and four building pads with associated belo w grade infrastructure (i.e., electrical and plumbing) on the auxiliary 11 acre parcel. Th is development does not appear to provide habitat that would be attractive to ecological receptors. No new ecological receptors were noted during the Site inspection . No additional assessment for ecological risks was conducted for the five year review. 

### Human Health Risk Review The risk assessment prepared in 1991 and disc ussed in the 1991 ROD evaluated the Site for hypothetical future residential use even thou gh the Site is used for light industrial / commercial purposes and is not planned for re sidential use. Hypothetical residents were evaluated for ingestion of contaminated grou ndwater and inhalation of contaminants in indoor air via vapor intrusion. The risk asse ssment concluded that there would not be any non-carcinogenic health effects through either of these exposure pathways. Carcinogenic risks for vapor intrusion would be 9 x 10 -6 and for ingestion of contaminated groundwater would be 1 x 10 -4 (EPA, 1991). Since shallow groundwater at the site could in theory be used as a drinking water source, risk management for the site included a remedy based on achieving drinking water standards. Groundwater cleanup standards established for the Site were California MCLs.
For the 2005 Five-Year Review, additional ri sk evaluations were conducted to assess a homegrown produce pathway for potential future residents and an indoor air pathway for on-site workers and potential future residents. These pathways were shown to not pose an increased health risk. The literat ure review indicated that uptake and accumulation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in plants and subsequent exposure by home gardeners and their families are likely to be low. For the vapor in trusion assessment, Site VOC concentrations were compared to both target and screening levels (MCLs, Water Board Groundwater Screening Levels for Evaluation of Potential Vapor Intrusion Concerns, and the groundwater environmental screening levels [ESLs]), and were found to be well below the criteria. Therefore, it was concluded that the vapor intr usion pathway is not of concern at this Site (EPA, 2005a).Dante Rodriguez June 2, 2010, revised September 27, 2010 Page 3

2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc For this 2010 Five-Year Review, target and screening levels considered in the 2005 Five-Year Review were updated to determine if the focus on MCLs as the Site groundwater cleanup standards remains appropriate. Table 1 shows Site groundwater contaminant concentrations and their respective MCLs, target groundwa ter concentrations and groundwater ESLs. California MCLs presented in this table are th e same as during MCLs used in the 2005 Five-Year Review, except for Freon 113 (which co uld be a unit conversion error in the 2005 table). Further, EPA has not updated its 2002 Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance document (EPA 2002). However, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) updated ESLs for vapor intrusion in 2008 (Water Board, 2008). These updated values are presented in the table. Site groundwater concentrations from 2005 to 2010 are still well below both target and updated VI screening levels (Table 1). Concentr ations of 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) range from 6.5 to 16 micrograms per liter ( μ g/L); these concentrations still exceed the CDHS Primary MCL of 5 μ g/L.
Table 1 Groundwater Concentrations, MCLs, Targ et Groundwater Concentrations, And Groundwater ESLs for Vapor Intrusion Into Indoor Air Sola Optical USA, Inc. Third Five-Year Review Report Sonoma County, CA

Chemicals Detected

in Groundwater at Sola Optical Superfund Site Range of Site Concentrations Detected October 2005 to December 2009 ( μ g/L) CDPH a Primary MCL ( μ g/L) Target Groundwater Concentration ( μ g/L) b Water Board Groundwater

Screening Levels ( μ g/L) c 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 200 3,100 130,000 – 360,000 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.8 – 5.6 6 190 6,300 – 18,000 1,1-Dichloroethane 6.5 – 16 5 2,200 1,000 – 3,400 Methylene chloride ND 5 5,800 2,400 – 8,100 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.5 230 200 – 690 Trichloroethylene ND 5 5.3 530 – 1,800 Freon 113 ND 1,200 1,500 NA Notes: a) CDPH = California Department of Public Health, Table updated April 14, 2010 (CDPH, 2010). b) EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), 2002. Draft Guidance for Eval uating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsur face Vapor Intrusion Guidance). November 2002 (EPA OSWER, 2002). Target Groundwater Concentration to Target Indoor Air Concentration Where the Soil Gas to Indoor Air Attenuation Factor = 0.001 and Partitioning Across the Water Table Obeys Henry’s Law C gwfor cancer risk = 10 -4 and hazard index = 1. c) California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Franc isco Region, 2008. Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Interim Final. Table E-1. Groundwater Screening Levels for Evaluation of Potential Vapor Intrusion Concerns. November 2007, updat ed May 2008 (Water Board, 2008). (Range of concentrations shown represent residential to industrial expos ure scenarios, high permeability soils assumed).Dante Rodriguez June 2, 2010, revised September 27, 2010 Page 4

2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc Toxicity criteria for 1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE) and 1,1-DCA were also reviewed for this Five-Year Review. EPA’s online Integrated Ri sk Information System (EPA, 2010) indicates that these criteria have not been revised sinc e 2002 and 1990, respectively. The California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard A ssessment (OEHHA) online toxicity database indicates that toxicity criteria for 1,1-DCA were last reviewed in 2009, however these values have not changed since 1992 (CalEPA 1992; 2009, 201 0). OEHHA does not list toxicity criteria for 1,1-DCE. Although the EPA has not updated its vapor intrusion guidance document, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTS C) issued its own vapor intrusion guidance ( Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mi tigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air ) in 2004 and updated this guidance in February 2005. This document does not provide generic groundwater screening levels, however, it does provide a conservative mathematicalmodel (Johnson and Ettinger Excel spreadsheet model) for calculating cancer risks and noncancer hazards from inhalation of vapors migr ating from groundwater to. These models have been adjusted by DTSC (GW-Screen Version 3.0 April 2003, last modified by DTSC on February 4, 2009) with California toxicity cr iteria and default parameters assuming a residential receptor. When the maximum Site groundwater concentrations of 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA detected from 2005 to 2010 are entered into the DTSC-adjusted Johnson and Ettinger model using default parameters and assuming a sand vadose zone, the cancer risk for 1,1-DCA is 9 x 10 -7 , which is below the EPA risk management range of 10 -6 to 10 -4 . The hazard quotients for 1,1-DCE (0.04) and 1,1-DCA (0.002) are also well below the target threshold of one. The model printouts for these two chemical s are provided in Attachment A. Note that the above calculations are not site-specific. Instead, they use conservative default input parameters to provide a screening level evaluati on of the potential for vapor intrusion. The Johnson and Ettinger models were not used in the previous risk assessment or the 2005 Five-Year Review. Recent developments in human health risk analysis recommend consideration of two residential exposure issues that were not evaluated in previous risk analyses for the Site – breastfeeding and early-life exposure to carcin ogens. The breastfeeding pathway is commonly a pathway of concern for bioaccumulating chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are not contaminants of concern at the Site. Similarly, the list of chemicals identified by the EPA as having carcinogenic e ffects from early life exposure does not include the contaminants of concern at the Site (EPA, 2005b ). These are emerging issues in the field of risk assessment are not expected to affect risk management decisions made at the Site based on the previous 1991 and 2005 risk analyses. Finally, OEHHA has published a few chronic reference doses specifically for children; howeve r, the list is small and does not include the primary contaminants of concern at the Site.Dante Rodriguez June 2, 2010, revised September 27, 2010 Page 5

2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc In addition, as mentioned above, the Site is cu rrently used for light industrial / commercial purposes and is not planned for residential use. Vapor intrusion is therefore not likely to be an issue for residents between now and the time when MCLs are reached. Further, use of shallow groundwater for drinking water also s eems unlikely in the foreseeable future and no ingestion exposures to chemicals of co ncern in groundwater are expected.. Therefore, exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and remedial action objectives for selection of MNA and use of California MCLs in the 2007 ROD Amendment remain valid. 

### References California Department of Public Health. 2010. Table of MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants . last updated April 14, 2010. California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2005. Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 2004, updated February 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 1992. Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens. April. _________. 2009. Technical Support Document for Canc er Potency Factors: Methodologies for derivation, listing of available values, and adju stments to allow for early life stage exposures. May. _________. 2010. Online Toxicity Database - http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp, accessed May 10, 2010. California Regional Water Quality Control Boar d San Francisco Region (Water Board), 2008. Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Interim Final. November 2007, updated May 2008. Levine Fricke (LFR). 2001. Evaluation of Monitored Natural Attenuation as a Remedy to Meet Remedial Action Objectives; Sola Optical USA, Inc. , Site. April 4. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Record of Decision; Sola Optical Site . September 27. _________. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 2002. Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance). November.
_________. 2005a. Second Five-Year Review Report for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Sonoma County, California. September.Dante Rodriguez June 2, 2010, revised September 27, 2010 Page 6

2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc _________. 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. March.
_________. 2007. Record of Decision Amendment for the Sola Optical USA, Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, California. March 30. _________. 2010. Online Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) - http://www.epa.gov/iris/, accessed May 10, 2010.



### Attachments Attachment A Johnson and Ettinger Model Output for 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA

cc: Rachel Hess, ITSI2010 0927_Sola Optical FYR HRA Memo.doc 

## Attachment A Johnson and Ettinger Model Output for 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA

###  

### 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)DATA ENTRY SHEETCALCULATE RISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box)DTSCVapor Intrusion GuidanceYESInterim Final 12/04OR(last modified 2/4/09)CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION(enter "X" in "YES" box and initial groundwater conc. below)YESXENTERENTERInitialChemical groundwaterCAS No.conc.,(numbers only, CWno dashes)(μg/L)753545.60E+001,1-DichloroethyleneENTERENTER ENTERENTERMOREDepthÐbelow gradeAverageENTERto bottomDepthsoil/Average vaporof enclosed below grade SCSgroundwaterflow rate into bldg.space floor, to water table, soil type temperature,(Leave blank to calculate)LFLWTdirectly aboveTSQsoil(cm)(cm) water table(oC)(L/m)15 400 S 24 5MOREÐENTER ENTERVadose zone User-definedENTERENTER ENTERENTERSCSvandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zonesoil typesoil vaporSCSsoil dry soil total soil water-filled(used to estimateORpermeability, soil type bulk density, porosity,porosity,soil vaporkvUbVnVTwVpermeability)(cm2) (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)1.00E-08S1.660.3750.054MOREÐENTERENTER ENTERENTERENTER ENTERTarget Target hazard Averaging Averagingrisk for quotient for time fortime forExposure Exposurecarcinogens, noncarcinogens, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency,TRTHQATCATNCEDEF(unitless) (unitless) (yrs)(yrs)(yrs) (days/yr)1.0E-061703030350Used to calculate risk-basedgroundwater concentration.ChemicalGW-SCREENVersion 3.0; 04/03Reset toDefaultsLookup SoilParametersDTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03DTSC Indoor Air GuidanceUnclassified Soil Screening Model11DCE HERD_Groundwater_Screening_Model_2009rev.xls5/22/20101:43 PMCHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEETABCHenry's Henry's Enthalpy ofOrganic Purelaw constant law constant vaporization at Normalcarbon component UnitDiffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical partition water risk Referencein air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, coefficient, solubility, factor, conc.,DaDwH TR'Hv,bTBTCKocS URF RfC(cm2/s) (cm2/s) (atm-m3/mol) (oC)(cal/mol)(oK) (oK) (cm3/g)(mg/L)(μg/m3)-1(mg/m3)9.00E-02 1.04E-05 2.60E-02 25 6,247 304.75 576.05 5.89E+01 2.25E+03 0.0E+00 7.0E-02END1 of 1INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEETVadose Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Total Air-filled Water-filled FloorSource- zone soil effective soilsoilsoilThickness of porosity in porosity in porosity in wallbuilding air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor capillary capillary capillary capillary seamseparation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability,zone,zone, zone, zone, perimeter,LTTaVStekikrgkvLcznczTa,czTw,czXcrack(cm)(cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2)(cm)(cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3)(cm)385 0.321 #N/A #N/A#N/A1.00E-0817.050.375 0.122 0.253 4,000Area ofCapillary Totalenclosed Crack- Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor Vadose zone zone overallBldg. space to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective effective effectiveventilation below area below ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. soil diffusion diffusion diffusionrate, grade, ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, coefficient, coefficient,QbuildingABKZcrack'Hv,TSHTSH'TSμTSDeffVDeffczDeffT(cm3/s) (cm2)(unitless) (cm)(cal/mol)(atm-m3/mol)(unitless) (g/cm-s)(cm2/s) (cm2/s) (cm2/s)3.39E+04 1.00E+06 5.00E-03 156,2992.51E-021.03E+00 1.80E-04 1.45E-02 5.77E-04 7.02E-03Exponent of InfiniteAverageCrackequivalent source InfiniteDiffusion Convection Sourcevaporeffectivefoundation indoor source Unitpath path vapor Crackflow ratediffusionArea ofPeclet attenuation bldg. risk Referencelength, length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient,crack,number, coefficient, conc., factor, conc.,LdLpCsourcercrackQsoilDcrackAcrackexp(Pef)DCbuildingURF RfC(cm) (cm)(μg/m3)(cm)(cm3/s)(cm2/s)(cm2)(unitless) (unitless)(μg/m3) (μg/m3)-1(mg/m3)385 15 5.77E+03 1.25 8.33E+01 1.45E-02 5.00E+03 9.44E+04 4.42E-04 2.55E+00 NA 7.0E-02DTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03DTSC Indoor Air GuidanceUnclassified Soil Screening Model11DCE HERD_Groundwater_Screening_Model_2009rev.xls5/22/20101:44 PMRESULTS SHEETRISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:Incremental HazardIndoor Indoor Risk-based Pure Finalrisk from quotientexposure exposure indoor component indoorvapor from vaporgroundwater groundwater exposure water exposureintrusion to intrusion toconc., conc., groundwater solubility, groundwaterindoor air, indoor air,carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., S conc.,carcinogen noncarcinogen(μg/L)(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L)(unitless) (unitless)NANANA 2.25E+06 NANA3.5E-02MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW:END1 of 1]

###  

### 1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)DATA ENTRY SHEETCALCULATE RISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box)DTSCVapor Intrusion GuidanceYESInterim Final 12/04OR(last modified 2/4/09)CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION(enter "X" in "YES" box and initial groundwater conc. below)YESXENTERENTERInitialChemical groundwaterCAS No.conc.,(numbers only, CWno dashes)(μg/L)753431.60E+011,1-DichloroethaneENTERENTER ENTERENTERMOREDepthÐbelow gradeAverageENTERto bottomDepthsoil/Average vaporof enclosed below grade SCSgroundwaterflow rate into bldg.space floor, to water table, soil type temperature,(Leave blank to calculate)LFLWTdirectly aboveTSQsoil(cm)(cm) water table(oC)(L/m)15 400 S 24 5MOREÐENTER ENTERVadose zone User-definedENTERENTER ENTERENTERSCSvandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zonesoil typesoil vaporSCSsoil dry soil total soil water-filled(used to estimateORpermeability, soil type bulk density, porosity,porosity,soil vaporkvUbVnVTwVpermeability)(cm2) (g/cm3)(unitless)(cm3/cm3)1.00E-08S1.660.3750.054MOREÐENTERENTER ENTERENTERENTER ENTERTarget Target hazard Averaging Averagingrisk for quotient for time fortime forExposure Exposurecarcinogens, noncarcinogens, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency,TRTHQATCATNCEDEF(unitless) (unitless) (yrs)(yrs)(yrs) (days/yr)1.0E-061703030350Used to calculate risk-basedgroundwater concentration.ChemicalGW-SCREENVersion 3.0; 04/03Reset toDefaultsLookup SoilParametersDTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03DTSC Indoor Air GuidanceUnclassified Soil Screening Model11DCA HERD_Groundwater_Screening_Model_2009rev.xls5/22/20101:42 PMCHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEETABCHenry's Henry's Enthalpy ofOrganic Purelaw constant law constant vaporization at Normalcarbon component UnitDiffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical partition water risk Referencein air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, coefficient, solubility, factor, conc.,DaDwH TR'Hv,bTBTCKocS URF RfC(cm2/s) (cm2/s) (atm-m3/mol) (oC)(cal/mol)(oK) (oK) (cm3/g)(mg/L)(μg/m3)-1(mg/m3)7.42E-02 1.05E-05 5.61E-03 25 6,895 330.55 523.00 3.16E+01 5.06E+03 1.6E-06 7.0E-01END1 of 1INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEETVadose Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Total Air-filled Water-filled FloorSource- zone soil effective soilsoilsoilThickness of porosity in porosity in porosity in wallbuilding air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor capillary capillary capillary capillary seamseparation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability,zone,zone, zone, zone, perimeter,LTTaVStekikrgkvLcznczTa,czTw,czXcrack(cm)(cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2)(cm)(cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3)(cm)385 0.321 #N/A #N/A#N/A1.00E-0817.050.375 0.122 0.253 4,000Area ofCapillary Totalenclosed Crack- Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor Vadose zone zone overallBldg. space to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective effective effectiveventilation below area below ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. soil diffusion diffusion diffusionrate, grade, ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, coefficient, coefficient,QbuildingABKZcrack'Hv,TSHTSH'TSμTSDeffVDeffczDeffT(cm3/s) (cm2)(unitless) (cm)(cal/mol)(atm-m3/mol)(unitless) (g/cm-s)(cm2/s) (cm2/s) (cm2/s)3.39E+04 1.00E+06 5.00E-03 157,2945.38E-032.21E-01 1.80E-04 1.20E-02 4.79E-04 5.81E-03Exponent of InfiniteAverageCrackequivalent source InfiniteDiffusion Convection Sourcevaporeffectivefoundation indoor source Unitpath path vapor Crackflow ratediffusionArea ofPeclet attenuation bldg. risk Referencelength, length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient,crack,number, coefficient, conc., factor, conc.,LdLpCsourcercrackQsoilDcrackAcrackexp(Pef)DCbuildingURF RfC(cm) (cm)(μg/m3)(cm)(cm3/s)(cm2/s)(cm2)(unitless) (unitless)(μg/m3) (μg/m3)-1(mg/m3)385 15 3.53E+03 1.25 8.33E+01 1.20E-02 5.00E+03 1.08E+06 3.77E-04 1.33E+00 1.6E-06 7.0E-01DTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03DTSC Indoor Air GuidanceUnclassified Soil Screening Model11DCA HERD_Groundwater_Screening_Model_2009rev.xls5/22/20101:43 PMRESULTS SHEETRISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:Incremental HazardIndoor Indoor Risk-based Pure Finalrisk from quotientexposure exposure indoor component indoorvapor from vaporgroundwater groundwater exposure water exposureintrusion to intrusion toconc., conc., groundwater solubility, groundwaterindoor air, indoor air,carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., S conc.,carcinogen noncarcinogen(μg/L)(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L)(unitless) (unitless)NANANA 5.06E+06 NA8.7E-07 1.8E-03MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW:END1 of 1]