NPL U36 2 9 R8 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET Name of Site: Eureka Mills EPA ID No. UT0002240158 Contact Persons Site Investigation: Al Lange (303) 312 6987 On Scene Coordinator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mail Code: 8EPR ER Denver, Colorado 80202 2405 Documentation Record: David Williams (303) 312 6757 NPL Coordinator U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mail Code: 8EPR ER Denver, Colorado 80202 2405 Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored Ground Water Migration Pathway The Eureka Mills study area is sparsely populated, with most individuals receiving their drinking water from upgradient municipal wells that are nearly two miles from town. The effects of the surficial soil contamination on area ground water were not evaluated. Based on the lack of data and a limited number of targets, the Ground Water Migration pathway has not been scored as part of this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package.

Surface Water Migration Pathway There are no lakes, reservoirs, or wetlands within 15 downstream miles of the site. Eureka Gulch, which drains the Eureka area, is an intermittent stream. The Surface Water Migration pathway has not been scored as part of this HRS package.

Air Migration Pathway There are insufficient data to satisfy HRS requirements for establishing an observed release of hazardous substances to the air in the Eureka Mills study area. The Air Migration pathway has not been scored as part of this HRS package.

Nearby Population Threat The nearby population threat was not scored because almost all of the residents and students in the Eureka area live within the area of observed contamination. There are insufficient residents and students living outside of the observed area of contamination to significantly affect the site score. HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: Eureka Mills EPA Region: Region VIII Date Prepared: April 20, 2001 Street Address of Site: Intersection of U. S. Highway 6 and Shriver St.

City, County, State: Eureka, Juab County, Utah General Location in the State: The Eureka Mills site is located in Eureka, approximately 55 miles southsouthwest of Salt Lake City, in the north central portion of the state.

Topographic Map: Eureka, Utah, 7.5 minute quadrangle (Ref. 3).

Latitude: 39 o 57 ' 20.0 " North Longitude: 112 o 06 ' 56.0 " West (Ref. 4)

The reference point for this calculation is the center of the intersection of U. S. Highway 6 and Shriver Street in Eureka, Utah.

Scores Air Pathway 0. 00 Ground Water Pathway 0. 00 Soil Exposure Pathway 100.00 Surface Water Pathway 0. 00 HRS SITE SCORE 50.00 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 2 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE S S 2 1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) N S (from Table 3 1, line 13)

2a. Surface Water Overland/ Flood Migration Component NS (from Table 4 1, line 30)

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component NS (from Table 4 25, line 28)

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) N S Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) 100 10,000 (from Table 5 1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) N S (from Table 6 1, line 12)

5. Total of Sgw 2 + Ssw 2 + Ss 2 + Sa 2 10,000 6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50.00 NS  Not Scored a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. b Maximum value not applicable. c No specific maximum value applies to factor. However, pathway score based solely on terrestrial sensitive environments is limited to maximum of 60. d Do not round to nearest integer. NS Not Scored HRS documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 3 TABLE 5 1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE SHEET Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned RESIDENT POPULATION THREAT Likelihood of Exposure 1. Likelihood of Exposure 550 550 Waste Characteristics 2. Toxicity a 10,000 3. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 100 4. Waste Characteristics 100 32 Targets 5. Resident Individual 50 50 6. Resident Population 6a. Level I Concentrations b 4455 6b. Level II Concentrations b 527.5 6c. Resident Population (lines 6a + 6b) b 4982.5 7. Workers 15 5 8. Resources 5 0 9. Terrestrial Sensitive Environments c 0 10. Targets (lines 5 + 6c + 7 + 8 + 9) b 5032.5 Resident Population Threat Score 11. Resident Population Threat (lines 1 x 4 x 10) b 88,660,000 a Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. b Maximum value not applicable. c No specific maximum value applies to factor. However, pathway score based solely on terrestrial sensitive environments is limited to maximum of 60. d Do not round to nearest integer. NS Not Scored HRS documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 4 TABLE 5 1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE SHEET (continued)

Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned NEARBY POPULATION THREAT Likelihood of Exposure 12. Attractiveness/ Accessibility 100 0 13. Area of Contamination 100 0 14. Likelihood of Exposure 500 NS Waste Characteristics 15. Toxicity a 0 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity a 0 17. Waste Characteristics 100 NS Targets 18. Nearby Individual 1 0 19. Population Within 1 Mile b 0 20. Targets (lines 18 + 19) b NS Nearby Population Threat Score 21. Nearby Population Threat (lines 14 x 17 x 20) b NS SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE Soil Exposure Pathway Score d 22. (Ss), (lines [11 + 21] ÷ 82,500 subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 5 REFERENCES Ref. No. Description of the Reference 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), [Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration (OFRNARA)], December 14, 1990, 40 CFR Part 300, Hazard Ranking System (HRS).

2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. June 1996. 1 page, excerpt.

3. U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1992. 7.5 minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map of Eureka, Utah, 1992. 1: 24,000 scale. 1 map (modified).

4. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Latitude and Longitude Calculation Worksheet. 1 page.

5. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000. Preliminary Assessment of the Eureka Mills, Tony Howes, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. 15 pages, plus figures and appendices.

6. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000. Site Inspection of the Eureka Mills, Tony Howes, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. 29 pages plus appendices.

7. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2000. Site Inspection Work Plan, Eureka Mills, Tony Howes, Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. 15 pages plus appendices.

8. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts, Utah. 2 pages, excerpt.

9. Butler, B. S., G. F. Loughlin, and V. C. Heikes. 1920. The Ore Deposits of Utah. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 111. 22 pages, excerpt.

10. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1899. Nineteenth Annual Report, Part IIIEconomic Geology. Washington, Government Printing Office. 5 pages, excerpt.

11. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1919. Geology and Ore Deposits of the Tintic Mining District, Utah. Professional Paper 107. 14 pages, excerpt.

12. Notarianni, P. F. 1982. Faith, Hope, Prosperity The Tintic Mining District: Eureka, Utah, Tintic Historical Society. 190 pages.

13. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1935. Lead and Zinc Mining and Milling in the United States Current Practices and Costs. Bulletin 381. Washington, Government Printing Office. 5 pages, excerpt.

14. URS Operating Services, Inc. (UOS). 2001. Removal Preliminary Assessment Report, Eureka Mills, Eureka, Utah. TDD No. 0009 0015. March 26, 2001. 182 pages plus appendices. HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 6 15. URS Operating Services, Inc. (UOS). 2001. Removal Preliminary Assessment Report, Eureka Mills Outside. TDD No. 0010 0011. January 22, 2001. 55 pages plus appendices.

16. URS Operating Services, Inc. (UOS). 2001. GIS Map depicting Areas of Observed Arsenic and Lead Contamination based on laboratory analytical results from the Eureka Mills Investigation. 1 sheet.

17. Shacklette, Hansford T., and Josephine G. Boerngen. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. 105 pages, excerpt.

18. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, DERR (UDEQ). Various dates. Inorganic Background Soil Data, Salt Lake City Area, Compiled From APA Site Inspections. 140 pages.

19. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 1996. Directive 9285.7 14FS, Using Qualified Data To Document An Observed Release and Observed Contamination, November 1996. 18 pages.

20. American West Analytical Laboratories. 2001. Facsimile showing table of Method Detection Limits from American West Analytical Laboratories, March 14, 2001. 1 page.

21. Sentinel, Inc. 2001. Facsimile of Form 10 showing Instrument Detection Limits taken from the data validation report for TDD No. 75 00605 for the Eureka Mine project. 1 page.

22. URS Operating Services, Inc. (UOS). 2000. Telephone Interview Record from conversation between Barry Hayhurst, UOS and Eileen Schow, Tintic High School, discussing number of students and employees at Tintic High School. 1 page.

23. U. S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 2001. Discretionary Depth Sample Location Maps. 199 maps.

24. URS Operating Services, Inc. (UOS). 2000. Memorandum from Henry Schmelzer, UOS to Jeff Miller, UOS discussing the location of Eureka soil sample E525EMD18Y53 at the Tintic High School. 1 page.

25. URS Operating Services, Inc. (UOS). 2000. Telephone Interview Record from conversation between Lara Harshfield, UOS and Peggy Snell, Tintic School District, discussing number of students and employees at Eureka Elementary School. 1 page. HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 7 2.1 SITE SUMMARY The Eureka Mills site is approximately 150 acres of arsenic and lead contaminated soil located in the town of Eureka, approximately 60 miles south of Salt Lake City and 12 miles west of Utah Lake. Eureka is one of several towns in the Tintic Mining District, which was organized in the spring of 1870. Richer ores from the district were shipped to larger smelters both in the U. S. and abroad. It was not economical to ship the lower grade ores, so milling and smelting operations were developed near the mines. A total of 14 mills may have been operated in the Tintic District. These mills concentrated ores to make them more profitable for shipping. Early mills in Eureka used the mercury amalgamation process, where ore was crushed into a pulp, run over vanners, and collected as amalgam in tanks and pans. A number of smelters have also operated in the Tintic District over the years. However, none were very successful nor operated for any substantial length of time (Ref. 11, pp. 114, 115).

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), in conjunction with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collected 22 soil and 9 sediment samples from the Eureka area in 2000. Soil samples were collected from residential areas, from the Tintic High School and Eureka Elementary Schools, and from adjacent to mill sites. Sediment samples were collected along Eureka Gulch and in the gulch below four of the possible mill sites in Eureka. These samples were analyzed for total metals and indicated the presence of arsenic and lead concentrations as great as 1,030 milligrams per kilogram (mg/ kg) and 29,300 mg/ kg, respectively.

The discovery of these concentrations prompted the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin a Removal Evaluation in August 2000. It included the collection of 4,205 surface soil samples, which were analyzed using X Ray Fluorescence (XRF). Of these 4, 205 samples, 394 were sent to an EPA contractor laboratory for confirmational analysis. Of these 394 confirmation samples, 225 were discrete depth samples taken from between 0 and 18 inches bgs. All confirmation samples were analyzed for total metals and confirmed the presence of arsenic and lead in surface soils up to 2,100 mg/ kg and 37,000 J mg/ kg, respectively. When compared to site background levels of 14.7 ppm for arsenic and 198 ppm for lead, the results of the laboratory confirmation samples were utilized to delineate an area of more than 6 million square feet of surficial arsenic and lead soil contamination.

The methods of migration for the contamination are various. Historical flooding has occurred, which may have transported mine and mill wastes downgradient toward and through the town. Human actions have also probably served to spread contamination around the town of Eureka. In 1900, tailings ponds overflowed and flooded Eureka Gulch. Wastes from one milling process were allowed to flow downhill and into Eureka Gulch. The use of mine and mill waste as fill material around the town appears to have been widespread. Horse teams and wagons hauled most of the district's ore in its early days. It is likely that some primary ore carried in this manner was inadvertently lost during transportation. Aerial deposition from blowing dust, and to a lesser extent from smelting, is also a potential mode of contaminant transportation.

An evaluation of the confirmation data from within the area of observed soil contamination indicates there are approximately 90 residences, as well as two schools, that are subject to Level 1 contamination. HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 8 2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Name of Source: Lead and Arsenic Contaminated Soil Number of source: 1 Source Type: Contaminated Surface Soils Description of Source:

The UDEQ, in conjunction with the EPA Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) collected 22 soil and 9 sediment samples from the Eureka area in 2000 (Ref. 6, p. 1). Soil samples were collected from residential areas, from the Tintic High School and Eureka Elementary Schools, and adjacent to mill sites. These samples were analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) total metals and indicated the presence of arsenic and lead concentrations as great as 1,030 mg/ kg (sample MHET76) and 29,300 mg/ kg (sample MHET76), respectively (Ref. 6, Fig. 4, Table 3, page 3, App. F, p. 95). The analytical methods used by the lab were EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) analysis for Metals and Mercury EPA SW 846 Method 6010B (inductively coupled plasma (ICP)) for arsenic and lead (Refs. 6, p. 1, App. E.; 21). Other total metal analytes that were recorded in soils at levels greater than three times background included calcium, zinc, cadmium, silver, copper, mercury, antimony, thallium, selenium, sodium, manganese, and magnesium (Reference 6, p. 20 23).

The discovery of these concentrations prompted EPA to begin a Removal Evaluation to determine the extent of arsenic and lead present in soils in this region of Juab County. The Removal Evaluation was begun in August 2000 by Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and EPA START contractors. It included the collection of approximately 4,205 surface soil samples (collected from less than eighteen inches below ground surface (bgs)) from accessible properties in Eureka (Ref. 14, p. 1). Larger properties were subdivided into zones consisting of yards, lots, driveways, gardens, play areas, or other subdivided areas within a property address (Ref. 14, p. 10). Each property address could have more than one zone. At each zone, two surface composite samples consisting of five aliquots each were collected, along with three discrete depth samples taken from 0 to 6 inches, 6 to 12 inches, and 12 to 18 inches bgs respectively. All samples were analyzed by the BOR using X ray fluorescence (XRF). Of these 4,205 samples, 394 were sent to an EPA contractor laboratory for confirmational analysis (Ref. 14, Table 8). Of these 394 confirmation samples, 225 were discrete depth samples taken from between 0 and 18 inches bgs (Ref. 14, Table 8). The analytical methods used by the lab were EPA SW 846 Method 7060A (graphite furnace atomic absorbtion (GFAA)) for arsenic and EPA SW846 Method 6010B (ICP) for lead (Refs. 14, p. 20, App. D; 20).

When compared to area background levels, the results of the laboratory confirmation samples were utilized to delineate an area of 6,608,997.26 square feet of surficial arsenic and lead soil contamination (Refs. 14; 16). The methods of migration for the contamination are various. Historical flooding has occurred, which may have transported mine and mill wastes downgradient toward and through the town (Refs. 5, pp. 9, 10; 12, pp. 68, 69). Human actions have also probably served to spread contamination around the town of Eureka. In 1900, tailings ponds at the Eureka Hill Mill broke and flooded Eureka Gulch (Ref. 5, p. 5). Wastes from the Chief Mill milling process were allowed to flow downhill and into Eureka Gulch (Ref. 5, p. 7). The use of mine and mill waste as fill material around the town appears to have been widespread (Ref. 6, pp. 13, 14, 15, 18). Horse teams and wagons hauled most of the district's ore in its early days (Ref. 12, p. 37). It is likely that some primary ore carried in this manner was inadvertently lost during transportation. Aerial deposition HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 9 from blowing dust, and to a lesser extent from smelting, is also a potential mode of contaminant transportation (Ref. 6, p. 25).

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

The area of contaminated soils covers most of the town of Eureka (Ref. 16).

2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE (CONTAMINATED SOIL)

Hazardous Substance Evidence References Station Location m Laboratory Sample m Arsenic 329 West Dublin( 2,100 mg/ kg) E329DUD06Y02 Ref. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D, p. 252 Lead 043 South Highway 6 (37,000 J mg/ kg) E043HWD12Y Ref. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D, pp. 633, 634, 664 Source Sample Information/ Association The soil samples listed above were collected during the 2000 Eureka Mills sampling effort conducted by the BOR and EPA START. Analytical results from soil samples submitted to the laboratory indicate the presence of arsenic concentrations in surface soils (0 to 18 inches bgs) ranging from 46 mg/ kg (lowest concentration for establishing significance above background) to a maximum of 2,100 mg/ kg, and lead concentrations up to 37,000 J mg/ kg (Refs. 14, Table 8, pp. 146, 155; App. D., pp. 252, 600, 664). This area of contamination is delineated based on a comparison of confirmation sample results to the background arsenic concentration of 14.7 mg/ kg and background lead concentration of 198 J mg/ kg collected during the Site Investigation (SI) sampling event (Ref. 6, App F., pp. 74, 101).

Sample locations of contaminated soil showing significantly elevated concentrations are displayed on the GIS map that is Reference 16. Coordinates were derived by the BOR. These coordinates, in conjunction with the laboratory analytical data, were utilized to calculate the area of contaminated soil.

2.2.4 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity (Not Evaluated (NE), insufficient data)

Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NE <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NE <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Volume Assigned Volume Value: 0 <IP_ADDRESS>.4 Area HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 10 Description Surface soil samples indicate the presence of arsenic and lead at levels significantly above background as defined in the HRS Table 2 3 (Ref. 1). A total of 162 samples met the criteria for observed contamination. This includes 95 Level I arsenic samples and 26 Level II lead samples in which significant concentrations above background were detected on properties within 200 feet of a residence (or school). The area of surface soil contamination covers an expanse of 6,608,997.26 square feet (Ref. 16). Using ArcInfo GIS software (Version 3.2), this area was determined by plotting surveyed sample points from samples that had concentrations of arsenic and lead significantly above background over a base map of the city provided to UOS by the BOR. Samples plotted around the perimeter of the town were then connected in a conservative manner to document the area of observed contamination.

The assigned area value is listed in Section 2.4.2 and Table 2 5 of the HRS (Ref. 1):

6,608,997.26/ 34,000 = 194.38 Assigned Area Value: 194.38 SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Source No. Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Source Hazardous Constituent Quantity Complete? (Y/ N) Available to Pathway (X)

Groundwater (GW) Surface Water (SW) Air Overland/ Flood GW to SW Gas Particulate 1 194.38 N NS NS NS NS NS Total 194.38 NS  Not Scored <IP_ADDRESS> Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value According to Table 2 6 in the HRS, based on a source hazardous waste quantity value of 194.38, the hazardous waste quantity factor value is 100 (Ref. 1, Table 2 6, p. 51592)

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 11 5.0 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY 5.0.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Observed contamination samples were selected from the Eureka Mills confirmation sample database for laboratory verified concentrations of lead and arsenic, as well as sample ID, street address, and the date each sample was collected. Sample IDs are comprised of seven fields. The first field is "E" for Eureka, the second field is a three digit house number, the third field is comprised of two letters that represent street names, the fourth field is a sample type descriptor (e. g., "D" means discrete depth sample), the fifth field is the sample depth (e. g., 06 means the sample was taken from 2 to 6 inches), the sixth field represents the sample zone type (e. g., "Y" means the sample was taken from a yard), and the seventh field (if present) represents the property zone from which the sample was taken if more than one zone was present (Ref. 14, pp. 1, 16,17, 18, 19). For this documentation record, only discrete depth samples were used to document observed contamination (Ref. 14, Table 8, App. D). Surface composite samples were not used because each aliquot of the composite was not surveyed and its location could not be reproduced precisely for future sampling events. Of the discrete depth samples, only samples that were located within 200 linear feet of a residence, and within the property boundaries of that residence, were used to document Level I contamination. Samples that were used to document Level II contamination were all collected from locations meeting the observed contamination requirements (inside the observed contamination delineated area) that were not used to document Level I locations. In addition to the samples discussed above, three additional observed contamination samples from SI sampling (MHET68, MHET70, and MHET73) are included. These samples were also taken from within 200 feet of residences (Ref. 6, pp. 14, 18, 19).

The property boundaries on the GIS map were generated using BOR survey data that were collected based on professional judgement, field observations (such as existing fence lines), discussions with property owners, and Eureka City Survey plat maps gathered from the Juab County Recorders Office (Ref. 16). Survey plats were then generated for each residence. Reference 23 contains these survey plats for each residential property on which a sample documenting observed contamination was taken. This information was keyed by ground control survey (base map provided to UOS by the BOR) to GIS mapping software (ArcInfo) by UOS to produce the GIS map that is Reference 16.

From a total of 247 discrete depth soil samples that were sent for laboratory confirmation (225 sent by BOR and 22 sent by UDEQ), 95 exhibited arsenic contamination at levels meeting the criteria for significance above background (Level I), and 26 met the requirements for significance above background regarding lead (Level II). These numbers do not include multiple discrete samples collected from single addresses. Only the samples with the highest recorded concentrations from such properties were used on the GIS map (Ref. 16). In addition to these Level I and Level II target samples, 41 other samples documented an observed release but were not taken from within 200 feet of a residence. These samples are also shown on the GIS map (Ref. 16).

Name of area: Contaminated Soils Location and description of area (with reference to a map of the site): One area of contaminated soil has been delineated in the Eureka area. The area trends northeast to southwest and is approximately bounded by Arlington Street to the north, Tintic High School to the east, Beck Street to the south, and Last Chance Street and Highway 6 to the west (Ref. 16). HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 12  Background Concentrations:

In 2000, the UDEQ, in conjunction with EPA START, collected samples believed to be representative of local background conditions, due to their location outside of the apparent area of contaminant deposition and proximity to the Eureka Mills site (Ref. 6). Two of these samples MHET82 and MHEW12 were chosen for comparison because they contained the highest concentrations detected for lead and arsenic. Arsenic was detected in MHEW12 at 14.7 mg/ kg while lead was detected in MHET82 at 198 J mg/ kg (Ref. 6, pp. 74, 101) (see table below). For comparison, Shacklette (1984) has shown arsenic and lead concentrations in the Western United States to be lower (5.5 mg/ kg and 17 mg/ kg respectively) than those used in this package (Ref. 17, p. 6). In addition, UDEQ has compiled a table of inorganic background soil values for the Salt Lake City area that shows a comparable mean value for arsenic at 14. 90 mg/ kg and a lower mean value for lead at 127.51 mg/ kg (Ref. 18, p. 320004). The following table summarizes the two UDEQ SI samples that were used for background comparison:

Sample ID Date Hazardous Substance Concentration (mg/ kg) Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL)* (mg/ kg) Reference MHET82 7/ 06/ 00 Lead 198 J 0. 6 Ref. 6, App. F, p. 82, 101 MHEW12 7/ 11/ 00 Arsenic 14.7 2. 09 Ref. 6, App. F, p. 74 * For CLP analysis, estimated Sample Quantitation Limits (SQLs) are calculated from Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs) supplied by EPA Contractor Laboratory (Ref. 21) using the following formula (assuming a final volume of 200 milliliters and a sample weight of 1 gram):

CRDL (ug/ L) x 200 ml x 1,000 ug/ mg x dilution 1,000 ml/ L x 1 g x 1,000 g/ kg x (% solids/ 100)

Contaminated Samples HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 13  Level I Contaminated Samples Surface Soil, < 18 inches bgs, all samples show concentration of arsenic greater than the benchmark of 0.43 mg/ kg Cancer Risk Screening Concentration (Ref. 2, p. B 65).

Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

E006WMD12Y (6 W. Main) 11/ 4/ 00 330  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 549; 23, p. 7 E011RRD06Y (11 W. Railroad) 9/ 13/ 00 64  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 154; 23, p. 8 E015CHD12Y (15 N. Church) 10/ 30/ 00 190  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 441; 23, p. 11 E015EMD06Y (15 E. Main) 10/ 16/ 00 110  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 359; 23, p. 10 E020WAD12Y01 (20 W. Arlington) 10/ 3/ 00 1,200  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 595; 23, p. 14 E022SHD06Y (22 Shriver) 10/ 24/ 00 550  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 596; 23, p. 16 E025EHD06Y01 (25 E. Hannifin) 9/ 22/ 00 510  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 248; 23, p. 17 E028SHD06Y (28 Shriver) 11/ 14/ 00 190  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 557; 23, p. 20 E029SHD18Y (29 Shriver) 11/ 18/ 00 170  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 568; 23, p. 22 E030CRD12L02 (30 W. Carlson) 10/ 16/ 00 170  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 361; 23, p. 24 E030WAD06A03 (30 W. Arlington) 10/ 03/ 00 190  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 367; 23, p. 25 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 14 E031CED06L01 (31 N. Center) 10/ 16/ 00 100  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 360; 23, p. 27 E037EMD12Y (37 E. Main) 9/ 12/ 00 96  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 172; 23, p. 32 E038HAD06Y02 (38 S. Haulage) 11/ 13/ 00 54  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 617; 23, p. 33 E040CED12Y (40 N. Center) 10/ 13/ 00 140  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 357; 23, p. 34 E040SRD12L03 (40 N. Spring) 10/ 26/ 00 130  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 451; 23, p. 36 E040WMD12Y (40 W. Main) 11/ 18/ 00 310  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 564; 23, p. 35 E041WLD06Y (41 W. Leadville) 9/ 14/ 00 98  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 175; 23, p. 37 E043HWD12Y (43 S. Hwy 36) 11/ 27/ 00 1,700  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 664; 23, p. 38 E045CHD06Y01 (45 N. Church) 9/ 11/ 00 61  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 134; 23, p. 39 E045SHD06Y (45 Shriver) 10/ 20/ 00 960  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 450; 23, p. 40 E046CHD12Y01 (46 N. Church) 9/ 8/ 00 480  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 592; 23, p. 43 E046WLD18Y (46 W. Leadville) 11/ 11/ 00 56  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 611; 23, p. 42 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 15 E048WMD06Y (48 W. Main) 11/ 1/ 00 53  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 506; 23, p. 44 E054CFD06Y01 (54 Chief) 11/ 4/ 00 150  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 547; 23, p. 48 E055EMD06Y13 (55 E. Main (Elementary School)) 9/ 18/ 00 130 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., pp. 198, 212; 23, p. 49 E056BED06Y01 (56 S. Beck) 9/ 19/ 00 310  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 213; 23, p. 50 E056HAD06Y01 (56 S. Haulage) 9/ 21/ 00 440 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., pp. 224, 225, 264; 23, p. 51 E060BRD18Y (60 S. Bray) 9/ 27/ 00 79 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., pp. 274, 316; 23, p. 52 E063WMD06Y03 (63 W. Main) 9/ 27/ 00 640  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 294; 23, p. 53 E064WJD06Y (64 W. Jones) 11/ 16/ 00 170  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 559; 23, p. 55 E072BRD06Y (72 S. Bray) 9/ 27/ 00 120  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 287; 23, p. 63 E072WLD06Y (72 W. Leadville) 9/ 14/ 00 73  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 178; 23, p. 64 E073NSD06Y (73 N. Sharp) 11/ 10/ 00 85  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 610; 23, p. 65 E073WLD06Y (73 W. Leadville) 9/ 14/ 00 77  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 177; 23, p. 66 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 16 E075NHD06Y (75 N. Hatfield) 8/ 26/ 00 130  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 126; 23, p. 67 E079RID06Y (79 W. Richens) 10/ 12/ 00 350  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 353; 23, p. 69 E081CED12Y (81 N. Center) 10/ 2/ 00 730  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 365; 23, p. 71 E083ELD06Y01 (83 E. Leadville) 9/ 5/ 00 750  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 185; 23, p. 72 E087TED06Y01 (87 N. Terrace) 9/ 7/ 00 110  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 590; 23, p. 73 E089CHD06Y (89 N. Church) 11/ 18/ 00 130  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 563; 23, p. 75 E089JAD06Y (89 Jarvis) 10/ 4/ 00 96  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 345; 23, p. 74 E094WMD06Y (94 W. Main) 11/ 18/ 00 59  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 565; 23, p. 77 E098CHD18Y01 (98 N. Church) 9/ 8/ 00 350  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 593; 23, p. 79 E100TED06Y (100 N. Terrace) 11/ 10/ 00 84  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 521; 23, p. 82 E101WLD12Y (101 W. Leadville) 9/ 12/ 00 87  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 141; 23, p. 84 E102WMD06Y (102 W. Main) 11/ 4/ 00 63  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 552; 23, p. 86 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 17 E118WMD06Y (118 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 46  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 600; 23, p. 90 E119WMD06Y (119 W. Main) 11/ 21/ 00 66  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 643; 23, p. 91 E124TED06Y (124 N. Terrace) 11/ 10/ 00 170  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 608; 23, p. 94 EM SD 42 (MHET70) (125 E. Main) 7/ 05/ 00 197  2. 03** Ref. 6, p. 14, App. F, p. 62 E127RRD12L02 (127 West Railroad) 10/ 17/ 00 46  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 387; 23, p. 96 E128TED06Y (128 N. Terrace) 11/ 10/ 00 54  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 607; 23, p. 98 E130STD12Y (130 W. Stack) 10/ 12/ 00 50  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 354; 23, p. 99 E134RRD18Y (134 W. Railroad) 10/ 19/ 00 78 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., pp. 376, 377, 399; 23, p. 103 EM SO 28 (MHET68) (136 E. Main) 7/ 05/ 00 220  2. 16** Ref. 6, p. 18, App. F, p. 60, 106 E162WMD06Y01 (162 W. Main) 11/ 4/ 00 69  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 553; 23, p. 116 E163HWD06D01 (163 S. Hwy 36) 11/ 27/ 00 240  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 668; 23, p. 117 E164RRD06Y (164 W. Railroad) 11/ 1/ 00 210  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 599; 23, p. 118 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 18 E169WLD12Y (169 W. Leadville) 9/ 25/ 00 99  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 303; 23, p. 119 E181LLD06Y (181 Iliff) 11/ 24/ 00 110  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 655; 23, p. 124 E187IOD06Y (187 W. Iron & O'Conner) 10/ 24/ 00 110 J 63 0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., pp. 376, 377, 379, 380, 405; 23, p. 127 E193HAD06Y (193 S. Haulage) 11/ 16/ 00 170  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 560; 23, p. 128 E195DED06D01 (195 W. Deprizin) 11/ 8/ 00 140  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 606; 23, p. 129 E197CHD12P02 (197 N. Church) 9/ 8/ 00 380  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 594; 23, p. 130 E200EAD12Y02 (200 E. Arlington) 9/ 22/ 00 1,600  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 238; 23, p. 132 E202WMD06Y01 (202 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 840  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 601; 23, p. 135 E208ELD12Y01 (208 E. Leadville) 9/ 5/ 00 320 J 184 0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., pp. 41, 42, 59; 23, p. 136 E210WAD12Y01 (210 W. Arlington) 10/ 28/ 00 60  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 597; 23, p. 136A E221ELD06G01 (221 E. Leadville) 9/ 6/ 00 150 J 86 0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 41, 42, 60; 23, p. 141 E224NLD12Y01 (224 W. N. Leadville) 9/ 21/ 00 70 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., pp. 224, 225, 261; 23, p. 143 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 19 E230DED12L02 (230 W. Deprizen) 11/ 08/ 00 530 J 305 0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., pp. 464, 487; 23, p. 145 E241WMD06Y02 (241 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 790  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 512; 23, p. 148 E248WMD06Y (248 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 80  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 513; 23, p. 153 E260ELD06Y (260 E. Leadville) 9/ 7/ 00 150  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 591; 23, p. 155 E273WLD12Y (273 W. Leadville) 11/ 4/ 00 90  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 548; 23, p. 159 E280WMD18Y (280 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 57  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 603; 23, p. 163 E284EMD06L03 (284 E. Main) 11/ 27/ 00 48  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 670; 23, p. 166 E284WMD06D (284 W. Main) 11/ 11/ 00 1,300  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 613; 23, p. 165 E286WLD12Y (286 W. Leadville) 9/ 20/ 00 76 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., pp. 224, 225, 260; 23, p. 168 E291WMD06Y (291 W. Main) 11/ 6/ 00 46  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 555; 23, p. 170 E293EMD12Y (293 E. Main) 11/ 18/ 00 49  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 570; 23, p. 171 E295DUD06Y (295 W. Dublin) 11/ 17/ 00 78  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 562; 23, p. 174 Sample ID (address) Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 20 E298WLD18Y01 (298 W. Leadville) 9/ 1/ 00 130 J 75 0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., pp. 41, 42, 54; 23, p. 178 E304BED12Y01 (304 S. Beck) 10/ 18/ 00 160  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 391; 23, p. 181 E317WMD06D01 (317 W. Main) 11/ 11/ 00 980  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 614; 23, p. 183 E321RRD06Y01 (321 W. Railroad) 11/ 14/ 00 76  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 558; 23, p. 185 E325BED06Y01 (325 S. Beck) 10/ 18/ 00 47  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 390; 23, p. 186 E329DUD06Y02 (329 W. Dublin) 9/ 19/ 00 2,100  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 252; 23, p. 187 E330EMD18L01 (330 E. Main) 11/ 27/ 00 110  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 671; 23, p. 188 E330WMD12Y (330 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 230  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 542; 23, p. 189 E348EMD06A08 (348 E. Main) 11/ 22/ 00 340  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 646; 23, p. 192 E354BED06Y05 (354 S. Beck) 10/ 18/ 00 50  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 394; 23, p. 193 E441EMD06A02 (441 E. Main) 11/ 27/ 00 63  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 667; 23, p. 201 E525EMD18Y53 (525 E. Main (High School)) 8/ 31/ 00 710  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 589; 23, p. 203 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 21 * J values shown in the contaminated samples table have been converted (if needed) for unknown or high biases using multipliers found in the EPA quick reference sheet "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination" (Ref. 19).

* For non CLP analysis, MDL supplied by EPA Contract Laboratory, corrected for soil samples (i. e. multiply MDL by 0.1 to express as mg/ kg) (Ref. 20).

** For CLP analysis, estimated Sample Quantitation Limits (SQLs) are calculated from Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs) supplied by EPA Contractor Laboratory (Ref. 21) using the following formula (assuming a final volume of 200 milliliters and a sample weight of 1 gram):

CRDL (ug/ L) x 200 ml x 1,000 ug/ mg x dilution 1,000 ml/ L x 1 g x 1,000 g/ kg x (% solids/ 100) HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 22  Level II Contaminated Samples Surface Soil, < 18 inches bgs, all samples show concentrations of lead. Samples from addresses already showing Level I contamination are not included.

Sample ID Date Concentration of lead (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

E004EHD06Y (4 E. Hannifin) 10/ 4/ 00 650  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 346; 23, p. 6 E014WMD18Y (14 W. Main) 11/ 4/ 00 1,200  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 551; 23, p. 9 E018WAD06L02 (18 W. Arlington) 10/ 3/ 00 840  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 366; 23, p. 13 E025WLD06Y (25 W. Leadville) 9/ 14/ 00 670  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 204; 23, p. 18 E031CHD12Y (31 N. Church) 9/ 11/ 00 1,300  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 130; 23, p. 27 E036SHD06Y (36 Shriver) 11/ 14/ 00 1,000  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 556; 23, p. 30 E065IOD06L03 (65 W. Iron & O'Conner) 11/ 7/ 00 770  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 480; 23, p. 56 E066CED06Y (66 N. Center) 10/ 2/ 00 1,000  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 336; 23, p. 57 E071CHD06L02 (71 N. Church) 9/ 11/ 00 800  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 137; 23, p. 62 E080CED12Y (80 N. Center) 10/ 2/ 00 680  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 337; 23, p. 70 E102JAD06A (102 Jarvis) 10/ 26/ 00 810  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 434; 23, p. 85 Sample ID Date Concentration of lead (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 23 E123CLD06Y (123 N. Clark) 10/ 19/ 00 2,100  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 397; 23, p. 93 E127WLD06Y (127 W. Leadville) 11/ 3/ 00 1,500  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 543; 23, p. 97 E135HAD06Y01 (135 S. Haulage) 10/ 25/ 00 1,100  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 413; 23, p. 104 E142IOD06Y (142 W. Iron & O'Conner) 10/ 20/ 00 640  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 403; 23, p. 107 E146RID06Y01 (146 W. Richens) 10/ 12/ 00 730  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 351; 23, p. 109 E148CHD12Y (148 N. Church) 9/ 12/ 00 630  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 143; 23, p. 110 E182DED12Y (182 W. Deprizin) 10/ 13/ 00 700  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 358; 23, p. 125 E183WMD06Y (183 W. Main) 11/ 1/ 00 3,500  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 507; 23, p. 126 E201JAD06Y (201 Jarvis) 9/ 26/ 00 880  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., p. 314; 23, p. 134 E276ELD12Y01 (276 E. Leadville) 9/ 7/ 00 600  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 88; 23, p. 160 E277WLD06L (277 W. Leadville) 11/ 4/ 00 1,000  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 497; 23, p. 162 E295WMD12Y (295 W. Main) 11/ 6/ 00 710  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 604; 23, p. 175 Sample ID Date Concentration of lead (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 24 E310WLD12Y (310 W. Leadville) 11/ 3/ 00 930  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 545; 23, p. 182 E337RRD06Y (337 W. Railroad) 10/ 17/ 00 770  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 388; 23, p. 191 EM SO 16 (MHET73) (385 Evans Way) 7/ 5/ 00 1070  0. 65** Ref. 6, p. 20, App. F, p. 65 * J values shown in the contaminated samples table have been converted (if needed) for unknown or high biases using multipliers found in the EPA quick reference sheet "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination" (Ref. 19).

* For non CLP analysis, MDL supplied by EPA Contract Laboratory, corrected for soil samples (i. e. multiply MDL by 0.1 to express as mg/ kg) (Ref. 20).

** For CLP analysis, estimated Sample Quantitation Limits (SQLs) are calculated from Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs) supplied by EPA Contractor Laboratory (Ref. 21) using the following formula (assuming a final volume of 200 milliliters and a sample weight of 1 gram):

CRDL (ug/ L) x 200 ml x 1,000 ug/ mg x dilution 1,000 ml/ L x 1 g x 1,000 g/ kg x (% solids/ 100)

 Additional Observed Contamination Samples HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 25 Sample ID Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

E016WID06Y (16 W. Wild) 11/ 11/ 00 63  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 616; 23, p. 12 E037LCD12L (37 N. Last Chance) 11/ 24/ 00 280  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 652; 23, p. 31 E063EAD06Y01 (63 E. Arlington) 11/ 01/ 00 46  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 598; 23, p. 54 E066MCD06L (66 S. McChrystal) 11/ 20/ 00 190  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 640; 23, p. 58 E067LCD18L (67 N. Last Chance) 11/ 24/ 00 150  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 654; 23, p. 60 E076RID06L (76 W. Richens) 10/ 13/ 00 870  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 148, App. D., p. 355; 23, p. 68 E090TSD06L18 (90 T. Street) 11/ 25/ 00 490  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 660; 23, p. 76 E096WMD06L02 (96 W. Main) 11/ 04/ 00 260  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 567; 23, p. 78 E099MCD06Y01 (99 S. McChrystal) 11/ 20/ 00 220  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 678; 23, p. 80 E100EMD12S (100 E. Main) 9/ 28/ 00 88  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 149, App. D., p. 299; 23, p. 81 E131WLD06L01 (131 W. Leadville) 11/ 03/ 00 94  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 517; 23, p. 100 E155BUD06D01 (155 N. Butler) 11/ 06/ 00 52  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 605; 23, p. 114 Sample ID Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 26 E160LCD06L (160 N. Last Chance) 11/ 29/ 00 64  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., p. 677; 23, p. 115 E174GOD12L (174 E. Godiva) 10/ 20/ 00 69 J  0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 151, App. D., pp. 376, 377, 400; 23, p. 121 E201DED12L01 (201 W. Deprizin) 11/ 08/ 00 170 J 98 0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 152, App. D., pp. 464, 486; 23, p. 133 E215WMD18D (215 W. Main) 11/ 21/ 00 890  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 644; 23, p. 138 E244WMD06L (244 W. Main) 11/ 02/ 00 710  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 447; 23, p. 149 E245WLD12L (245 W. Leadville) 11/ 03/ 00 300  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 519; 23, p. 150 E261DED06L (261 W. Deprizin) 11/ 07/ 00 200 J 114 0.2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., pp. 464, 476; 23, p. 156 E265WLD06L02 (265 W. Leadville) 11/ 04/ 00 67  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 494; 23, p. 157 E275WMD12D (275 W. Main) 11/ 21/ 00 340  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 645; 23, p. 158 E282WAD06L (282 W. Arlington) 10/ 28/ 00 270  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 154, App. D., p. 439; 23, p. 164 E285WMD06Y (285 W. Main) 11/ 2/ 00 800  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 541; 23, p. 167 E294WMD18L (294 W. Main) 11/ 02/ 00 680  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 448; 23, p. 172 Sample ID Date Concentration of arsenic (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 27 E295DED06L (295 W. Deprizin) 9/ 15/ 00 78  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 436; 23, p. 173 E296WMD06L (296 W. Main) 11/ 02/ 00 180  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 514; 23, p. 177 E332EMD06L (332 E. Main) 11/ 21/ 00 140  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 641; 23, p. 190 E370EVD18L (370 W. Evans) 11/ 24/ 00 260  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 653; 23, p. 194 E380EVD06L (380 W. Evans) 11/ 24/ 00 91  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 650; 23, p. 195 E390EVD12L (390 W. Evans) 11/ 24/ 00 89  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 651; 23, p. 196 E391MAD06A01 (391 Maccey) 11/ 20/ 00 1,000  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 639; 23, p. 197 E402MAD06L (402 Maccey) 11/ 20/ 00 270  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 638; 23, p. 198 E421WMD06Y (421 W. Main) 11/ 28/ 00 370  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 675; 23, p. 199 E423EMD06L01 (423 E. Main) 11/ 21/ 00 360  0. 2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 156, App. D., p. 642; 23, p. 200 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 28 Sample ID Date Concentration of lead (mg/ kg) MDL* (mg/ kg) Reference Value Conversion*

E002IOD06L01 (2 Iron and O'Conner) 9/ 26/ 00 800  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 145, App. D., p. 362; 23, p. 5 E046SHD06L (46 Shriver) 11/ 17/ 00 980  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 146, App. D., p. 561; 23, p. 41 E052CFD06L02 (52 Chief) 11/ 01/ 00 990  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 446; 23, p. 46 E121GOD06L (121 E. Godiva) 10/ 26/ 00 1,400  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 150, App. D., p. 415; 23, p. 92 E220WAD06L (220 W. Arlington) 11/ 07/ 00 1,000  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 504; 23, p. 140 E241DED06L (241 W. Deprizin) 11/ 07/ 00 1,300  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 153, App. D., p. 478; 23, p. 147 E301WMD06D (301 W. Main) 11/ 22/ 00 1,200  2 Refs. 14, Table 8, p. 155, App. D., p. 649; 23, p. 179 * J values shown in the contaminated samples table have been converted (if needed) using multipliers found in the EPA quick reference sheet "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination" (Ref. 19)

* For non CLP analysis, MDL supplied by EPA Contract Laboratory, corrected for soil samples (i. e. multiply MDL by 0.1 to express as mg/ kg) (Ref. 20).

Attribution A comparison of soil samples to background samples collected during the 2000 SI sampling resulted in the delineation of an area of arsenic and lead contaminated soils encompassing 6,608,997.26 square feet after subtracting the paved area found within the areas of contamination (Ref. 16). The area of contaminated soils was delineated by comparing the site soil samples to the background arsenic concentration of 14.7 mg/ kg and lead background of 198 J mg/ kg (Ref. 6) (see also the table on page 17 of this document record). HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 29 The mining district of Tintic was organized in the spring of 1870 (Ref. 10, p. 613). Development of the district was slow due to the lack of transportation from the mine sites. It was not economical to ship the lower grade ores, so milling and smelting operations were developed near the mines (Ref. 11, p. 105). These mills concentrated ores for shipping.

Between 1872 and 1917, a total of 14 mills may have been operated in the Tintic District. Only four significant mills have been identified in the immediate area surrounding Eureka. These four locations are the Bullion Beck Mill; Eureka Hill Mill; the Utah Mineral Concentrating Company experimental mill and the Chief flotation mill; and the mills at May Day, Godiva, and Uncle Sam, which are three small collocated mills that are treated as one mill in the SI Work Plan (Ref. 7).

The Bullion Beck Mill was built in 1894 and operated until 1898. It consisted of a roller mill and a concentrating plant with a daily capacity of 200 tons (Refs. 10, p. 613; 9, p. 405). The Eureka Hill Mill was a 100 stamp mill with a daily capacity of 250 tons (Ref. 11, p. 116). There were a few historic mills constructed around the Chief mine. The Utah Mineral Concentrating Company built an experimental mill east of the Chief No. 1 shaft in 1914. This mill processed low grade ores from various parts of the Tintic District, and especially from the Chief mine. This mill had a capacity of 100 tons of ore a day and closed in 1916 (Ref. 9, p. 406). In 1924, the Chief mine constructed a flotation mill east of its No. 1 shaft and west of the experimental mill. This mill processed ore from the Chief's main property as well as the old Eureka Hill Mill dump that Chief Consolidated owned as of 1922 (Ref. 12, p. 140). In 1929, this mill had a capacity of 168 tons per day (Ref. 13, p. 162). Mills were also constructed by individual mines at or near the May Day, Godiva, and Uncle Sam mines for the reduction of lower grade ores. The May Day Mill was completed in 1900 and by 1907 its daily capacity was 65 tons (Ref. 11, pp. 107, 116). In 1905, a concentration mill was completed on the Godiva property. The Uncle Sam Mill, completed in either 1903 or 1905, processed ore from its respective mine (Refs. 9, p. 405; 11, p. 116; 12, p. 86). Production values could not be found for these mills, but by 1912, the May Day Mill was the only mill still operating in the Tintic District (Ref. 12, p. 86).

A number of smelters have also operated in the Tintic District over the years. However, none were very successful nor operated for any substantial length of time. The reasons for the lack of success were the refractory nature of the ore and the lack of water in the district (Refs. 9, page 403; 10, p. 614). Water was eventually supplied by wells sunk near Homansville, about 2.5 miles east, and a pipeline was run to Mammoth from Cherry Creek, 18 miles distant. The closest smelter to the town of Eureka was erected at Homansville. This smelter operated for approximately one year and produced only several hundred tons of lead bullion before closing (Ref. 11, p. 114). The subsequent lowering of smelting rates and the improvements in transportation made it more profitable for the mining companies to ship to the smelters near Salt Lake City (Ref. 11, p. 115).

Multiple tailings piles associated with milling activities and waste rock piles associated with mining activities are located in and around Eureka (Ref. 6, p. 6, Figure 3). Seven of these piles lie south of Main Street (Highway 6) and three piles lie to the west of Highway 6, at the western end of Eureka (Refs. 15, p. 1; 6, pp. 5, 6, 7). The UDEQ collected samples from these waste piles as part of the SI in July 2000. Analytical data from this sampling event indicate the presence of elevated concentrations of metals in the piles, including arsenic at concentrations as great as 1,460 J mg/ kg (MHET86) and lead at concentrations as great as 47,800 J mg/ kg (MHET85) (Ref. 6, pp. 6 through 11, Table 3, Figures 3 and 4). Homes exist within 200 feet of some of these waste piles (Ref. 6, p. 6).

The UDEQ collected 22 soil samples from the Eureka area in 2000 (Ref. 6, p. 1). Soil samples were collected from residential areas, from the Tintic High School and Eureka Elementary Schools, and HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 30 adjacent to mill sites. These samples were analyzed for total metals and indicated the presence of arsenic and lead concentrations as great as 1,030 mg/ kg (MHET76) and 29,300 mg/ kg (MHET76), respectively (Ref .6, Fig. 4, Table 3, p. 3, App. F, p. 95). Other total metal analytes that were recorded in soils at levels greater than three times background included calcium, zinc, cadmium, silver, copper, mercury, antimony, thallium, selenium, sodium, and magnesium (Reference 6, p 20 23).

A Removal Evaluation was begun in August 2000 by the BOR and EPA START contractors. Approximately 4,205 surface soil samples (from less than 18 inches bgs) were collected from accessible properties in Eureka (Ref. 14, p. 1). Analytical results from soil samples submitted to the laboratory indicate the presence of arsenic concentrations in surface soils ranging from 46 mg/ kg (lowest concentration for establishing significance above background) to a maximum of 2,100 mg/ kg, and lead concentrations up to 37,000 J mg/ kg (Refs. 14, Table 8, pp. 146, 155; App. D., pp. 252, 600, 664). This area of contamination is delineated based on a comparison of confirmation sample results to the background arsenic concentration of 14.7 mg/ kg and background lead concentration of 198 J mg/ kg collected during the SI sampling event (Ref. 6, App F., pp. 74, 101).

The methods of migration for the contamination are various. Historical flooding has occurred, which may have served to transport mine and mill wastes downgradient toward the town (Refs. 5, pp. 9, 10; 12, pp. 68, 69). Human actions also probably have served to spread contamination around the town of Eureka. Wastes from the Chief Mill milling process were allowed to flow downhill and into Eureka Gulch (Ref. 5, p. 7). In 1900, tailings ponds at the Eureka Hill Mill broke and flooded Eureka Gulch (Ref. 5, p. 5). The use of mine and mill waste as fill material around the town appears to have been widespread (Ref. 6, pp. 13, 14, 15, 18). Horse teams and wagons hauled most of the districts ore in its early days (Ref. 12, p. 37). It is likely that some of the ore carried in this manner was inadvertently lost during transportation. Aerial deposition from blowing dust, and to a lesser extent, smelting, are also potential modes of contaminant transportation (Ref. 6, p. 25).

Area of Contamination Hazardous Waste Quantity  Area: Contaminated soils Description The total area of observed soil contamination encompasses an expanse of 7,470,577.57 square feet (Ref. 16); however, of this area an estimated 861,580.31 square feet is paved (Ref. 16). Per table 5 2 of the HRS (Ref. 1) the hazardous waste quantity is determined as follows: 7,470,577.57 square feet 861,580.31 square feet = 6,608,997.26/ 34,000 = 194.38.

Source Type Units (feet 2 ) References Contaminated Soil 6,608,997.26 Ref. 16 Sum (feet 2 ): 6,608,997.26 Equation for Assigning Area Value (Table 5 2): 6,608,997.26/ 34,000 = 194.38 Assigned Area Value: 194.38 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 31 Source Type Assigned Area Value References Contaminated Soil 194.38 Ref. 1, Table 5 2; 16 Total 194.38 HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 32 5.1 RESIDENT POPULATION THREAT The property boundaries on the GIS map were generated using BOR survey data that were collected based on professional judgement, field observations (such as existing fence lines), discussions with property owners, and Eureka City Survey plat maps gathered from the Juab County Recorders Office (Ref. 16). Survey plats were then generated for each residence (Ref. 23) This information was keyed by ground control survey (base map provided to UOS by the BOR) to GIS mapping software (ArcInfo) by UOS to produce the GIS map that is Reference 16.

From a total of 247 discrete depth soil samples that were sent for laboratory confirmation (225 sent by BOR and 22 sent by UDEQ), 95 exhibited arsenic contamination at levels meeting the criteria for significance above background (Level I), and 26 met the requirements for significance above background regarding lead (Level II). These numbers do not include multiple discrete samples collected from single addresses. Only the samples with the highest recorded concentrations from these properties were used on the GIS map (Ref. 16). In addition to these Level I and Level II target samples, 41 other samples documented an observed release but were not collected from within 200 feet of a residence. These samples are also shown on the GIS map (Ref. 16).

5.1.1 LIKELIHOOD OF EXPOSURE The presence of arsenic and/ or lead contamination in concentrations meeting observed contamination requirements on residential property within 200 feet of the primary dwelling establishes a resident population threat for the site. (Ref. 1, Section 5.1, p. 51646).

Resident Population Threat Likelihood of Exposure Factor Category Value: 550 5.1.2 WASTE CHARACTERISTICS <IP_ADDRESS> Toxicity Hazardous Substance Toxicity Factor Value Reference Arsenic 10,000 Ref. 2, p. B 2 Lead 10,000 Ref. 2, p. B 13 Toxicity Factor Value: 10,000 <IP_ADDRESS> Hazardous Waste Quantity HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 33 Area Source Type Area Hazardous Waste Quantity Contaminated soil Contaminated Soil 194.38 Sum of Values: 194.38 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 (Ref 1, Table 2 6)

<IP_ADDRESS> Calculation of Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value Toxicity Factor Value: 10,000 Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Toxicity Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1,000,000 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32 (Ref. 1, Table 2 7)

5.1.3 TARGETS <IP_ADDRESS> Resident Individual Level of Contamination (Level I/ Level II): Level I There are 93 residential soil samples that exhibit Level I arsenic contamination within the Eureka Mills study area. These samples delineate an area of observed soil contamination and document the presence of Level I soil contamination at each residence. These samples were all collected on the resident individual's property and within 200 linear feet of the residence; therefore, a resident individual factor of 50 is assigned.

References: 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>, p. 51647; 16 Resident Individual Factor Value: 50 In addition to the residential soil samples that exhibit Level I arsenic contamination, there is also documented arsenic contamination within 200 feet of both the Tintic High School and Eureka Elementary School properties. Sample E525EMD18Y53 was collected from a traffic island in front of the school that is occasionally used by students (Refs. 16; 24). This sample showed an arsenic concentration of 710 mg/ kg (Ref. 14, Table 8, p. 191; 16). According to a school official, the current student population of Tintic High School is 106 (Ref. 22). Sample E055EMD06Y13 was collected from a grassy area near an administrative building to the east of the school. This sample showed an arsenic concentration of 130 J mg/ kg (Refs. 16; 14, Table 8, p. 147, App. D., p. 207; 23, p. 49). According to a school official, the current student population of Tintic High School is 107 (Ref. 25). Both of these student populations will also be included as part of the resident population (see table below).

<IP_ADDRESS> Resident Population HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 34 <IP_ADDRESS>.1 Level I Concentrations Area Sample ID Number of Residences County Multiplier No. of Residents or Students Contaminated Soil See Level I Contaminated Samples Table, pp. 13 21 of this HRS package 93 2.5 232.5 E525EMD18Y53 (High School) 106 E055EMD06Y13 (Elementary School) 107 Total 445.5 Sum of individuals subject to Level I concentrations: 445.5 Sum of individuals subject to Level I concentrations x 10: 4,455 Analyses from residential surface soil samples collected from the Eureka Mills study area indicate the presence of arsenic at levels three times the background concentration or greater, and exceeding the cancer risk screening concentration at 93 residences and two schools (Refs. 2, p. B 65; 16). U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census data (Ref. 8, p. 11) indicate that there are an average of 2.5 individuals per residence in Juab County. Based on these figures and including students from the two schools, UOS calculated a total of approximately 445.5 individuals subject to Level I arsenic concentrations. Since these individuals are subject to Level I contamination, the appropriate factor value is determined by summing the individuals subject to Level I contamination and multiplying by 10 (Ref. 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1, p. 51647) yielding a total factor value of 4,455.

Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 4,455 <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Level II Concentrations Area Sample ID Number of Residences County Multiplier Total No. of Residents HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 35 Contaminated Soil See Level II Contaminated Samples Table, pp. 22 24 of this HRS package 26 2.5 65 additional residences meeting Level II criteria (without sampling) 185 2.5 462.5 Total 527.5 There are an additional 26 residences exhibiting observed contamination for lead but cannot be considered for Level I contamination as there is no benchmark available for lead for the Soil Exposure pathway (Ref. 2). U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census data (Ref. 8, p. 11) indicate that there are an average of 2.5 individuals per residence in Juab County. Additionally, 185 residences exist within the contaminated soil boundary from which no discrete sampling data exists. All 185 of these residences are evaluated as subject to Level II contamination and are shown on the GIS Map (Ref. 16).

Sum of individuals subject to Level II concentrations: 527.5 Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 527.5 <IP_ADDRESS> Workers Telephone interviews with local school officials confirmed that the Tintic School District employs 19 full time workers and that Eureka Elementary School employs 20 full time workers (Refs. 22, 25).

Total workers: 39 Workers Factor Value: 5 (Table 5 4) <IP_ADDRESS> Resources There is no commercial agriculture, silviculture, or commercial livestock production or grazing within the area of observed contamination.

Resources Factor Value: NS <IP_ADDRESS> Terrestrial Sensitive Environments There were no terrestrial sensitive environments identified within the area of observed contamination.

Terrestrial Sensitive Environments Factor Value: NS HRS Documentation Record 04/ 20/ 01 Eureka Mills UT0002240158 36 5.2 NEARBY POPULATION THREAT The nearby population threat was not evaluated because almost all of the residents and students in the Eureka area live within the area of observed contamination. There are insufficient residents and students living outside of the observed area of contamination to significantly affect the site score.


################################################################################
################################################################################
#
# MRM2 model including Canadian studies, incl. Rudd et al.
# SSVS
################################################################################
################################################################################

# This is for the pooled model with 52 observations and local defined using
# a 30-mile threshold. Can get MRM results with original local definition using
# wetlanddataFeb2022.rda. To do this, swap lines 39 for 40, 262 for 263, and 285-6
# for 288-9.

# Preliminary housekeeping
################################################################################
# set working directory to keep file paths short
setwd('C:/Users/55338/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/Wetland MRM - R Code/')

rm(list = ls(all = TRUE)) #first, clear R's workspace
options(prompt = "R> ", digits = 4) # show 4 digits by default
options(continue=" ") #remove continuation prompt
#
set.seed(37)  #sets the random number generator so we can reproduce results
#
tic<-proc.time() #start stop watch
#
# load packages we'll need
############################
library("xtable")
library("MASS")   #for draws from the multivariate normal
library("stats")  #for draws from the gamma
library("mvtnorm")#for draws from the multivariate t
library("MCMCpack") #for draws from the inverse gamma
library("openxlsx") #to copy output to excel

################################################################################
#Load and Prepare Data
################################################################################
#
#load("./data/wetlanddataFeb2022_corrected.rda") # set 'local' = 1 for study ID 102 and 109 (the 30-mile definition case)
#load("./data/wetlanddataFeb2022.rda") # original 'local' definition

load("./data/wetlanddataJune2022_corrected.rda") # set 'local' = 1 for study ID 102 and 109 (the 30-mile definition case)
#load("./data/wetlanddataJune2022.rda") # original 'local' definition

# % contents of data
# %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# % 1   studyid         original unique study id
# % 2   obsid           original unique observation id
# % 3   lnwtp           log of wtp2021
# % 4   wlfresh         1=freshwater wetland, 0 = salt/coastal
# % 5   lnyear          log of yr of data collection - 1988
# % 6   lninc           log of inc2021
# % 7   sagulf          1 = S-Atlantic/Gulf, study involves AL,GA,SC,LA
# % 8   nema            1 = ME/mid-Atlantic, study involves DE,MD,NJ,PA,RI
# % 9   nmw             N/Mid-West, study involves KY,MI,NE,OH,WI
# % 10  CAN             1 = Canadian study
# % 11  local           f1= local scale (target pop at sub-state level)
# % 12  prov            1=provisioning function affected
# % 13  reg             1=regulating function affected
# % 14  cult            1=cultural function affected
# % 15  forest          1=forested wetland
# % 16  q0              baseline acreage
# % 17  q1              policy acreage
# % 18  volunt          1= pay mech = voluntary contribution
# % 19  lumpsum         1=single payment
# % 20  ce              choice experiment
# % 21  nrev            1=not peer-reviewed
# % 22  median          1=orig. wtp based on econometric medians
# % 23  q0alt           alternative definition of baseline acres - see notes
# % 24  q1alt           alternative definition of policy acres - see notes

# only included in 'wetlanddataFeb2022_wGeo_corrected'.
# % 25  wetdens         affected waterbody area divided by area of geographic scope
# % 26  distdec         population-weighted age distance of all CBGs (or counties) in samples area to affected water body

# note: missing values for wetdens and distdec coded as "-999"

# Drop Rudd et al
################################
# data<-subset(data,data[,1]!=128)

# Drop Kim & Petrolia 2013 observations (replaced with Petrolia & Kim 2011)
################################
data<-subset(data,data[,1]!=110)

attach(data)

# keep freshwater only
###############################
#data<-subset(data,data[,4]==1)

# define y and X
###############################
q0<-data[,16]/1000
q1<-data[,17]/1000

y<-as.matrix(data[,3]-log(q1-q0))
n<-length(y)

X<-as.matrix(cbind(rep(1,n),data[,5:15],(q0+q1)/2, data[,18:19]))
k<-ncol(X)

# % contents of X
# %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
# % 1   const           constant
# % 2   lnyear          log of yr of data collection - 1988
# % 3   lninc           log of inc2017
# % 4   sagulf          1 = S-Atlantic/Gulf, study involves AL,GA,SC,LA
# % 5   nema            1 = ME/mid-Atlantic, study involves DE,MD,NJ,PA,RI
# % 6   nmw             N/Mid-West, study involves KY,MI,NE,OH,WI
# % 7   CAN             1 = Canadian study
# % 8   local           f1= local scale (target pop at sub-state level)
# % 9   prov            1=provisioning function affected
# % 10  reg             1=regulating function affected
# % 11  cult            1=cultural function affected
# % 12  forest          1=forested wetland
# % 13  (q0+q1)/2
# % 14  volunt          1= pay mech = voluntary contribution
# % 15  lumpsum         1=single payment

k1<-13 #context-defining
k2<-2 #nuisance
k3<-9 #interactions (I checked in stata to make sure these are identified)

# Interaction terms
#########################
fresh<-data[,4] # grabs the freshwater variable
nf<-matrix(1-fresh) # uses it to create the saltwater variable and creates a matrix
int<-matrix(rep(nf,k3),nrow(nf),) # creates a matrix that will be multiplied by the 9 interaction terms

# creates a matrix of the variables to be interacted with:
# constant, lnyear, lninc, sagulf, local, prov, reg, cult, ((q0+q1)/2)
Xadd<-as.matrix(cbind(X[,1:4],X[,8:11],X[,13]))

add<-as.matrix(int*Xadd) # creates the interactions by taking the product of the two matrices.
X<-as.matrix(cbind(X,add)) # now redefines X to include the interactions

# mean check
tt<-as.matrix(colMeans(X)) #OK, identical to Matlab

# contents of augmented X
######################################################
# 1   const           constant
# 2   lnyear          log of yr of data collection - 1988
# 3   lninc           log of inc2017
# 4   sagulf          1 = S-Atlantic/Gulf, study involves AL,GA,SC,LA
# 5   nema            1 = ME/mid-Atlantic, study involves DE,MD,NJ,PA,RI
# 6   nmw             N/Mid-West, study involves KY,MI,NE,OH,WI
# 7   CAN             1 = Canadian study
# 8   local           f1= local scale (target pop at sub-state level)
# 9   prov            1=provisioning function affected
# 10  reg             1=regulating function affected
# 11  cult            1=cultural function affected
# 12  forest          1=forested wetland
# 13  (q0+q1)/2
# 14  volunt          1= pay mech = voluntary contribution
# 15  lumpsum         1=single payment

# 16  const*salt
# 17  lnyear*salt
# 18  lninc*salt
# 19  sagulf*salt
# 20  local*salt
# 21  prov*salt
# 22  reg*salt
# 23  cult*salt
# 24  (q0+q1)/2* salt

k<-ncol(X)

Xf<-X[,1:k1] # context variables
Me<-X[,(k1+1):(k1+k2)] # nuisance variables
Z<-X[,(k1+k2+1):k] # interactions

################################################################################
# Starting values, priors, and tuners
################################################################################

r1<-500000  #burn-ins
r2<-100000  #keepers
R<-r1+r2

# generic OLS to get starting values
####################################
bols<-solve((t(X)) %*% X) %*% (t(X) %*% y)
e<-y-X%*%bols
SSR<-(t(e)%*%e)
s2<-(t(e)%*%e)/(n-k)

#SSVS tuners
####################################
p<-0.5 #prior probability that interaction term comes from a "healthy" distribution
t2<-0.01 #variance of degenerate (close-to-zero) distribution
c2<-10/t2 #c2 * t2 = 10 = variance of the healthy distribution

#PRIORS for coefficients:
##########################
#for beta:
mu0<-rep(0,k) #prior mean for all coefficients
Vx<-as.matrix(rep(1,k1+k2)*(c2*t2)) #prior variance for fixed elements of X

gamvec<-as.matrix(rbinom(k3,1,p)) #draw a 0/1 value for each interaction coefficient
int<-gamvec*c2*t2 + (1-gamvec)*t2 #set starting variance for each interaction term
dvec<-as.vector(rbind(Vx,int)) #combine prior variances for main effects and interactions
# note: "as.vector" is crucial here, else diag() EXTRACTS a diagonal, instead of creating a diag. matrix
# stupid R-ism...
V0<-diag(dvec) #looks OK, k by k, will be updated in the GS

#for sig2:
#######################################
v0<-1/2
tau0<-1/2

# STARTING VALUES
######################
betadraw<-bols
sig2draw<-as.vector(s2)

################################################################################
# call Gibbs Sampler function and run sampler
################################################################################

source("./functions/gs_MRM2_ssvs.R")  #call the function

int<-gs_MRM2_ssvs(X,y,k1,k2,k3,k,n,r1,r2,mu0,Vx,V0,betadraw,v0,tau0,sig2draw,p,c2,t2)
# run the sampler - you should see a flurry of counters in the console,
# in steps of 1000's

betamat<-int[[1]]
sig2mat<-int[[2]]
phimat<-int[[3]]

################################################################################
# get convergence diagnostics
################################################################################

M<-rbind(betamat,sig2mat)

source("./functions/kdiagnostics_greater0.R")  #call the function
diagnostics=kdiagnostics_greater0(M) #apply the function

################################################################################
# output table
################################################################################
# coefficients, followed by sig2
#################################
metaout_df<-data.frame(rbind(diagnostics[1:(k1+k2),],diagnostics[(k+1),]))
colnames(metaout_df)<-c("post. mean","post.std","p(>0)","nse","IEF","M*","CD")
rownames(metaout_df)<- c("const","lnyear","lninc","sagulf","nema","nmw", "CAN","local",
                         "prov","reg","cult","forest","(q0+q1/2)","volunt","lumpsum","sig2")

# includes interaction terms (for tables)
metaout_df_tbl<-data.frame(diagnostics[1:(k+1),])
colnames(metaout_df_tbl)<-c("post. mean","post.std","p(>0)","nse","IEF","M*","CD")
rownames(metaout_df_tbl)<- c("const","lnyear","lninc","sagulf","nema","nmw", "CAN","local",
                  "prov","reg","cult","forest","(q0+q1/2)","volunt","lumpsum",
                  "const*salt", "lnyear*salt", "lninc*salt", "sagulf*salt",
                  "local*salt", "prov*salt", "reg*salt", "cult*salt", "(q0+q1)/2*salt",
                  "sig2")
#write.xlsx(metaout_df_tbl,"./output using Feb22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_main_tbl_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)
#write.xlsx(metaout_df_tbl,"./output using Feb22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_main_tbl_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)

#write.xlsx(metaout_df_tbl,"./output using June22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_main_tbl_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)
write.xlsx(metaout_df_tbl,"./output using June22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_main_tbl_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)

#inclusion probabilities
############################
phiout_df<-data.frame(rowMeans(phimat))
colnames(phiout_df)<-c("prob(in)")
rownames(phiout_df)<- c("const*salt","lnyear*salt","lninc*salt",
                        "sagulf*salt","local*salt","prov*salt",
                        "reg*salt","cult*salt","(q0+q1)/2* salt")

################################################################################
# save your output for further processing
################################################################################
#save(X,y,betamat,sig2mat,phimat,metaout_df,phiout_df,file = "./output using Feb22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_v2.rda")
#save(X,y,betamat,sig2mat,phimat,metaout_df,phiout_df,file = "./output using Feb22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_v2.rda")

save(X,y,betamat,sig2mat,phimat,metaout_df,phiout_df,file = "./output using June22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_v2.rda")
#save(X,y,betamat,sig2mat,phimat,metaout_df,phiout_df,file = "./output using June22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_v2.rda")

################################################################################
# OR send directly to excel
################################################################################
#write.xlsx(metaout_df,"./output using Feb22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_main_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)
#write.xlsx(phiout_df,"./output using Feb22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_phi_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)

#write.xlsx(metaout_df,"./output using Feb22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_main_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)
#write.xlsx(phiout_df,"./output using Feb22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_phi_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)

write.xlsx(metaout_df,"./output using June22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_main_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)
write.xlsx(phiout_df,"./output using June22 corrected data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_30mile_phi_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)

#write.xlsx(metaout_df,"./output using June22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_main_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)
#write.xlsx(phiout_df,"./output using June22 data/MRM2_CAN_52obs_SSVS_phi_v2.xlsx", row.names=TRUE)

proc.time()-tic #capture run time


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23576-23577]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10064]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1997-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Discount-Type Adjustment for Negotiated Rate Agreements to
be effective 5/13/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1998-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Discount-Type Adjustment for Negotiated Rate
Agreements to be effective 5/13/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1999-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per
154.204: Discount-Type Adjustment for Negotiated Rate Agreements to be
effective 5/13/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2000-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Amendment to Negotiated Rate Agreement Filing--Tenaska
38581-1 to be effective 4/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2001-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Cameron Interstate Pipeline Compliance Tariff Filing April
13, 2011 to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2002-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Amendment to Negotiated Rate Agreement--Oneok 54951-44 to
be effective 4/14/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-2003-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
154.204: EPC Correction to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110413-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 25, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 14, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10064 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P