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, Assistant Director Date 

Federal Facilities and Cleanup Branch 

Superfund Division 

EPA Region IX

SDMS DOCID# 1123226
This page left blank intentionally 
n_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 Characteristics ........................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Land and Resource Use ........................................................................................... 3-1 

3.3 History of Contamination ....................................................................................... 3-2 

3.4 Basis for Taking Action ............................................................................................ 3-3 

Section 4 Remedial Actions 

4.1 Remedy Selection ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Remedy Implementation ......................................................................................... 4-2 

4.3 System Operations/ 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, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and 

RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? ............................................ 7-2 

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the 

protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................ 7-4

Section 8 Issues 
Contents 

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 Memorandum 
Contents 

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 Second 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, Recommendations, 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 2009 
Table 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 Response, 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 extraction 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 List 
Contents 

n_SOLA5YR 092710_no track.DOCX v

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

OEHHA California EPA Office of Environmental 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 Quality Control Board – San Francisco Bay Region 
This page left blank intentionally 
n_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, California, in Sonoma County. Sola Optical 

manufactured ophthalmic lenses from 1978 through 2001. The facility was comprised 

of one manufacturing building and an adjoining 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 storage 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 (ROD) 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 protects human health and the environment 

because the groundwater contamination has been reduced below drinking water 

standards (maximum contaminant levels [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. 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 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): QOperating 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: RStatutory 

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 2005
2 

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 installed on the Site since 2005, the well permitting 

restriction IC is not properly in place, which 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 below 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. However, 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 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. 
This page left blank intentionally 
N_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 implemented 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 Pollution 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 years after the initiation of such remedial 

action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the 

remedial action being implemented. In addition, 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 such 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 results 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 considered a policy review because clean-up 

levels have not yet been achieved, and until they are, hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above target clean-up levels that allow 

for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. 
 
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 storage 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 groundwater investigation. 

July 1985 Sola removes six 1,000-gallon USTs. 

July 1986 Sola conducts soil gas and soil boring 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 approximately 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 National Priorities List (NPL). 

May 1987 EPA Special Notice Letter proposes additional Remedial 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 written 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 private 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 evaluation 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 (Docket # 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 system 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 closeout report signed: eight extraction wells, liquid 

phase carbon treatment. 

January 1993 Public Health Assessment Report concludes no apparent public health hazard at the 

Site because contaminated groundwater is not currently a source of drinking water. 

Future exposures were considered unlikely 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. Extraction 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 implement monitored natural attenuation (MNA) at the Site. 

October 2002 Sola submits Work Plan to implement 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 Review 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 until 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 associated 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 Groundwater 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 monitoring 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, in the 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 administration 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 the 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 infrastructure (i.e., electrical and plumbing) 

have been constructed on the 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 Creek, located 0.3 mile west of the Sola 

building, runs north-south and flows intermittently into the Petaluma River one mile 

south from the Site. . 

Geologic investigations indicate that the depositional sediments at the Site consist of a 

complex sequence of alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded clays, silts, and 

sands, with lesser amounts of gravel. At depths 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 thicknesses. These deeper sediments probably 

represent complex alluvial and estuarine 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 towards 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 industrial use. Land-use in the surrounding 

area is industrial, commercial, residential, 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 residential subdivisions to the north and 
Section 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 undeveloped acres (889,060 square feet) in the 

southwest portion of the Site were purchased 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 this 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 adjoining administration office building, and a 

parking lot surrounding the buildings. Three commercial tenants currently occupy the 

Site building: Petaluma Poultry, Reynolds Packaging, and Scott Laboratories. 

Petaluma Poultry conducts sales and distribution 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 active 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 discontinue 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 groundwater 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 Crandell 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 adjoining 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 was 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 the 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 chloride, and 1,1,1-TCA were identified in 

the groundwater. In July 1985, Sola excavated 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 surrounding 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 gravel backfill materials and three to five 

feet of native soil from the sides and bottom 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 former tank area. Further confirmation 

sampling demonstrated the presence of VOCs, 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 groundwater 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 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 

from the Water Board into Adobe Creek northwest 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 pumping 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 potential concern were identified in the 1991 

ROD: acetone, butanone, 1,1-DCA, 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 1,1-DCE, Freon 113, 

4-methyl-2-pentanone, PCE, toluene, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1,2-trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA), and 

trichloroethene (TCE). Contamination was found 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 indicated 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 indicated 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 detected in groundwater at the Site are below 

their corresponding federal surface water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic 

life. 
N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK.DOCX 4-1 

Section 4 

Remedial Actions 

This section summarizes the selected remedial 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 groundwater to its beneficial use, which is 

drinking water. The selected site cleanup remedy consisted of the following elements: 

 Groundwater monitoring to assure capture 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 additional 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 further migration of contaminants into the 

deeper portion of the aquifer. The remedy included constructing a carbon filtration 

system at the facility to treat the extracted 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. Based 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 the 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 sustain clean-up standards at the Site. 

Monitored Natural Attenuation 

Since 2005, Sola has continued groundwater monitoring with semi-annual sampling 

performed from June 2006 through December 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 environment during the clean-up period 

(EPA, 2005a). Accordingly, the 2007 ROD Amendment added a requirement that ICs 

be implemented to protect against inappropriate use of the contaminated 

groundwater until the clean-up standards are 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 county recorder’s office (EPA, 2007b). The 

objective of the restriction is to prevent use of the groundwater that could result in 

unacceptable exposure of humans or the environment 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 issuing 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 requested that the CSPRMD place a note within 

the Permits Plus system regarding the Site 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 permit for the Sola Site parcel, this note 

would appear within the Permits Plus system and the CSPRMD would review the 

permit request within the context of the Site requirements. 

4.3 System Operations/ O&M 

O&M for the MNA remedy consists of conducting semi-annual sampling. Since 2005, 

LFR/Arcadis have conducted groundwater monitoring 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 approximately $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 following 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 been 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 these controls that will be relied upon to prevent use of the 

groundwater that still exceeds 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 Outcome 

Since 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 

2009 
Section 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 remedy 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 2007 
N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK.DOCX 6-1 

Section 6 

Five-Year Review Process 

The following sections discuss the Five-Year 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 beginning of the five year review process. 

No responses to the public notice were received. Following the release of the third 

Five-Year Review, EPA will produce and distribute 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 the Sola Site, documents relevant to the Site 

since 2005 were reviewed (Appendix B). Documents were chosen for review focusing 

primarily on actions that have 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 findings from the periodic monitoring and 

reporting, documented in the groundwater monitoring reports that were reviewed. 

Performance Monitoring Program 

Table 6-1 summarizes the monitoring 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 stovepipe 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 shallow. 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. 
 
Section 6 

Five-Year Review Process 

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK.DOCX 6-3 

Table 6-2 

Shallow Aquifer Groundwater 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 maximum 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 concentrations 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 since 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 Groundwater 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 aquifer 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 March 17, 2010. The inspection checklist is 

included as Appendix C and photographs from the inspection are presented in 

Appendix D. Representatives of Arcadis (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 building, 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 former 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 Site 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 the 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 activities 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 restrictive 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 consists of restrictions within County of 

Sonoma’s well permitting process. During the Site visit, no Site were observed that 

might indicate potentially unsafe exposures to people or the environment. For 

example, there were no new wells observed during the Site inspection and there was 

no ground disturbance observed on the Site. 

6.6 Interviews 

As part of the Third Five-Year-Review, interviews were conducted during the Site 

walk and over the phone with the following parties: 

 Mr. Daren Roth, Project Geologist with Arcadis (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 Project Management for RNM, who owns the 11 

auxiliary acres located southwest of the 1500 Cader Lane property 

 Mr. John Anderson, Senior Environmental Health Specialist III with the CSDHS–

EHD (CSDHS–EHD reviews applications for the installation of groundwater 

monitoring wells) 

 Mr. Bob Swift, the Supervising Environmental Health Specialist for the CSPRMD–

Wells and Septic Division (Wells and Septic 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 remedy appears to be progressing as planned. 

Mr. Swift indicated that the Permits Plus system, which is used to organize permit 

applications for the installation of water 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 functioning 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 the groundwater to its beneficial uses by 

reducing the contamination levels to below State and Federal drinking water 

standards (MCLs). This reduction would result 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 indicates 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 restrictive covenant and an IC involving the local 

well permitting process. 

No restrictive covenant has been implemented, 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 “License and Environmental Restriction,” 

recorded March 29, 2001, which restricts groundwater extraction. A copy of the 

license is provided in Appendix A. It prevents 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 permitting process is not operating as intended. 

Applications for the installation of groundwater monitoring wells in Sonoma County 

follow a review process which includes the Water Board or the California Department 

of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), who would notify the CSDHS–EHD reviewer 

that the application was for a Superfund site. However, applications for the 

installation of water supply and agricultural wells are reviewed by a different 
Section 7 

Technical Assessment 

N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK.DOCX 7-2 

division - CSPRMD–Wells and Septic Division. 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 directly above the contaminated groundwater and 

that wells should not be constructed on the 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 implemented, 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 assumptions, 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 for this Third Fve-Year Review and 

findings of the review were submitted in an ARARs Review Technical Memorandum 

(Appendix G). The specific regulations cited 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 included a remedy based on achieving drinking 

water standards. Groundwater cleanup standards established for the Site were 

California MCLs. For this Five-Year Review, 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, the 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, Target 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 

(μg/L) 

CDPHa 

Primary 

MCL 

(μg/L)

Target Groundwater 

Concentration 

(μg/L)b

Water Board 

Groundwater 

Screening 

Levels (μg/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 Evaluating the Vapor 

Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface 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 Cgw for cancer risk 

= 10-4 and hazard index = 1.

c) California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco 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, updated May 2008 (Water Board, 

2008). The range of concentrations shown represent residential to industrial exposure scenarios, high permeability 

soils assumed. 

Changes in Exposure Pathways 

A review of the 2007 ROD Amendment Human 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 remedy selection concerning exposure pathways 

are generally unchanged. The risk assessment prepared in 1991 and discussed in the 

1991 ROD evaluated the Site for hypothetical future residential for ingestion of 

contaminated groundwater and inhalation of contaminants in indoor air via vapor 

intrusion. However, the exposure assumption of residential use is more conservative 

than the current land use of industrial/commercial, so the exposure assumptions and 

subsequent clean-up standards remain protective of human health. The 1991 ROD 

risk assessment conducted for the Sola Site did not evaluate a homegrown produce 

pathway or an indoor air pathway for on-site 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 Assessment Methods 

Although EPA has not updated its vapor intrusion guidance document, the California 

DTSC issued its own vapor intrusion guidance (Interim Final Guidance for the 

Evaluation and Mitigation 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; it does, however, 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 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 chemicals are provided in Appendix H. Note that these 

calculations are not site-specific. Instead, 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 contamination 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 the protectiveness of the 

remedy? 

No new ecological receptors were noted during the Site inspection. No weatherrelated events have affected the protectiveness of the remedy. Exceedances of ROD 

constituents have been previously discussed in this review. There is no other 

information that calls into question 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 Affects 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 protectiveness of the 2007 ROD 

Amendment remedy. 

No Yes 

2. The restrictive covenant IC has not yet been implemented. No Yes 
N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK.DOCX 9-1 

Section 9 

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 

Table 9-1 

Summary Table of Issues, Recommendations, 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 Y 
N_SOLA5YR 092710_NO TRACK.DOCX 10-1 

Section 10 

Protectiveness Statement 

The remedy at the Sola Site currently protects 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 exist, 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-Year 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 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 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 Board San Francisco Region (Water Board). 

2008. Groundwater Screening for Environmental Concerns 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. Conditional 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 Regional 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 Optical, 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 Optical 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 Environmental 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 Westrich 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, Arcadis, Emeryville, California). Personal 

communication with Ahnna Westrich of CDM, Walnut Creek, California. March 17. 

Seyfried, Scott. 2010. (Project Manager, Arcadis, Emeryville, California). Personal 

communication with Ahnna Westrich of CDM, Walnut Creek, California. April 2. 

Swift, Bob. 2010. (Supervising Environmental Health Specialist, County of Sonoma 

Permit and Resource Management Department – Wells and Septic Division, Santa 

Rosa, California). Personal communication with 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 Assessing 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 School 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 Conditional 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. 

EPA 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 A 

Copy of Property Restriction 
SOLA_2010 5YR Draft Report_060210R.DOC 

This page left blank intentionally 
SFUND RECORDS CTR

2114987

PURCHASE AND1 SALE AGREEMENT "

. This PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of

September IS , 2000, by and between RNM CADER, L.L.C., a California limited liability

company ("Buyer") and SOLA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Seller").

The above date is for reference purposes only. The "Effective Date" of this Agreement is as

defined in Article 1.

RECITALS

A. Seller is the fee owner of that certain parcel of unimproved real property located

in the City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California as more particularly described in Exhibit

"A" attached hereto (the "Property").

B. Buyer desires to purchase the Property from Seller and Seller desires to sell the

Property to Buyer, all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 5

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in. consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein the

parties hereto agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS. In addition to any other terms defined herein, the following

terms, whenever used in this Agreement, shall have the meanings set forth below.

Additional Cash: The amount of the Purchase Price, (a) plus an amount sufficient

to cover Buyer's share of Closing Costs as allocated herein, (b) less the Earnest

Money Deposit placed into Escrow.

Broker: Meridian Commercial,Tnc?, agent for Seller.

Business Day: Any day excluding Saturday, Sunday and any day which is a legal

holiday under the laws of the State of California or is a day on which banking

institutions located in California are authorized or required by law or other

governmental action to close.

-j

Buyer's Address: c/o RNM Lakeville L.P.

135 Main Street, Suite 1140

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415)904-1985'

Fax: (415)543-2917

With a copy to:

Law Offices of Mary Lu Everett

425 California St. Ste. 1800

San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone:(415)394-5700

Fax: (415)394-5003

G \DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00
Closing: The date on which the Deed is recorded in the Official Records of

Sonoma County, California.

Closing Costs: All city and county documentary transfer stamps and taxes, all

sales and excise taxes, the fees and costs of Escrow Agent, title insurance

premiums and other charges of Title Company and all other title, escrow or

recording fees payable in connection with the Closing.

Deed: A grant deed in the form of Exhibit "B" attached hereto.

Due Diligence Expiration Date: That day which is forty-five (45) days following

the "Effective Date" as defined below. i

Due Diligence Period: The 45-day period ending at 5:00 P.M. (Pacific Time) on

the Due Diligence Expiration Date.

Due Diligence Review: (a) Such physical tests, inspections, environmental

studies, surface and subsurface studies, surveys, and other investigations as Buyer

elects (subject to-Section 3.3 hereof) to determine, inter alia, the suitability of the

Property for Buyer's intended use, the likelihood of Buyer's obtaining the

necessary governmental approvals for Buyer's development of the Property, the

economic merits of Buyer's proposed development of the Property, the status of

the title to the Property, the environmental condition of the Property and other

aspects which, in the opinion of Buyer, may affect Buyer's decision to purchase

the Property ("Investigations"), and (b) a review of the Investigation Materials

and any other documents or records relating to the condition of the Property and

its proposed use.

Earnest Money Deposit: The principal sum of $fffj&, consisting of: (a) a

first installment ("First Installment") in the amount of ^MHlBfc due on the

Effective Date; (b) an additional installment ("Second Installment") in the amount

of ^BlB^ due when and if notice of approval of the result of Buyer's Due

Diligence Review is delivered to Seller pursuant to Section 3.3 hereof on or

before the Due Diligence Expiration Date; and (c) an additional installment

("Third Installment") in the amount of P^JJ^ due no later than one hundred

and twenty (120) days after the Effective Date when and if Buyer has obtained

site plan approval pursuant to Section 3.5 hereof and Buyer approves the

Environmental Indemnification Agreement to be provided by Seller pursuant to

Section 3.6 hereof. The Earnest Money Deposit also includes, in addition to the

principal sum set forth above, any interest earned on the above Installments.

Effective Date: The day on which this Agreement has been executed and

delivered by both parties hereto.

Escrow: As defined in Article 7 hereof.

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5 doc

9/14/00
Escrow Agent: North American Title Co., Inc., 2755 Mendocino Ave, Santa

Rosa, California 95403. Attn: Leslie Hudson. Tel: (707) 545 5130; fax (707) 579

5462. Escrow number: 62225007.

Hazardous Materials: Oil and other petroleum products, flammable explosives,

asbestos, urea formaldehyde insulation, radioactive materials, any substances

which are "wastes", "hazardous substances," "hazardous wastes," "hazardous

materials", "toxic substances", "pollutants" or "contaminants" under any past,

present or future state or federal law, ordinance or regulation.

Hazardous Materials Laws: All statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations relating

to Hazardous Materials, -including without limitation those relating to the

investigation and remediation of Hazardous Materials discharged or released to

soil and groundwater.

Investigation Materials: As defined in Section 3.1 hereof.

Outside Closing Date: The one hundred and eightieth (180th) day after the

Effective Date.

Owner's Policy: A standard California form ALTA or CLTA owner's policy of

title insurance to be issued by Title Company in the amount of the Purchase Price,

insuring Buyer's fee title to the Property subject only to the Permitted Exceptions.

Permitted Exceptions: All matters affecting title as of the date of Closing

approved in writing by Buyer on or prior to the Due Diligence Expiration Date or

as otherwise provided in Section 3.2 hereof.

Property. The real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, including

but not limited to (a) any improvements located thereon, and (b) all easements,

nghts-of-way permits, approvals, entitlements, development rights, water and

sewer rights, building allotments and other rights appurtenant thereto.

Purchase Price:. ^P^ per square foot. Seller's surveyor has computed the area

of Property to betfBlHB^square feet. Based on that computation, the Purchase

Price is ^fffftfff Seller shaH provide Buyer with a certification of the

square footage of the Property from Seller's surveyor during the Due Diligence

Period. The principal amount of any outstanding and unpaid bonds and

assessments plus any accrued and unpaid interest on such bonds or assessments

which are liens against the Property shall be credited against the Purchase Price.

Seller's Address:

1500 Cader Lane

Petaluma, CA 94953

Attn: Mr. Richard Sanzari

Phone: (707) 763-9911, ext. 6470

Fax: (707)763-2211

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNultyVPurchaseAgt v5.doc

9/14/00
With a copy to:

Greene Radovsky Maloney & Share, LLP

Four Embarcadero Center Ste. 4000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Attn: Mark S. Hennigh

Phone:(415)981-1400

Fax:(415)777-4961

Title Company: North American Title Co., Inc. (Address same as Escrow

Agent).

2 PURCHASE AND SALE.

2.1 Purchase and Sale. Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer and Buyer

agrees to purchase the Property from Seller, subject the terms and

conditions set forth herein.

2.2 Payment of the Purchase Price . The Purchase Pnce shall be payable as

follows:

(a) On the Effective Date Buyer shall deposit the First Installment of

the Earnest Money Deposit with the Escrow Agent. Subject to the

provisions of Section 3.3 hereof, Buyer shall deposit the Second

Installment of the Earnest Money Deposit with Escrow Agent no

later than when notice of approval is delivered to Seller pursuant to

said Section 3.3 on or before the Due Diligence Expiration Date.

Buyer shall deposit the Third Installment of the Earnest Money

Deposit with the Escrow Agent no later than one hundred and

twenty (120) days after the Effective Date, subject to Buyer's right

to terminate the Agreement and receive a return of the Earnest

Money Deposit if Buyer has not obtained site plan approval from

the City of Petaluma's Site Planning and Architectural Review

Committee (SPARC) as provided in Section 3.5 hereof or Buyer

and Seller have not ^agreed upon the form and substance of the

Environmental Indemnity Agreement and the Additional

Agreement as provided in Sections 3.6 and 3.7hereof. The parties

shall direct Escrow Agent to deposit the Earnest Money Deposit

into an interest bearing account. All payment(s) shall be in the

• form of cash, cashier's check or wire transfer of immediately

available funds. All interest earned on the Earnest Money Deposit

shall be added to and become part of the Earnest Money Deposit.

Once Buyer has deposited the Second Installment with the Escrow

Agent, the Earnest Money Deposit shall be non-refundable except

as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement and subject to

Buyer's right to receive a full refund of such deposit upon a

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt v5 doc

9/U/OO
termination of the Agreement by Buyer pursuant to Sections 3.5,

3.6 or 3.7.

(b) Prior to Closing, Buyer shall deposit the Additional Cash with

Escrow Agent in the form of cash, cashier's check or wire transfer

of immediately available funds.

3. DELIVERIES; DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW; TERMINATION

3.1 Seller's Deliveries. Within five (5) Business Days following the Effective

Date, Seller shall make available for review and copying by Buyer copies of all

final consultant and other third party reports relating to the real property which is

the subject of the EPA Order (as defined in Section 3.6), together with all other

documents of which Seller is aware relating to: (a) real property encumbrances,

easements, CC&R's etc; (b) taxes and assessments; (c) governmental notices; (d)

drawings, plans and specifications; reports; surveys and (e) other material

information relating to the Property. All documents shall be made available to

Buyer and its representatives at Seller's Petaluma office during normal business

hours upon 24 hours advance notice and Seller shall copy any and all such

documents requested by Buyer. Seller, at its election, may require Buyer's

written acknowledgment of receipt of documents copied and delivered by Seller

to Buyer.

Reference to documents "of which Seller is aware" shall mean all documents of

which Roman Stamo, and/or Claire McCarthy (Director of Facilities and former

Environmental Manager of Seller, respectively) are actually aware, all of which

documents shall be made available to Buyer at the Petaluma office of Seller.

Seller agrees to cooperate with and assist Buyer in obtaining any additional

information which Buyer may reasonably request to assist it in its Due Diligence

Review, provided that any out-of-pocket costs incurred by Seller to obtain the same

shall be paid by Buyer.

3.2 Title Review. During the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall have the

opportunity to review and approve a preliminary title report for the Property (the

"Title Report") to be prepared andj)rovided by the Title Company on behalf of

Buyer and, on or before the Due Diligence Expiration Date, Buyer shall notify

Seller of any objection(s) that Buyer may have concerning the status of title to the

Property ("Buyer's Objections"). Any exceptions to title not expressly

disapproved by Buyer in writing on or before the Due Diligence Expiration Date

shall be deemed approved by Buyer without any further action on its part

whatsoever (the "Approved Exceptions"). In the event that Buyer requires an

ALTA policy of title insurance, the ALTA survey shall be prepared by Buyer, at

Buyer's sole cost and expense, and all survey exceptions reviewed by Buyer

during the Due Diligence Period. Seller shall attempt to satisfy the Buyer's

Objections (if any) prior to the Closing, but shall not be required to institute any

litigation or incur any cost to do so. If, prior to the Closing, Seller notifies Buyer

in writing that Seller will not satisfy any of Buyer's Objections, then, within seven

G.\DATA\mle\6S53 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 5
(.7) days of such written notice from Seller (and, if necessary, the Closing shall be

extended by the number of days necessary to give Buyer this full 7-day period),

Buyer shall notify Seller in writing that Buyer either: (i) waives those title

objections which cannot be satisfied and accepts title subject to such exceptions;

or (ii) terminates this Agreement in accordance with Article 9 hereof. If, prior to

the Closing, Seller notifies Buyer in writing that Seller will satisfy all of Buyer's

Objections, Seller shall satisfy the same prior to and as a condition to Buyer's

obligation to close Escrow. The Approved Exceptions and any other exceptions

which Buyer approves in writing shall be referred to herein as "Permitted

Exceptions."

3.3 Due Diligence Review. Commencing on the Effective Date and ending at

5:00 P.M. (Pacific Time, as then in effect) on the Due Diligence Expiration Date,

Buyer shall have, the right, at its sole cost and expense, to conduct a Due

Diligence Review, including an on-site inspection and testing of the Property. As

a condition to Closing, Buyer shall deliver to Seller its written approval of its Due

Diligence Review on or before the Due Diligence Expiration Date. If Buyer fails to

provide such notice of approval, then this Agreement shall terminate automatically

and without further action on the part of either party, and the parties shall direct the

Escrow Agent to deliver to Buyer the Earnest Money Deposit.

3.4 Investigations. The Investigations shall be conducted only in accordance

with the following procedures:

(a) Buyer shall exercise due care in entering upon, inspecting and

testing the Property, and shall perform all such entry, inspection

and testing in a professional manner so as to minimize damage or

disruption of the Property.

(b) Buyer agrees to pay promptly all costs associated with the

Investigations and not to permit any lien or encumbrance to be

asserted against the Property in connection with any Investigations.

Within twenty (20) days after receipt of notice from Seller, Buyer

shall (a) pay and remove or (b) "bond off any mechanic's liens

relating to the Investigations. Buyer shall obtain, at Buyer's sole

cost and expense, any licenses or permits required by Federal, state

or local law in order to perform any inspections or tests on/of the

Property.

(c) Buyer shall, at its own expense, promptly fill and compact any

holes, and otherwise restore any damage to the Property, caused by

the conduct of any Investigations. Buyer and Buyer's representatives shall immediately thereafter vacate the Property.

(d) If Buyer intends to perform any invasive testing at the Property or

inspect the Property for the presence of any toxic materials, Buyer

G.\DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgi v5.doc

9/U/OO '
shall provide Seller with at least five (5) days' prior written notice

detailing the extent and scope of such testing or inspection and

obtain Seller's prior approval. Seller shall not unreasonably

withhold or delay its approval of such testing and inspection. If any

contamination is found as a result of such testing or inspection,

Buyer shall immediately provide Seller with all information and

copies of all reports relating to such testing or inspection, and

Buyer covenants and agrees not to contact or inform any public or

quasi-public agency concerning such 'Contamination without first

obtaining the prior written consent of Seller, which Seller may

withhold in its sole and absolute discretion; provided, however,

that Buyer may inform an applicable public or quasi-public agency

concerning such contamination without the prior written consent of

Seller if Buyer is affirmatively required to inform that public or

quasi-public agency pursuant to applicable law. 4

(e) All inspections of the Property requiring access to the Property will

be conducted only following at least 24-hours' advance notice to

Seller and, at the request of Seller, with a representative of Seller

present.

(f) Buyer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Seller, SOLA

Optical USA, Inc., and SOLA Holdings, Inc. (collectively the

"SOLA Parties") from and against any and all claims, damages,

losses, costs, expenses and liabilities (including but not limited to

all attorneys' fees and court costs paid or incurred by the SOLA

Parties) which arise out of or are in any way connected with

Buyer's entry upon or inspection or testing of the Property (other

than the Property's loss of value or marketability due to Buyer's

discovery of defects). Buyer shall obtain and maintain commercial

general liability insurance in the amount offlBBflBPHiaming the

SOLA parties as additional insureds and shall provide Seller with

evidence thereof prior to conducting its on-site Investigations.

3.5 SPARC Approvals. Buyer, shall apply for site plan approval from the

City of Petaluma's Site Planning and Architectural Review Committee

(SPARC) for Buyer's intended development of the Property promptlyafter its execution and delivery of this Agreement and shall pursue such

approval process with all due diligence. If Buyer has not received

SPARC approval of Buyer's site plan for the proposed development of

the Property within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the

execution and delivery of this Agreement into Escrow, Buyer shall have

the right, at Buyer's sole discretion, to either (i) waive this contingency

and deposit the Third Installment, or (ii) terminate this Purchase

Agreement by written notice to Seller, in which event the Earnest Money

Deposit shall be returned to Buyer by the Escrow Agent and all

obligations of the parties to each other shall terminate.

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNuity\PurchaseAgt v5.doc

9/14/00
3.6 Environmental Indemnification. Seller has disclosed to Buyer the

presence of Hazardous Materials in subsurface soils on the Property and the

parcel of real property owned by Seller adjacent to the property (the "Adjacent

Parcel") and in ground water associated with the Property and the Adjacent Parcel

(the "Existing Environmental Conditions") and the existence of ground water

monitoring wells which Seller was required to install to monitor such ground

water environmental conditions. In June, 1988, the Property and the Adjacent

Property were proposed for listing on the National Priorities List ("NPL")

maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") pursuant to

the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act.

The Property and the Adjacent Property were added to the NPL in February,

1990. Seller is currently required to furnish periodic reports to the EPA pursuant

to EPA Order #92-07 (the "EPA Order"). The remedy, operation and

maintenance of the remedy and ground water monitoring and reporting required

by the EPA Order are collectively referred to herein as the "Remedial Work". As

a condition to closing, Seller shall provide to Buyer an "Environmental Indemnity

Agreement" executed by the SOLA Parties in form and substance satisfactory to

Buyer in Buyer's sole discretion. If Buyer and Seller fail to agree on the form for

the Environmental Indemnity Agreement within 120 days after the Effective Date,

either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by notice to the other

party given prior to the date such an agreement is reached and the Earnest Money

Deposit shall be returned to Buyer upon such termination and the parties shall

have no further obligations hereunder.

3.7 Additional Agreement. Due to the Existing Environmental Conditions, the

parties desire to prevent those activities on the Property and the Adjacent Parcel

which would exacerbate the Existing Environmental Conditions, and to provide

Seller with the access to the Property required for Seller's performance of Seller's

Remedial Work. At Closing the parties shall enter into an agreement (the

"Additional Agreement") with respect to such matters. Within ten (10) days after

the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a draft of the Environmental

Indemnity Agreement and the Additional Agreement. Seller and Buyer shall

diligently and in good faith negotiate the terms of the two (2) agreements. If

Buyer and Seller fail to agree on the form and terms of the Environmental

Indemnity Agreement and the Additional Agreement within one hundred twenty

(120) days after the Effective Date, either party may terminate this Agreement by

notice to the other party and the Earnest Money Deposit shall be returned to

Buyer and the parties shall have no further obligations hereunder, except for any

indemnity obligations which survive the termination. The Additional Agreement

shall address (a) removal/disturbance of ground water other than as required for

Buyer's construction of improvements on the Property and (b) access rights for

performance of Remedial Work.

3.8 Buyer's Acknowledgment. Buyer acknowledges that, subject to the

representations and warranties of Seller set forth in Section 6.1 hereof and except

for matters involving the environmental condition of the Property which matters

will be covered in the Environmental Indemnity Agreement between the parties,

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNully\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00
Buyer has entered into this Agreement with the intention of making and upon

Buyer's removing the 'inspection contingency pursuant to Section 4.1 (a), relying

upon, such investigations of the Property as Buyer has deemed necessary and

appropriate. Subject to the foregoing, Buyer acknowledges, for itself and for its

successors, heirs and assigns, that Buyer:

(a) Is a sophisticated investor, knowledgeable and experienced in the

financial and business risks attendant to an investment in income property

and capable of evaluating the merits and risks of entering into this

Agreement and purchasing the Property;

(b) Has entered into this Agreement with the intention of making and

relying upon its own (or its experts') investigations of the physical,

(excluding environmental), economic and legal condition of the Property,

including without limitation all documents and entitlements relating to the

Property, the compliance of the Property with laws and governmental

regulations and the operation and proposed use of the Property;

(c) Is not relying upon any representations and warranties, other than

those specifically set forth in this Agreement and the Environmental

Indemnity Agreement, made by Seller or anyone acting or claiming to act

on Seller's behalf concerning the Property or:

(i) the suitability of the Property for any activities or use;

(ii) habitability, profitability or fitness for a particular purpose; or

(iii) any other matter not expressly addressed herein. -

(d) Has been given a reasonable opportunity to inspect and investigate

the Property, either independently or through agents or experts of Buyer's

choosing.

Buyer further acknowledges that it has not received from Seller any accounting,

tax, legal, architectural, engineering, property management or other advice with respect to this

transaction and is relying upon the advice of ks own accounting, tax, legal, architectural,

engineering, property management and other advisors

4 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

4.1 Conditions to Buyer's Performance. Buyer's obligation to purchase the

Property shall be subject to and contingent upon the satisfaction or written

waiver by Buyer of each and every one of the following conditions

precedent:

(a) Buyer's inspection and approval on or before the Due Diligence

Expiration Date of all title matters relating to the Property and of

all other physical, environmental, legal, economic and other

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNultyVPurchaseAgt v5.doc

9/14/00 9
matters relating to the Property, as Buyer may, in its sole

discretion, elect to investigate and (subject, however, to the

provisions of Section 3.4 hereof);

(b) Buyer's receipt of the SPARCS approval and Seller's delivery into

escrow of an Environmental Agreement in form and substance

acceptable to Buyer, duly executed by Seller; and

(c) The willingness of. the Title Company to issue, upon the sole

condition of the payment of its regularly scheduled premium, an

owner's policy of title insurance, in the form and with such

endorsements as the Buyer may reasonably require (collectively,

the "Owner's Policy"), insuring the Buyer in the amount of the

Purchase Price that fee simple title to the Property is vested of

record in the Buyer on the Closing Date, subject only to the

standard printed conditions and exceptions of the Title Policy and

the Permitted Exceptions.

(d) Seller's recordation of the deed required to effect the Lot Line

Adjustment described in Section 5.2 hereof.

(d) The truth and correctness of each of Seller's representations and

warranties as set forth in Section 6.1 hereof.

(e) The satisfaction or written waiver of Seller's performance of each

and every covenant required to be performed by the Seller,

hereunder.

(f) Seller's due execution and acknowledgement of the Additional

Agreement in form and substance acceptable to Buyer.

(g) Seller's removal of the designated monitoring wells and existing

structures and equipment on the Property as provided in Sections

5.3 and 5.4.

4.2 Conditions to Seller's Performance. The obligations of Seller to convey to

Buyer its interests in the Property shall be subject to and contingent upon:

(a) The satisfaction or written waiver of Buyer's performance of each

and every covenant required to be performed by the Buyer

hereunder.

(b) The truth and correctness of each of Buyer's representations and

warranties as set forth in Section 6.3 hereof, and

(c) Buyer's due execution and acknowledgement of the Additional

Agreement in form and substance acceptable to Seller.

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNultyVPurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 10
4.3 Waiver or Failure of Conditions Precedent. At any time or times on or

before the date specified for the satisfaction of the respective condition,

Buyer or Seller may elect to waive in writing the benefits of any of their

respective conditions set forth in Sections 4.1 or 4.2 hereof, as applicable.

In the .event that any of the conditions set forth in Sections 4.1 or 4.2

hereof .are neither waived nor fulfilled, Buyer or Seller (as appropriate)

may terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Article

9 hereof.

5. SELLER'S COVENANTS

5.1 Condition of Property. Through the Closing or termination of this

Agreement, Seller shall maintain the Property.in its current condition and

shall not enter into any contracts affecting the use, possession or condition

of the Property. 1

5.2 Lot Line Adjustment. The Property consists of one parcel of

approximately 15.19 acres and a portion (approximately 6.08 acres) of the

Adjacent Parcel. During the Due Diligence Period, and as a condition to

Closing, Seller shall obtain all required approvals for a lot line adjustment

and effect such lot line adjustment so that, at the Closing, the Property will

consist of only one legal parcel of approximately 21.27 acres. Seller

agrees to apply for the lot line adjustment promptly after the date of this

Agreement and to pursue the approvals for such adjustment with due

diligence. If this condition is not met, Buyer may terminate this

Agreement upon notice to Seller and the Earnest Money Deposit shall be

returned to Buyer by Escrow Agent.

5.3 Monitoring, Removing and Relocating Wells. There are currently a

number of monitoring wells located on the Property, some of which are in

locations which may interfere with Buyer's proposed development for the

Property. As a condition to Buyer's obligation to close, subject to Seller's

obtaining all approvals required from the EPA and all other required

approvals and permits (collectively, "Approvals"), Seller shall remove or

relocate those monitoring vv^lls designated by Buyer which conflict with

the site plan for Buyer's proposed development of the property submitted

to SPARC as provided in Section 3.5 hereof. Prior to the expiration of the

Due Diligence Period, Buyer may designate to Seller the location of the

monitoring wells to be removed or relocated to a location acceptable to

Buyer. Promptly after receipt of Buyer's designation, Seller shall apply

for and pursue with due diligence all Approvals. If conditions to

Approvals would require Seller to replace or relocate any of the

. designated wells, Seller shall comply with such conditions at its sole cost

. and expense. If the conditions to approval would require Seller to incur

material costs in excess of the costs to replace or relocate the designated

wells ("Excess Costs"), Seller shall notify Buyer of the anticipated Excess

Costs in which event Buyer at its election can either instruct Seller to

G.\DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt v5.doc

9/14/00 • 1 1
proceed with the approvals and pay all Excess Costs, (ii) terminate this

Agreement and have the Earnest Money Deposit returned or (iii) waive the

relocation or removal of those wells which will result in the Excess Costs

and proceed to Closing. If Seller is unable to obtain the required'

Approvals within one hundred twenty (120) days after the execution and

delivery of this Agreement by both parties, the approval period ( and the

Outside Closing Date) shall be extended by Buyer for the period of time

reasonably required for Seller to obtain the same, provided that in no event

shall the Outside Closing Date be extended beyond March 30, 2001

pursuant to this Section 5.3. If Seller's' application is denied or the

Approvals are not obtained within such period (as may be extended),

Buyer may elect, by written notice to Seller given within ten (10) days

after the period in which to obtain the Approvals has elapsed, to either

waive this condition or terminate this Agreement. . If Buyer fails to so

elect, this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated. In the event of a

termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section 5.3, the Earnest

Money Deposit shall be refunded to Buyer and the parties shall thereafter

be.released from all further obligations hereunder.

5.4 Existing Structures. Prior to Closing, Seller will remove all existing

structures and equipment from the Property-(other than monitoring wells which are not

designated to be removed or relocated pursuant to Section 5.3 above) and repair any

damage caused by such removal.

6 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES.

6.1 Seller's Representations. Seller hereby makes the following'

representations and warranties to Buyer, which shall be effective and

enforceable both as of the date of this Agreement and as of the close of

escrow.

(a) To the best of Seller's knowledge, the documents and materials

made available to Buyer at Seller's Petaluma office pursuant to

Section 3.1 above, include all of the documents with respect to the

Properly which are in Seller's possession or control.

(b) Except as has been provided to Buyer in the Investigation

Materials, there are no leases, options, rights of first refusal, rights

of redemption or other commitments relating to the Property, nor

are there or any service or maintenance contracts which pertain to

the Property that cannot be terminated on thirty (30) days' prior

notice.

(c) Seller has all requisite legal power and authority to enter into and

perform this Agreement and the persons executing this Agreement

on behalf of Seller are duly authorized to execute and deliver this

GADATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/11/00 12
Agreement on behalf of Seller and to perform Seller's obligations

under this Agreement.

(d) To the best of Seller's knowledge, there is no litigation,

administrative proceeding or any other claim pending or threatened

against or affecting the Property (including rezoning or eminent

domain proceedings), and Seller has no actual knowledge of any

basis upon which a person could initiate, assert or threaten any

such litigation, proceeding or other claim.

(e) To the best of Seller's knowledge, Seller has not received any

notice of any violation of any zoning, environmental or building

codes relating to the Property other than as has been disclosed to

Buyer in the Investigation Materials.

For purposes of this ''Agreement, the phrase "to the best of Seller's

knowledge" means to the actual knowledge of Roman Stamo and Claire

McCarthy.

6.2 Seller's Disclaimers. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement and

in the '. Environmental Indemnity Agreement, Seller makes no

representation or warranty, express or implied, written or oral, concerning

the Property or any use to which the Property may or may not be put,

including, but not limited to the following:

(i) The condition of title to the Property;

(ii) The nature, physical condition or other aspects of the

Property;

(iii) The expenses paid or incurred in connection with the

Property;

(iv) The suitability or fitness of the Property for any intended

use or development;

i

(v) The dimensions of the Property or the accuracy of any

square footage, sketches or revenue or expense projections

related to the Property;

(vi) The merchantability, marketability or habitability of the

property; and

' (vii) The compliance of the Property with any laws, rules,

ordinances or regulations.

(viii) The accuracy of any reports prepared by Seller's third

party consultants.

G.\DATA\tnle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt v5.doc.

9/14/00 ' 13
6.3 Buyer's Representations. Buyer hereby makes the following

representations to Seller, which shall be effective and enforceable both as

of the date of this Agreement and as of the close of escrow: Buyer has all

requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement,

and the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Buyer are duly

authorized .to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of Buyer and

to perform Buyer's obligations under this Agreement.

6.4 Survival. The representations and warranties of the parties made herein

shall survive the Closing.

7. ESCROW AND CLOSING.

7.1 Escrow Instructions. Promptly following execution of this Agreement by

Buyer and Seller, Buyer and Seller shall' prepare and deliver to Escrow

Agent written escrow instructions consistent with the terms of this

Agreement and reasonably satisfactory to both Buyer and Seller. Such

escrow instructions shall incorporate the relevant provisions of this

Agreement by reference and shall provide that in the event of any conflict

between such incorporated provisions of this Agreement and such escrow

instructions, such incorporated provisions of this Agreement shall prevail

and control. This sale shall be consummated through the escrow

("Escrow") so established with Escrow Agent.

7.2 Deposits Into Escrow. Not later than the date required by Escrow Agent

for a timely Closing, the parties shall provide Escrow Agent with such

information, documents, instruments and funds as Escrow Agent may.

reasonably require to effect the Closing, including but not limited to the

following:.

(a) Buyer shall deposit the Additional Cash and such other amounts as

Buyer has agreed to pay under this Agreement.

(b) Seller shall deposit a fully completed, executed and dated Deed, in

recordable form, a' duly executed Environmental Indemnity

Agreement approved by Buyer as provided in Section 3.6 above

and the duly executed Additional Agreement in recordable form

approved by Buyer as provided in Section 3.7 above and, and an

affidavit executed by Seller to the effect that Seller is not a

"foreign person" within the meaning of IRS Code 1445 or

successor statutes, and'the equivalent California form,

7.3 Further Assurances. Buyer and Seller agree to execute all instruments and

documents and to .take all actions reasonably necessary and appropriate to

consummate the purchase and sale of the Property and shall use their best

efforts to accomplish the Closing in a timely manner.

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 ' 14
7.4 The Closing.

(a) Except as expressly provided elsewhere herein, the Closing shall

take place on or before the Outside.Closing Date. Escrow Agent

shalj dose the Escrow by (i) causing the recording of the Deed and

. - the Additional Agreement (in that order of priority) in the Official

Records of Sonoma County, California, (li) delivering-to Seller all

funds deposited into Escrow by Buyer in payment of the Purchase

Price after prorations and deduction of any items chargeable to

Seller's account, (iii) causing Title Company to issue the Owner's

Policy to Buyer, WHEN AND ONLY WHEN all funds and

documents described in Section 7.2 hereof have been delivered to

Escrow Agent, and (iv) delivering to Buyer the Environmental

Indemnity Agreement executed by Seller.

(b) Escrow Agent shall prorate the following between the parties as of

the Closing:

(i) All county, city and special district taxes on the Property

shall be prorated. Escrow Agent shall base the proration on

the most current information available to Escrow Agent.

To the extent any refunds, rebates or other payments

resulting from or connected with tax appeals for the current

tax year which are pending as of the Closing become

payable prior to or after the Closing, such refunds, rebates

or other payments shall be prorated as of the Closing, after

reimbursement is made to Seller for all costs and expenses,

including but not limited to attorneys' fees and witness

fees, incurred by Seller in connection with the

commencement and prosecution of such appeals.

(ii) All prepaid and all accrued but unpaid water, electric

power, gas, lighting and'other utility costs, all prepaid and

accrued but unpaid charges under all contracts and such

other prepaid sand accrued but unpaid expenses incurred by

Seller in connection with the operation of the Property as

are customarily prorated shall be prorated by Escrow

Agent.

(c) Seller shall pay all documentary and other state or local transfer

taxes payable in connection with the purchase and sale of the

Property. Buyer shall pay all other Closing Costs including all

premiums for the Owner's Policy, recording fees and all escrow

fees. All other costs shall be allocated between the parties in

accordance with customary practice in the County of Sonoma,

California.

GADATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 15
(d) Seller shall pay the Broker pursuant to the Exclusive Sales

Agreement between Seller and Broker. Each party to this

Agreement warrants to the other that it has not incurred and will

not incur any obligation, by reason of this Agreement or the

transaction contemplated hereby, for any other real estate

brokerage commission or finder's fee for which the other party

would be liable. Each party shall, and hereby agrees to, defend,

indemnify and hold the other party harmless from and against any

and all liabilities, damages and costs that the other party may incur

by reason of the untruth, as to the warranting party, of the warranty

set.forth in the preceding sentence of this Section, including, but

not limited to, expenses for attorneys' fees and court costs.

(e) , Buyer shall pay all premiums for the ALTA Owner's Policy of title

insurance. The Owner's Policy shall name Buyer as the insured,

shall insure Buyer's title to the fee estate in the Property, shall be

in the amount of the Purchase Price and shall be delivered to Buyer

at Closing.

(f) Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer at Closing.

CONDEMNATION AND CASUALTY .

8.1 Condemnaticm. If prior to the Closing a taking or condemnation of any

portion- of the Property has occurred, or is threatened, either Buyer or

Seller may, at its option, terminate this Agreement in accordance with

Article 9 hereof within thirty (30) days after notice of such event. If the

aggregate area taken is less than 1% of the total square footage of the

Property and is taken from the perimeter and has no material effect on

Buyer's proposed development of the Property, however, then neither

party shall have the right to terminate. If neither party provides said

termination notice within such 30-day period, the Close of Escrow shall

take place as set forth in this Agreement, provided that: (i) Buyer shall

receive a credit against the Purchase Price in an amount equal to the

condemnation award actually collected by the Seller prior to the Close of

Escrow; and (ii) Seller shall assign to Buyer at the Close of Escrow all of

the Seller's interest in and to any condemnation award which may be due

but unpaid to the Seller on account of any such occurrence.

r

8.2 . Casualty. If pnor to the Close of Escrow the Property shall sustain

damage in excess of One Hundred Thousand and No/100 U.S. Dollars

(U.S. $100,000.00) caused by fire, earthquake, landslide or other casualty,

Buyer may, at its option, terminate this Agreement in accordance with

Article 9 hereof within thirty (30) days after notice of such event. Because

all existing structures and equipment are to be removed prior top the Close

of Escrow pursuant to Section 5.4, damage to any improvements being

removed shall not be considered for the purposes of this Section 8.2. If

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNultyVPurchaseAgt v5.doc

9/14/00 ' 16
Buyer does not provide such termination notice within such 30-day period,

the Close of Escrow shall take place as set forth in this Agreement,

provided that: (i) Buyer shall receive a credit against the Purchase Price in

an amount equal to the insurance proceeds actually collected by Seller

prior to the Close of Escrow; and (ii) Seller shall assign to Buyer at the

Close.of Escrow all of Seller's interest in and to any insurance proceeds

which may be due but unpaid to that Seller on account of any such

occurrence.

9. TERMINATION In the event that either Buyer or Seller desires to exercise any

express right to terminate this Agreement, such party shall give written notice of

termination and the reason therefor to the other parties. Thereafter, except in the

event of a termination based upon a default by either, party in the performance of

its obligations under this Agreement, and effective as of the effective date of such

notice, each party shall be released from its obligations hereunder and all monies

and documents deposited intp Escrow shall be returned to the party which

deposited them, all documents delivered by Seller to Buyer relating to the

Property shall be returned to Seller and, to the extent not previously delivered to

Seller, a copy of all reports, studies, analyses and tests prepared by or for Buyer

relating to the Property shall promptly be delivered to Seller; provided, however,

that (i) Seller shall not distribute such reports to any third party (other than to

Seller's consultants in connection with this transaction); (ii) nothing herein shall

limit Buyer's indemnity set forth in Section 3.4 hereof, and (iii) Buyer's delivery

shall be without representation or warranty with respect to the preparation or

content of such documents and shall be subject to the rights of the consultants

preparing the same.

10. DEFAULT.

10.1 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT BY

BUYER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATION TO CLOSE

HEREUNDER AND SELLER IS NOT OTHERWISE IN MATERIAL

DEFAULT HEREUNDER.. SELLER SHALL HAVE THE RJGHT TO

TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT FORTHWITH AND, OTHER

THAN FOR THE INDEMNITY OBLIGATIONS OF BUYER SET

FORTH IN SECTION 3.4 HEREOF, NEITHER SELLER, ON THE

ONE HAND, NOR BUYER, ON THE OTHER HAND, SHALL HAVE

ANY FURTHER OBLIGATION TO THE OTHER EXCEPT FOR

SELLER'S RIGHT TO AN IMMEDIATE DISBURSEMENT AND

RETENTION OF THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT AS

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS ITS SOLE REMEDY IN LIEU OF ANY

OTHER RIGHT TO DAMAGES OR RIGHT TO SPECIFIC

PERFORMANCE OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND SELLER

WAIVES ANY FURTHER RJGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGES FROM

BUYER OR SEEK OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE REMEDIES AS A

RESULT OF FAILURE BY BUYER TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE.

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNuIty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 17
BUYER AND SELLER AGREE THAT, BASED UPON THE

CIRCUMSTANCES NOW EXISTING, THE FOREGOING AMOUNT IS

REASONABLE AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. RETENTION OF SUCH

AMOUNT BY SHALL CONSTITUTE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 167], 1676

AND 1677. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACTUAL

DAMAGES WHICH WOULD RESULT TO SELLER AS A RESULT

OF SUCH FAILURE WOULD BE EXTREMELY- DIFFICULT TO

ESTABLISH. IN ADDITION, BUYER DESIRES TO HAVE A

LIMITATION PUT UPON ITS POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO SELLER

IN THE EVENT THAT THIS TRANSACTION SHALL FAIL TO

CLOSE. BY PLACING THEIR RESPECTIVE INITIALS IN THE

SPACES HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, THE PARTIES

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT UPON A DEFAULT BY BUYER UNDER

THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, SELLER SHALL BE

ENTITLED TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF THE

EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT, WHICH SHALL BE THE FULL,

AGREED-UPON AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR THE BREACH

OF THIS AGREEMENT BY BUYER.

PLEASE INITIAL:

SELLER

10.2 Default by Seller. In the event of a default by Seller under this

Agreement, Buyer shall have the right to pursue any remedy available to

Buyer at law or in equity, including without limitation the specific

performance of this Agreement by Seller, except that Seller shall not be

liable for consequential damages or loss of profits..

11. NOTICES. Any notice or other communication required or permitted under this

Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be (a) personally delivered, or sent via

major air courier service that provides a receipt for delivery or attempted delivery,

to the address of the party set forth in Article 1 of this Agreement or

(b) telecopied to the fax number of the party set forth in Article 1 of this Agreement. Such notice or communication shall be deemed given when delivered to

the office of the party to whom the notice was sent or on the next business day if

delivered on a weekend or holiday. Notice of change of address shall be given by

written notice in the manner detailed in this Article 11.

12. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

12.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure

to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties. Buyer intends to

assign all of its interest in this Agreement to a corporation or other entity

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 . 18
under common control as Buyer which will assume all of the Buyer's

obligations under this Agreement. Seller agrees to recognize and permit the

assignment provided the assignee assumes all of the Buyer's obligations

under this Agreement and Buyer shall not be released from any liability

hereunder until the Closing.

12.2 Entire Agreement; Amendments.. This Agreement contains the entire

agreement between the parties concerning the purchase and sale of the

Property, and no addition to or modification of any term or provision shall

be effective unless in writing, signed by both Buyer and Seller.

12.3 Time of Essence. Buyer and Seller hereby acknowledge and agree that

time is strictly of the essence with respect to each term and condition of

this Agreement and that the failure to timely perform any of the terms and

conditions by either party shall constitute a breach and default under this

Agreement by the party failing to perform.

12.4 Partial Invalidity. If any portion of this Agreement shall be declared by

any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable,

that portion shall be deemed severed from this Agreement and the

remaining parts shall remain in full force as fully as though the invalid,

illegal or unenforceable portion had never been part of this Agreement.

12.5 Governing Law. The parties intend and agree that this Agreement shall be

governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of

California.

12.6 Jurisdiction. Each party hereto hereby submits to the exclusive

jurisdiction and venue of the Superior Court of the State of California for

the City and County of San Francisco, or the Federal District Court for the

Northern District of California sitting in San Francisco, California for the

purposes of any legal action arising in connection with this Agreement, the

breach thereof or the transactions contemplated herein, and agrees that

service upon such party in any such action may be made by first class

mail, certified or registered, to the address set forth above.

12.7 Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If any action (whether legal or equitable and

whether litigation or arbitration or some other proceeding), including any

action for declaratory relief, enforcement, collection or an appeal, is

brought under this Agreement, the prevailing party (as shall be determined

by the court or other adjudicator) shall be entitled to recover its reasonable

attorneys' fees and costs of suit from the other party in addition to such

other relief as may be granted. Each party to this Agreement was

represented by an attorney in the .negotiation and execution of this

Agreement.

G.\DATA\mle\6853 McNuIty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 19
12.8 Expenses. Whether or not the transactions contemplated by this

Agreement are consummated, each party shall pay all expenses incurred

by it or on its behalf in connection with the Agreement and the

transactions contemplated hereby, except as otherwise provided in the

event of a breach by-a party.

12.9 No Third Parties Benefited. No person other than Buyer and Seller and

their permitted successors and assigns shall have any right of action under

this Agreement.

12.10 Waivers. No waiver by either party of any provision shall be deemed a

waiver of any other provision or of any subsequent breach by either party

of the same or any other provision.

12.11 Captions. The captions and numbers of the Articles and Sections of this

Agreement are for convenience and in no way define or limit the scope or

intent of this Agreement.

12.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of

which shall be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall

constitute one Agreement.

12.13 Exhibits. The Exhibits attached to this Agreement are hereby incorporated

herein and made a part hereof by this reference.

12.14 Not Recordable. This Agreement shall not be recorded and shall not be a

lien against the Property.

12.15 No Merger. The delivery of the Deed and any other documents and

instruments by Seller and the acceptance and recordation thereof by Buyer

shall not effect a merger, and the representations and warranties made in

Sections. 6.1 and 6.2 hereof by Seller and Buyer, respectively, shall

survive the Close of Escrow.

12.16 California Withholding Requirement. If Seller fails to deliver a Resident

Certificate, Seller acknowledges and agrees that Escrow Holder shall be

entitled to: (i) withhold from the amount due Seller an amount equal to

three and one-third percent (3-1/3%) of its share of the Purchase Price; and

(ii) pay such withheld amounts to the Franchise Tax Board of California

within twenty (20) days following the Close of Escrow.

12.17 Confidentiality and Return of Documents. Seller and Buyer shall each

maintain as confidential, and neither party shall directly or indirectly use

or disclose, any "Confidential Information" (as defined hereafter)

concerning the Property, 'the other party, the other party's assets or the

transactions contemplated by this Agreement to any person except that

such matters may be disclosed (i) to such party's directors, officers,

partners, and employees (ii) to such party's legal counsel, lenders,

G:\DATA\mle\6853 McNuIty\PurchaseAgt v5.doc

9/14/00 20
accountants, engineers, architects, financial advisors and similar

professionals and consultants to the extent such party deems it reasonably

necessary or appropriate in connection with the evaluation of the

transaction contemplated hereby or Buyer's development and use of the

Property after Closing; (iii) by Seller to third parties having an ownership

interest in or relationship with the Property (such as existing mortgagees)

to whom disclosure is necessary or desirable in order to facilitate the

consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby; (iv) pursuant to

the order or regulation of any applicable court or regulatory agency; and

(v) by Buyer after Closing to potential tenants, investors, lenders and

purchasers of the Property. The parties referred to in (i) and (ii) above are

referred to herein as "Seller's Representative" or "Buyer's

Representative," as applicable. Neither Seller nor Buyer shall disclose any

Confidential Information to Seller's or Buyer's Representatives, as

applicable,' until such times as Seller's or Buyer's Representatives

acknowledge that they understand and agree to be bound by the provisions

of this Section 12.17. Buyer and/or Seller shall each be responsible for

any disclosure of any Confidential Information by their respective Buyer's

or Seller's Representatives. For the purpose of this Section 12.17, the

term "Confidential Information" shall mean information which is or

becomes known to a party or its respective affiliates or to their employees,

former employees, consultants or others in a confidential relationship with

such party, including, without limitation, pursuant to the terms of this

Agreement, and which relates to the Property, the transactions

contemplated by this Agreement or the business of either party; provided,

however, that confidential information shall not include: (i) information

that is or becomes generally available to the public other than through a

violation of law or obligation hereunder; (ii) information that, in the

opinion of counsel to either party, such party is required by law, court

order, government order or decree to disclose, except that the other party

may at its own expense appeal such court order; (iii) information that was

developed by such party on its own, independent from the proprietary

information made available to such party hereunder; and (iv) information

that was subsequently made available to such party by a third party who

was not violating the law oj any obligation hereunder in making such

disclosure. In the event this Agreement is terminated, Buyer shall

promptly return to Seller all documents, agreements, reports and other

materials of any kind that have been delivered to Buyer by Seller pursuant

1

 to the terms of this Agreement. Following the Closing, Confidential

Information shall be limited to the Purchase Price of.the Property. Further,

no press release or public announcement of any kind shall be made by

either party hereunder concerning the purchase and sale transaction that is

the subject of this Agreement, without the prior written approval of the

other party.

G:\DATAVmle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Purchase and Sale Agreement

on the dates set forth below.

BUYER:

RNM CADER L.L.C., a California limited

liability company

By: RNM PETALUMA, INC., a California

corporation, its Manager

Dated: September 15, 2000 By:

John ^R^IcNulty ^7

Its: Presi

Dated: September 15,2000

SELLER:

SOLA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

a DelawareOcorporation

By:

Its:

f/Aflk

Steven Neil

do

Chief Financial Officer

G:VDATA\mle\6853 McNulty\PurchaseAgt.v5.doc

9/14/00 22
EXIH.IBIT A

Legal Description Parcel "A"

Being a portion of Parcel Three and a portion of Parcel Two as said parcels are

shown on that map titled City of Petaluma Parcel Map No. 118, filed in the office

of the County Recorder in Book 255 of Maps, Page 39, Sonoma County

Records, and more particularly described as follows:

Commencing at a point marked by an iron pipe, being the Northwesterly corner

of Parcel One as said parcel is designated upon that certain Record of Survey

filed in Book 518 of Maps', Page 11, Sonoma County Records; running thence

South 54° 00" 27" East, 52,29 feet to the True Point of Beginning;

Thence continuing South 54° 00' 27" East, 709.10 feet to a point marked by an

iron pipe, being the most Easterly corner of Parcel Three as designated on said

map;

Thence continuing South 54° 00' 27" East, 263.89 feet to the Southeasterly

boundary of Parcel Two as designated on said map;

Thence South 36° 00' 13" West, 869.30 feet to a point marked by an iron pipe,

being the most Southerly corner of said Parcel Two;

Thence North 53° 59' 34" West, 264.06 feet to a point marked by an iron pipe,

being the most southerly corner of said Parcel Three;

Thence continuing North 53° 59' 34" East, 760.91 feet;

Thence North 35° 59' 01" East, 780.13 feet; to the beginning of a curve;

Thence along said non-tangent curve concave northwesterly fronrwhich a

tangent bears South 87° 13' 46" West, with a radius of 57.00 feet/through a

central angle of 61° 16'46" for a length of 60.96 feet;

Thence North 78° 40' 26" East, 46.96 feet to the True point of Beginning.

Excepting there from any interest conveyed by that certain grant deed

dedication of right of way from Sola Optical U.S.A., Inc., a California Corporation,

to the City of Petaluma, a Municipal Corporation, dated November 19, 1986 and

recorded January 2, 1987 under Document No. 87-000244, Sonoma County

Records.

Containing 20.41 acres ,,

APN. 005-040-047

was prepared under my direct supervision for SOLA holdings in

nd is bajifled on the above referenced Record of Survey,

Michael R. Hogan, PLS 7362 Date
EXHIBIT B

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Attn:

GRANT DEED

FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,

acknowledged, SOLA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

receipt of

a Delaware

which is

corporation,

hereby

hereby

GRANTS to RNM CADER L.L.C., a California limited liability company, that certain

real property located in the City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma, State of California, and

described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the

"Property").

Dated: ,2000

SOLA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

a Delaware corporation

By:.

Its"
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

)Ss:

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )

On , 200_, before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared

, personally known to me to or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the

person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument'and acknowledged to me that

he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(is), and that by his/her/their

signature(s) on the instrument'the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)

acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

(SEAL)

Notary Public Signature
This page left blank intentionally 
Appendix B 

Documents Reviewed 
This page left blank intentionally 
B-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 Certain 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 Board San Francisco Region (Water Board). 

2008. Groundwater Screening for Environmental Concerns 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. Conditional 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, 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 Optical 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. 
Appendix B 

Documents Reviewed 

B-2 

_________. 2007b. Response to United State Environmental 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 Assessing 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 Conditional 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 Checklist 
This page left blank intentionally 
C-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 Professional Geologist CDM Walnut Creek Office 

Ahnna Westrich Staff Geologist CDM Walnut Creek Office 
This page left blank intentionally 
Five-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 company 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, zoning 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 current 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 there 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 the gate located on the adjacent 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 fence 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 gates 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. Institutional 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 well 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 concentrations of 1,1-DCA in groundwater samples collected from well W-27 are 

currently above its maximum contaminant level (MCL) 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 runoff 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 collected 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 displacement_______________ 

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, Valve 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 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__________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 
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 treated 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 declining 
Five-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 associated 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 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 well 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 concentrations of 1,1-DCA in groundwater samples collected from W-27 are currently above its 

MCL, these ICs continue to be necessary. 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 indicated that the Wells and Septic Division 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 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 Photographs 
This page left blank intentionally 
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-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 monitoring 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 Forms 
This page left blank intentionally 
Page 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 

4/2/10 
Page 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, 12th 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 groundwater analytical results for well 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 concentration of 6.5 μg/L, the groundwater sample collected from well 

W-27 exceeded the MCL. 

3. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a 

continuous on-site present, describe 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 maximum 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 any difficulties or additional costs with respect to 
Page 3 of 10

operation and maintenance (O&M) within the last five years. Mr. Roth indicated 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 or recommendations 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 groundwater 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 indicated 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 or recommendations 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 Management 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 construction of four building pads in 2004/2005 (350,000 

ft2

) 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 construction 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 keep 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 or recommendations 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 Specialist 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 Division (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 submitted 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 complaints or violations with respect to the Site. 

x Mr. Anderson indicated that there were no records on file at the SCEHD 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 inspected 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 County 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 Division 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 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. 
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 Environmental 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 not 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 decreasing 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, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a 

continuous on-site present, describe 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 and 
Page 10 of 10

resultant or desired cost savings or improved efficiency. 

x No.

7. Do you have any comments suggestions or recommendations regarding the project? 

x No. 
Appendix F 

ARARs Review Technical Memorandum 
This 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 Relevant 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 were reaffirmed as the applicable groundwater 

cleanup standards for the current remedy (monitored natural attenuation) and ARARs for 

institutional controls were adopted to ensure future protectiveness. A summary of chemicalspecific ARARs is provided in Table 1. The current version of California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), Title 22 was reviewed to ensure all information is current. The MCLs for the two 

contaminants of concern, 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE have 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, ITSI 
2010 0924-Table 1 SOLA ARARs updated.doc 

Table 1 

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 

Sola Optical Superfund Site 

Petaluma, CA

Authority Medium Requirement Status Synopsis of Requi

CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Federal Regulatory Requirement 

Groundwater Federal Primary Drinking 

Water Standards 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 141 Safe Drinking Water Act 40 U.S.C §300 

Relevant and Appropriate 

Federal primary MCLs under the Safe Drinkthe public from contaminants that may be foonsite remedies mitigated potential or furtheOngoing monitoring events are conducted to 

State Regulatory Requirement 

Groundwater California Primary Drinking 

Water Standards Health and Safety Code (H&S Code) §4010 et seq. 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 4, Chapter 15, §64431 and 64444

Relevant and Appropriate 

California Primary MCLs protect public healtbe found in drinking water sources and are afederal standard. The onsite remedies mitigated potential or fuwater. Ongoing monitoring events are condu

ACTION-SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Federal and State Regulatory Requirement 

Groundwater Hazardous Waste Regulations 

40 CFR §264.171-264.178 22 CCR §66262.34 

Substantive provisions are applicable if waste is determined to be RCRA hazardous waste. 

Onsite hazardous waste accumulation is alloas the waste is stored in containers or tanksbuildings, is labeled and dated, etc. May be is determined to be a hazardous waste. 

State Regulatory Requirement 

Groundwater California Code of Regulations, 

Title 22, section 67391.1 Civil Code Section 1471 

Applicable Establishes requirements for imposing coven
Appendix G 

HHRA Review Technical Memorandum 
This 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 (revised September 27, 2010) 

Subject: Sola Optical USA Inc. Superfund Site, Petaluma, CA 

Third Five-Year Review Report 2010 

Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology 

Review Memorandum 

The Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment 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-site 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 clean-up the groundwater to state or federally 

promulgated drinking water standards (i.e., Federal and California maximum contaminant 

levels [MCLs]). 

The groundwater extraction system operated from 1992 to 1997. In 1997, the groundwater 

extraction system was turned off and potential rebound was evaluated. After two years, the 

groundwater extraction system was decommissioned and 17 monitoring wells and 4 

piezometers were destroyed. Based on the groundwater monitoring data during this time, 

Sola requested that the Environmental Protection 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 Review, 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 assessment that focused on possible impacts to nearby 

Adobe Creek, the closest surface water body to the Site. Based on data from groundwater 
Dante 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 reached 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 life. 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 reduced 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 Review, the Site environmental setting appears to 

have changed since the 2007 ROD amendment, with construction of an asphalt parking lot 

and four building pads with associated below grade infrastructure (i.e., electrical and 

plumbing) on the auxiliary 11 acre parcel. This 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 discussed in the 1991 ROD evaluated the Site for 

hypothetical future residential use even though the Site is used for light industrial / 

commercial purposes and is not planned for residential use. Hypothetical residents were 

evaluated for ingestion of contaminated groundwater and inhalation of contaminants in 

indoor air via vapor intrusion. The risk assessment 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 risk 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 literature 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 intrusion 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 intrusion 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 groundwater concentrations and groundwater ESLs. 

California MCLs presented in this table are the same as during MCLs used in the 2005 

Five-Year Review, except for Freon 113 (which could 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). Concentrations of 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) range 

from 6.5 to 16 micrograms per liter (μg/L); these concentrations still exceed the CDHS 

Primary MCL of 

5 μg/L. 

Table 1 

Groundwater Concentrations, MCLs, Target 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 (μg/L) 

CDPHa 

Primary 

MCL (μg/L)

Target Groundwater 

Concentration 

(μg/L)b

Water Board 

Groundwater 

Screening 

Levels (μg/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 Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion 

to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface 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 Cgw for cancer risk = 10-4 and hazard index = 1.

c) California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco 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, updated May 2008 (Water Board, 2008). (Range of concentrations 

shown represent residential to industrial exposure 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 Risk Information System (EPA, 2010) indicates 

that these criteria 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, 2010). 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 (DTSC) issued its own vapor intrusion guidance 

(Interim Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation 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 mathematical 

model (Johnson and Ettinger Excel spreadsheet model) for calculating cancer risks and noncancer hazards from inhalation of vapors migrating 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 criteria 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 chemicals 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 evaluation 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 carcinogens. 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 effects 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; however, 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 currently 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 seems unlikely in the foreseeable future and no 

ingestion exposures to chemicals of concern 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 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 Board 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, ITSI 
2010 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 SHEET

CALCULATE RISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box) DTSC

Vapor Intrusion Guidance

YES Interim Final 12/04

OR (last modified 2/4/09)

CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION(enter "X" in "YES" box and initial groundwater conc. below)

YES X

ENTER ENTER

Initial

Chemical groundwater

CAS No. conc.,

(numbers only, CW

no dashes) (μg/L)

75354 5.60E+00 1,1-Dichloroethylene

ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER

MORE Depth

Ð below grade Average ENTER

to bottom Depth soil/ Average vapor

of enclosed below grade SCS groundwater flow rate into bldg.

space floor, to water table, soil type temperature, (Leave blank to calculate)

LF LWT directly above TS Qsoil

(cm) (cm) water table (oC) (L/m)

15 400 S 24 5

MORE

Ð

ENTER ENTER

Vadose zone User-defined ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER

SCS vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zon

soil type soil vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-fill

(used to estimate OR permeability, soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity,

soil vapor kv UbV nV TwV

permeability) (cm2) (g/cm3) (unitless) (cm3/cm3)

1.00E-08 S 1.66 0.375 0.054

MORE

Ð ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER

Target Target hazard Averaging Averaging

risk for quotient for time for time for Exposure Exposure

carcinogens, noncarcinogens, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency,

TR THQ ATC ATNC ED EF

(unitless) (unitless) (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr)

1.0E-06 1 70 30 30 350

Used to calculate risk-based

groundwater concentration.

Chemical

GW-SCREEN

Version 3.0; 04/03

Reset to Defaults

Lookup Soil Parameters

DTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03

DTSC Indoor Air Guidance

Unclassified Soil Screening Model

11DCE HERD
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEET

ABC

Henry's Henry's Enthalpy of Organic Pure

law constant law constant vaporization at Normal carbon component Unit

Diffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical partition water risk Reference

in air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, coefficient, solubility, factor, conc.,

Da Dw H TR 'Hv,b TB TC Koc S 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-02

END

1 of 1
INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEET

Vadose Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Total Air-filled Water-filled 

Source- zone soil effective soil soil soil Thickness of porosity in porosity in porosity in 

building air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor capillary capillary capillary capillary 

separation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability, zone, zone, zone, zone, 

LT TaV Ste ki krg kv Lcz ncz Ta,cz Tw,cz 

(cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) (cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) 

385 0.321 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1.00E-08 17.05 0.375 0.122 0.253 

Area of Capillary 

enclosed Crack- Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor Vadose zone zone 

Bldg. space to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective effective 

ventilation below area below ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. soil diffusion diffusion 

rate, grade, ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, coefficient, 

Qbuilding AB K Zcrack 'Hv,TS HTS H'TS μTS DeffV Deffcz 

(cm3/s) (cm2) (unitless) (cm) (cal/mol) (atm-m3/mol) (unitless) (g/cm-s) (cm2/s) (cm2/s) 

3.39E+04 1.00E+06 5.00E-03 15 6,299 2.51E-02 1.03E+00 1.80E-04 1.45E-02 5.77E-04 

Exponent of Infinite

Average Crack equivalent source Infinite

Diffusion Convection Source vapor effective foundation indoor source 

path path vapor Crack flow rate diffusion Area of Peclet attenuation bldg. 

length, length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient, crack, number, coefficient, conc., 

Ld Lp Csource rcrack Qsoil Dcrack Acrack exp(Pef) D Cbuilding 

(cm) (cm) (μg/m3) (cm) (cm3/s) (cm2/s) (cm2) (unitless) (unitless) (μg/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 

DTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03

DTSC Indoor Air Guidance

Unclassified Soil Screening Model

11DCE HERD_Gro
RESULTS SHEET

RISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:

Incremental Hazard

Indoor Indoor Risk-based Pure Final risk from quotient

exposure exposure indoor component indoor vapor from vapor

groundwater groundwater exposure water exposure intrusion to intrusion to

conc., conc., groundwater solubility, groundwater indoor air, indoor air,

carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., S conc., carcinogen noncarcinogen

(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (unitless) (unitless)

NA NA NA 2.25E+06 NA NA 3.5E-02

MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW:

END

1 of 1 
 

1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 
DATA ENTRY SHEET

CALCULATE RISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box) DTSC

Vapor Intrusion Guidance

YES Interim Final 12/04

OR (last modified 2/4/09)

CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION(enter "X" in "YES" box and initial groundwater conc. below)

YES X

ENTER ENTER

Initial

Chemical groundwater

CAS No. conc.,

(numbers only, CW

no dashes) (μg/L)

75343 1.60E+01 1,1-Dichloroethane

ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER

MORE Depth

Ð below grade Average ENTER

to bottom Depth soil/ Average vapor

of enclosed below grade SCS groundwater flow rate into bldg.

space floor, to water table, soil type temperature, (Leave blank to calculate)

LF LWT directly above TS Qsoil

(cm) (cm) water table (oC) (L/m)

15 400 S 24 5

MORE

Ð

ENTER ENTER

Vadose zone User-defined ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER

SCS vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zon

soil type soil vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water-fill

(used to estimate OR permeability, soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity,

soil vapor kv UbV nV TwV

permeability) (cm2) (g/cm3) (unitless) (cm3/cm3)

1.00E-08 S 1.66 0.375 0.054

MORE

Ð ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER

Target Target hazard Averaging Averaging

risk for quotient for time for time for Exposure Exposure

carcinogens, noncarcinogens, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency,

TR THQ ATC ATNC ED EF

(unitless) (unitless) (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (days/yr)

1.0E-06 1 70 30 30 350

Used to calculate risk-based

groundwater concentration.

Chemical

GW-SCREEN

Version 3.0; 04/03

Reset to Defaults

Lookup Soil Parameters

DTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03

DTSC Indoor Air Guidance

Unclassified Soil Screening Model

11DCA HERD
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEET

ABC

Henry's Henry's Enthalpy of Organic Pure

law constant law constant vaporization at Normal carbon component Unit

Diffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical partition water risk Reference

in air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, coefficient, solubility, factor, conc.,

Da Dw H TR 'Hv,b TB TC Koc S 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-01

END

1 of 1
INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEET

Vadose Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Total Air-filled Water-filled 

Source- zone soil effective soil soil soil Thickness of porosity in porosity in porosity in 

building air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor capillary capillary capillary capillary 

separation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability, zone, zone, zone, zone, 

LT TaV Ste ki krg kv Lcz ncz Ta,cz Tw,cz 

(cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) (cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3) 

385 0.321 #N/A #N/A #N/A 1.00E-08 17.05 0.375 0.122 0.253 

Area of Capillary 

enclosed Crack- Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor Vadose zone zone 

Bldg. space to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective effective 

ventilation below area below ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. groundwater ave. soil diffusion diffusion 

rate, grade, ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, coefficient, 

Qbuilding AB K Zcrack 'Hv,TS HTS H'TS μTS DeffV Deffcz 

(cm3/s) (cm2) (unitless) (cm) (cal/mol) (atm-m3/mol) (unitless) (g/cm-s) (cm2/s) (cm2/s) 

3.39E+04 1.00E+06 5.00E-03 15 7,294 5.38E-03 2.21E-01 1.80E-04 1.20E-02 4.79E-04 

Exponent of Infinite

Average Crack equivalent source Infinite

Diffusion Convection Source vapor effective foundation indoor source 

path path vapor Crack flow rate diffusion Area of Peclet attenuation bldg. 

length, length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient, crack, number, coefficient, conc., 

Ld Lp Csource rcrack Qsoil Dcrack Acrack exp(Pef) D Cbuilding 

(cm) (cm) (μg/m3) (cm) (cm3/s) (cm2/s) (cm2) (unitless) (unitless) (μg/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 

DTSC / HERDLast Update: 11/1/03

DTSC Indoor Air Guidance

Unclassified Soil Screening Model

11DCA HERD_Gro
RESULTS SHEET

RISK-BASED GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:

Incremental Hazard

Indoor Indoor Risk-based Pure Final risk from quotient

exposure exposure indoor component indoor vapor from vapor

groundwater groundwater exposure water exposure intrusion to intrusion to

conc., conc., groundwater solubility, groundwater indoor air, indoor air,

carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., S conc., carcinogen noncarcinogen

(μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) (unitless) (unitless)

NA NA NA 5.06E+06 NA 8.7E-07 1.8E-03

MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW:

END

1 of 1