&EPA
United States
EnviroimnU Protection
Agency
Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk
Assessments for Selected Case Studies
(Draft Report)
Volume II. Appendices
-------
-------
EPA-452/D-07-001b
July 2007
Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments for
Selected Case Studies (Draft Report)
Volume II. Appendices
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and approved for publication. This draft
document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with ICF International (through Contract
No. EP-D-06-115). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EPA or ICF International. Mention of
trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. This document is being provided to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee for their review, and made available to the public for comment. Any questions or
comments concerning this document should be addressed to Zachary Pekar, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-06, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711 (email: pekar.zachary@epa.gov).
-------
PREFACE
This document is part of the Environmental Protections Agency's (EPA's) review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead (Pb). As part of that review, the
Agency has prepared the Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (the "CD", October, 2006;
available at http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_cd.html), a draft Staff Paper
(Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper -First Draft., December, 2006; available at
http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_sp.html), and a draft technical report of pilot
phase risk assessments (Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments and Ecological
Risk Assessment for Selected Areas, December, 2006; available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/sjb crtd.html). These documents were developed
under our historic approach for reviewing NAAQS, which has included the completion of a
policy assessment, in the form of a Staff Paper, and of any related risk and exposure assessments
(risk/exposure reports) prior to development of notices of proposed and final rulemakings. The
policy assessment, considering the adequacy of the current standard and policy alternatives, is
intended to help "bridge the gap" between the scientific assessment contained in the CD and the
judgments required of the EPA Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to retain
or revise the NAAQS.
The Agency is now moving forward to implement a new, improved process for
conducting NAAQS reviews (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/) and is transitioning to that new
process during the course of the Pb NAAQS review, beginning with this document (the
risk/exposure report). Under the new process, the risk/exposure report precedes the policy
assessment (rather than accompanying it), and the policy assessment is included in an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) rather than a Staff Paper. Accordingly, it is the
Agency's intention that the results of the assessments described in the final risk/exposure
assessment report for Pb will be considered, in combination with an evaluation of the policy
implications of the key studies and scientific information contained in the CD and ambient Pb
analyses, in the development of the policy assessment to be published in the Federal Register in
an ANPR this fall.1
Volume I of this document has been drafted by EPA staff, and the appendices (contained
in Volume II) have been drafted by EPA staff, in conjunction with ICF International (through
Contract No. EP-D-06-115). This draft document is being provided to the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) for their review, and is being made available to the public for
1 EPA's preference is to issue the policy assessment as part of an ANPR and not in the form of a final Staff
Paper. EPA is currently, however, under a court order to issue a final Staff Paper and has moved for modification of
that order to allow EPA to issue an ANPR in place of a final Staff Paper. In the event EPA's motion is not granted,
EPA intends to fully comply with the existing order.
-------
comment. A final version of this document will be prepared taking into consideration CAS AC
and public comments.
This document is limited in focus to the human exposure and risk assessments. As stated
in the December draft Staff Paper, a full-scale ecological risk assessment is not being performed
for this review. The pilot phase ecological risk assessment is presented in the December 2006
draft technical report of pilot phase risk assessments and discussed in the December 2006 draft
Staff Paper. Accordingly, the focus for this review with regard to the policy assessment for the
secondary standard will be on what we have learned from the pilot phase risk assessment, in
addition to the science assessment in the CD.
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Sources, Emissions and Air Quality in the U.S. with Particular Focus
on Urban Areas
Appendix B. Background on Case Studies
Appendix C. Media Concentrations for the General Urban Case Study
Appendix D. Media Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Appendix E. Media Concentrations for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Appendix F. Pb in Outdoor Soil and Dust near Roadways
Appendix G. Approaches for Estimating Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
Appendix H. Blood Lead (PbB) Prediction Methods, Models, and Inputs
Appendix I. Blood Lead (PbB) Modeling Estimates
Appendix J. Performance Evaluation of Blood Pb (PbB) Models
Appendix K. Risk (IQ Decrement) Estimates
Appendix L. Sensitivity Analysis Approach and Results
Appendix M. Qualitative Discussion of Sources of Uncertainty and Quantitative Analysis of
Two Design Features
July 2007
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 2007 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 2007
Appendix A. Sources, Emissions and Air Quality in the U.S.
with Particular Focus on Urban Areas
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
-------
A. SOURCES, EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY IN THE U.S. WITH
PARTICULAR FOCUS ON URBAN AREAS A-l
A.I SOURCES AND EMISSIONS A-l
A. 1.1 Types of Pb Sources A-2
A. 1.1.1 Stationary Sources A-2
A. 1.1.2 Mobile Sources A-4
A. 1.1.3 Resuspension of Previously Deposited Pb and other Sources A-7
A. 1.2 Number and Geographic Distribution of Sources A-8
A. 1.3 Largest Pb Point Sources in the 2002 NEI A-l 1
A.I.4 Data Sources, Limitations and Confidence A-12
A.2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DAT A A-15
A.2.1 AmbientPb Measurement Methods A-15
A.2.1.1 Sampling Frequency A-16
A.2.1.2 Inlet Design A-16
A.2.1.3 Volume of Air Sampled A-16
A.2.1.4 Sample Analysis A-l7
A.2.2 Pb-TSP A-17
A.2.2.1 Monitor Locations A-17
A.2.2.2 Data Analysis Details A-19
A.2.2.2.1 Screening Criteria A-20
A.2.2.2.2 Urban Classifications A-20
A.2.2.2.3 Source-oriented Categorizations A-21
A.2.2.2.4 Population Associations A-22
A.2.2.2.5 Statistical Metrics A-23
A.2.2.3 Current Concentrations A-23
A.2.2.3.1 All Sites A-23
A.2.2.3.2 Source-oriented Sites A-29
A.2.2.3.3 Urban Sites A-38
A.2.3 Pb-PMio A-43
A.2.3.1 Data Analysis Details A-43
A.2.3.2 Current Concentrations A-44
A.2.4 Pb-PM2.5 A-49
A.2.4.1 Data Analysis Details A-51
A.2.4.2 Current Concentrations A-52
REFERENCES A-55
July 2007 A-i Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Tables
Table A-l. Source categories emitting greater than 5 tpy of Pb in the 2002 NEI A-3
Table A-2. Lead emissions from leaded aviation gas use in the 2002 NEI version 3.1 A-6
Table A-3. Distribution of point sources within the 2002 NEI and associated estimated
emissions. A-10
Table A-4. Point Sources with Pb emissions in 2002 NEI greater than or equal to 5 tpy A-12
Table A-5. Comparison of numbers of sites that exceed various Pb-TSP levels using different
averaging times or forms, 2003-2005 A-29
List of Figures
Figure A-l. Airports in NEI 2002 with piston-engine aircraft activity where more than
one ton of Pb is emitted annually A-7
Figure A-2. Emissions density of all Pb sources in the 2002 NEI A-9
Figure A-3. Geographic distribution of point sources with >1 tpy Pb emissions in
2002 NEI A-10
Figure A-4. Emissions density of mobile sources of Pb (general aviation gasoline) in
2002 NEI A-ll
Figure A-5. Pb-TSP monitoring sites: 2003-2005 A-18
Figure A-6. Change in the number of Pb-TSP monitoring sites from 1980 to 2005 A-19
Figure A-7. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at the 189 Pb-TSP monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-24
Figure A-8. Percentages of Pb-TSP monitored populations residing in areas exceeding
various concentrations (for 3 different statistics) A-25
Figure A-9. Pb-TSP annual means (for all sites), 2003-2005 A-26
Figure A-10. Pb-TSP maximum quarterly means (for all sites), 2003-2005 A-27
Figure A-ll. Maximum monthly Pb-TSP means (all sites), 2003-2005 A-28
Figure A-12. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at source-oriented monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-31
Figure A-13. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at non-source-oriented monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-32
Figure A-14. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at monitoring sites near previous large emission sources, 2003-2005 A-33
Figure A-l 5. Distribution of Pb-TSP annual mean concentrations at different categories
of sites, 2003-2005 A-34
July 2007 A-ii Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Figure A-16. Distribution of Pb-TSP maximum quarterly mean concentrations at different
categories of sites, 2003-2005 A-35
Figure A-17. Distribution of Pb-TSP maximum monthly mean concentrations at different
categories of sites, 2003-2005 A-36
Figure A-18. Medians, means, and population-weighted means for 3 site-level statistics.... A-37
Figure A-19. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-39
Figure A-20. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites located in metropolitan areas (CBSAs) with
1 million or more population, 2003-2005 A-40
Figure A-21. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites located in CBSA's with less than 1 million
population, 2003-2005 A-41
Figure A-22. Percentages of Pb-TSP urban monitored populations residing in areas
(represented by 3 different statistics) exceeding various levels A-42
Figure A-23. Pb-PMio (NATTS) monitoring sites network A-43
Figure A-24. Distribution of Pb-PMio concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at all Pb monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-45
Figure A-25. Distribution of Pb-PMio concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-46
Figure A-26. Distribution of Pb-PMio concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites in CBSAs of >1 million population, 2003-2005 A-47
Figure A-27. Pb-PMio annual means (for all sites), 2003-2005 A-48
Figure A-28. Pb-PMio maximum quarterly means (for all sites), 2003-2005 A-49
Figure A-29. Pb-PM2.5 (STN) monitoring sites A-50
Figure A-30. Pb-PM2.5 (IMPROVE) monitoring sites A-51
Figure A-31. Distribution of Pb-PM2.s concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at all Pb-PM2.5 monitoring sites, 2003-2005 A-53
Figure A-32. Pb-PM2.5 annual means (for all sites), 2003-2005 A-54
List of Attachments
Attachment A-l. Largest Stationary Source Categories for Pb in the 2002 NEI A-57
Attachment A-2. Additional Details of Air Quality Analyses A-61
July 2007 A-iii Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
1 A. SOURCES, EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY IN THE U.S. WITH
2 PARTICULAR FOCUS ON URBAN AREAS
3 Due to its physical and chemical properties, lead (Pb) exists in the environment
4 predominantly in solid form. Consequently upon emission into the air, Pb deposits onto surfaces
5 or exists in the atmosphere as a component of atmospheric aerosol, and usually in the form of
6 various Pb compounds (CD1, Section 2.1). The National Ambient Air Quality Standard
7 (NAAQS) for Pb pertains to the Pb content of all Pb compounds that may be emitted to air.
8 The major environmental transport pathway for anthropogenic Pb is the atmosphere, in
9 which it can also undergo secondary dispersal via the deposition and resuspension of particles
10 containing Pb (CD, p 2-52 and Section 2.3.1). Airborne Pb particles generally have a bimodal
11 distribution with the greater mass of Pb found in the fine fraction (CD, p. 2-52), for which
12 deposition is slower and less efficient than for larger particles (CD, p. 2-59). Accordingly Pb
13 may be widely dispersed (CD, pp. 2-52, 3-3). Wet and dry deposition are the ultimate paths by
14 which Pb particles are removed from the atmosphere.
15 This appendix describes information on sources and emissions of Pb to the atmosphere
16 (Section A. 1), and Pb air monitoring data (Section A.2).
17 A.1 SOURCES AND EMISSIONS
18 The purpose of this section is to summarize available information on sources of Pb into
19 the ambient air. The section does not provide a comprehensive list of all sources of Pb, nor does
20 it provide estimates of emission rates or emission factors for all source categories. Rather, the
21 discussion here is intended to identify the larger sources, either on a national or local scale, and
22 provide some characterization of their emissions and distribution within the U.S. The primary
23 data source for this discussion is the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2002 (USEPA,
24 2007a). As a result of Clean Air Act requirements, emissions standards promulgated for many
25 source categories since then are projected to result in much lower emissions at the current time or
26 in the near future.
27 It is noted that the Pb emissions estimates in the NEI, and presented in this Appendix, are
28 a mixture of estimates specific to Pb (regardless of the compound in which it may have been
29 emitted) and estimates specific to the Pb compounds emitted. That is, emissions estimates for
30 some of the point sources are in terms of mass of Pb compounds, whereas the non point source
31 and mobile source emissions estimates are in terms of mass of the Pb only. For the point
32 sources, approximately 80% are reported as mass of Pb and most of the other 20% are reported
1 As in Volume I, the Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (USEPA, 2006) is abbreviated here as "CD".
July 2007 A-l Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 as mass of Pb compounds. The high molecular weight of Pb (as compared to elements with
2 which it is associated in Pb compounds), however, reduces the impact of this reporting
3 inconsistency.
4 The larger categories of Pb sources are presented in Section A. 1.1, while Section A. 1.2
5 describes the number of and geographic distribution of Pb sources and associated emissions.
6 Section A. 1.3 describes the largest Pb stationary sources in the NEI. Lastly, the data sources,
7 limitations of and confidence in the Pb emissions and source information presented here is
8 discussed in Section A. 1.4.
9 A.1.1 Types of Pb Sources
10 Lead is emitted from a wide variety of source types, some of which are small individually
11 but the cumulative emissions of which are large, and some for which the opposite is true. The
12 categories of Pb sources estimated via the 2002 NEI to emit -as a category- more than 5 tons per
13 year (tpy) of Pb are listed in Table A-l. The main sources of emissions in the 2002 NEI are
14 comprised primarily of combustion-related emissions and industrial process-related emissions.
15 Point source emissions account for about 66% of the national Pb emissions in the 2002 NEI. The
16 point source emissions are roughly split between combustion and industrial processes, while
17 mobile, non-road sources (general aviation aircraft - leaded fuel) account for 29%.
18 A.I.1.1 Stationary Sources
19 Table A-l presents emissions estimates for stationary sources grouped into descriptive
20 categories. Presence and relative position of a source category on this list does not necessarily
21 provide an indication of the significance of the emissions from individual sources within the
22 source category. A source category, for example, may be composed of many small (i.e., low-
23 emitting) sources, or of just a few very large (high-emitting) sources. Such aspects of a source
24 category, which may influence its potential for human and ecological impacts, are included in the
25 short descriptions of the largest stationary source categories presented in Attachment A-l. The
26 relative sizes of stationary sources represented in the NEI, and the geographic distribution of the
27 larger sources are presented in Sections A. 1.2 and A. 1.3.
July 2007 A-2 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Table A-l. Source categories emitting greater than 5 tpy of Pb in the 2002 NEI.
| Source Category Description | Total Emissions (tpy)
ALL CATEGORIES 1711
Mobile Sources 495
Industrial/Commercial/ Institutional Boilers & Process Heaters 190
Utility Boilers 176
Iron and Steel Foundries 110
Solvent Use 63
Primary Lead Smelting 59
Hazardous Waste Incineration 47
Secondary Lead Smelting 46
Municipal Waste Combustors 33
Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing 32
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing 32
Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 30
Mining 27
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 27
Secondary Nonferrous Metals 24
Primary Copper Smelting 22
Portland Cement Manufacturing 22
Primary Metal Products Manufacturing 20
Mineral Products 11
Sewage Sludge Incineration 10
Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 10
Incineration 10
Pulp & Paper Production 9
Secondary Aluminum Production 9
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 9
Secondary Copper Smelting 8
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 8
Industrial Machinery and Equipment 7
Nonferrous Foundries, Not Elsewhere Classified 7
Ferroalloys Production 7
Residential Heating 6
Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing 6
Electrical and Electronics Equipment Manufacturing 6
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 6
Miscellaneous Metal Parts & Products (Surface Coating) 5
Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, Cadmium and Beryllium 5
Coke Ovens 5
Plastics Products 5
July 2007 A-3 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 A.I.1.2 Mobile Sources
2 Thirty-five years ago, combustion of leaded gasoline was the main contributor of Pb to
3 the air. In the early 1970s, EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the Pb content in
4 gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic
5 converters. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles after December 1995.
6 Currently, Pb is still added to aviation gasoline (commonly referred to as avgas) used in most
7 piston-engine aircraft and some types of race cars. Lead emissions from the combustion of avgas
8 are discussed below. Vehicles used in racing are not regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air
9 Act and can therefore use alkyl-Pb additives to boost octane. EPA has formed a voluntary
10 partnership with NASCAR with the goal of permanently removing alkyl-Pb from racing fuels
11 used in the Nextel Cup, Busch and Craftsman Truck Series (CD, p. 2-50). In January of 2006,
12 NASCAR agreed to switch to unleaded fuel in its race cars and trucks beginning in 2008.
13 NASCAR initiated this switch in 2007.
14 Lead is also present as a trace contaminant in gasoline and diesel fuel and is a component
15 of lubricating oil (CD, pp. 2-45 to 2-48). Inventory estimates from these sources are not
16 currently available. Additional mobile sources of Pb include brake wear, tire wear, and loss of
17 Pb wheel weights (CD, pp. 2-48 to 2-50). Emission rates for Pb from brake wear have been
18 published but inventory estimates have not yet been developed from these data (Schauer et al.,
19 2006). Robust estimates of Pb from tire wear and wheel weights are not available. Currently, Pb
20 from combustion of leaded avgas is the only mobile source of Pb included in the 2002 NEI.
21 Emissions of Pb in the 2002 NEI from the use of avgas are estimated to be 491 tons
22 which comprises 29% of the national inventory. The majority of this leaded avgas is commonly
23 referred to as 100 Low Lead (100LL) which contains 0.56 g of Pb per liter (2.12 g Pb per gallon)
24 (ChevronTexaco, 2005). In 2002 approximately 280,644,000 gallons of avgas were supplied in
25 the U.S. (DOE, 2006).
26 Lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft in the NEI are allocated to 3,410 airports
27 (USEPA, 2007b). These Pb emissions are allocated to each airport in proportion to the operation
28 of piston-engine aircraft at each airport as a fraction of the national piston-engine aircraft
29 activity. There are many small airports not included in the NEI and estimates for the piston-
30 engine activity at these airports is being evaluated. Airport-specific Pb emissions estimates in
31 the NEI include Pb emitted during the entire flight (i.e., not limited to the landing and take-off
32 cycle).2 EPA is using this inventory approach for Pb because it is important to account for all of
2Lead emissions from general aviation are calculated as the product of the fuel consumed, the concentration
of Pb in the fuel and the factor 0.75 to account for an estimated 25% of Pb being retained in the engine and/or
exhaust system of the aircraft. The estimate of 25% Pb retention was derived from measurements of light-duty gas
July 2007 A-4 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 the Pb emitted due to its persistence in the environment. In addition, there is currently not an
2 alternative approach for incorporating all the Pb emissions from aircraft into the NEI. In order to
3 conduct a risk assessment specific to Pb exposures experience near an airport, more refined
4 analyses can be conducted that, among other variables, could include an inventory developed
5 from local data (e.g., fuel consumption, numbers of flights by piston-engine aircraft). As
6 described in the footnote above, in estimating Pb emissions in the NEI, piston-engine aircraft
7 emissions have been discounted by a significant fraction to account for an estimated fraction of
8 Pb lost to engine components (25%) so not all the Pb potentially emitted has been included in the
9 inventory.
10 Airport-specific Pb emissions estimates in the 2002 NEI do not include the following
11 airport-related source of Pb: evaporative losses of Pb from fuel storage and distribution, military
12 aircraft combustion emissions, and the small amounts of tetraethyl Pb (TEL) discarded on the
13 tarmac by pilots after their fuel check. Pb from fuel storage and distribution is estimated to be
14 0.3 tons nationally and is included in the NEI, but not assigned to specific airports. Data
15 regarding military piston engine aircraft emissions are supplied to EPA by states and the 2002
16 version 3.1 inventory estimates did not include state-submitted data, but future updates to the
17 inventory will include these estimates.
18 Among the airports in the NEI where piston-engine aircraft operate, the majority of
19 airports (62%) are estimated to have Pb emissions less than 0.1 ton per year, 37% are estimated
20 to have Pb emissions between 0.1 to 1.0 ton per year and 1%, or 36 airports, are estimated to
21 have Pb emissions over 1.0 ton (Table A-2).
vehicles operating on leaded fuel and is likely an upper-bound estimate of the amount of Pb retained in a piston-
engine aircraft.
July 2007 A-5 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Table A-2. Lead emissions from leaded aviation gas use in the 2002 NEI version 3.1.
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Emissions
Range
(tpy)
<0.1
0.1 to 1.0
> 1
Summary
Number of
Airports
2,104
1,270
36
3,410
Total
Emissions
(tpy)
76.7
367.5
47.1
491.3
The 36 airports for which the NEI estimates Pb emissions are greater than one ton are
presented in Figure A-l. Van Nuys airport in Los Angeles County is estimated to have the
largest annual emissions of Pb from combustion of avgas (over 2 tons). In the NEI, there are 15
airports in Los Angeles County with piston-engine aircraft activity, which combined, are
estimated to emit more than 10 tons of Pb annually. On a national basis, there are 78 counties in
which Pb emissions from piston-engine aircraft are greater than one ton Pb. The Pb emissions in
these 78 counties account for 158 tons or 32% of the Pb emissions from piston-engine aircraft
nationally.
July 2007
A-6
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Airport Emissions (tpy)
1.0-1.5
1.6-2.0
O 2.1-2.5
2 Figure A-l. Airports in NEI 2002 with piston-engine aircraft activity where more than
3 one ton of Pb is emitted annually.
5 A.I.1.3 Resuspension of Previously Deposited Pb and other Sources
6 Although the resuspension of soil-bound Pb particles and contaminated road dust has
7 been reported to be a significant source of airborne Pb (CD, Section 2.3.3, and p. 2-62), estimates
8 of resuspension-related emissions are not included in the 2002 NEI. Studies of emissions in
9 southern California, however, indicate that Pb in resuspended road dust may represent between
10 40% and 90% of Pb emissions in some areas (CD, p. 2-65). Lead concentrations in suspended
11 soil and dust, however, vary significantly (CD, p. 2-65). In general, the main drivers of particle
12 resuspension are typically mechanical stressors such as vehicular traffic, construction and
13 agricultural operations, and to a lesser extent, the wind. Lead resuspended in soil near roadways
14 that was in place during the use of leaded gasoline may be a notable emissions source if/when
15 such soil is disturbed (e.g., road widening or building construction).
July 2007 A-7 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Understanding the physics of resuspension from natural winds requires analyzing the
2 wind stresses on individual particles and although this analysis can be accurate on a small scale,
3 predicting resuspension on a large scale generally focuses on empirical data for soil movement
4 due to three processes: saltation, surface creep, and suspension (CD, pp. 2-62 to 2-63). Further,
5 rather than a continuous process, resuspension may occur as a series of events. Short episodes of
6 high wind speed, dry conditions, and other factors conducive to resuspension may dominate
7 annual averages of upward flux (CD, p. 2-65). All of these factors complicate emissions
8 estimates (CD, Section 2.2.1) such that quantitative estimates for these processes remain an area
9 of significant uncertainty.
10 Other sources not currently included in the NEI are emissions of Pb from natural sources,
11 such as wind-driven resuspension of soil with naturally occurring Pb, sea salt spray, volcanoes,
12 wild forest fires, and biogenic sources (CD, Section 2.2.1). Estimates for these emissions, some
13 of which have significant variability (CD, p. 2-13) have not been developed for the NEI, as
14 quantitative estimates for these processes remain an area of significant uncertainty.
15 A.1.2 Number and Geographic Distribution of Sources
16 The geographic distribution and magnitude of Pb emissions in the U.S. from all sources
17 identified in the 2002 NEI is presented in Figure A-2, in terms of emissions density (defined here
18 as tons per area, square mile, per county). This presentation indicates a broad distribution of Pb
19 emissions across the U.S., with the highest emitting counties scattered predominantly within a
20 broad swath from Minnesota to southern New England southward.
21 Within the NEI, emissions may be associated with specific "points" (i.e., point sources)
22 or with activities estimated to occur with some frequency within an "area" such as a county (area
23 sources) or with mobile sources (see Section 1.1.1.2).
July 2007 A-8 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
rsp-v-.v-Kj*'
'*$ฃฃ*'$
Total Lead Emission (ton sc| mile)
| 0-0.099
^^ 0.1-0.99
1 -8.9
2 Figure A-2. Emissions density of all Pb sources in the 2002 NEL
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
There are some 13,067 point sources (industrial, commercial or institutional) in the 2002
NEI, each with one or more processes that emit Pb to the atmosphere (Table A-3). Most of these
sources emit < 0.1 tpy. There are approximately 1300 point sources of Pb in the NEI with
estimates of emissions greater than or equal to 0.1 tpy and these point sources, combined, emit
1058 tpy, or 94% of the Pb point source emissions. In other words, 94% of Pb point source
emissions are emitted by the largest 10% of these sources. The geographic distribution of point
sources estimated to emit greater than 1 tpy is presented in Figure A-3.
July 2007
A-9
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Table A-3. Distribution of point sources within the 2002 NEI and associated estimated
2 emissions.
Emissions
Range
(tpy)
<0.1
0.1 to 1.0
1.0 to 5
>5
Summary
Number
of Sources
11,800
1,026
211
30
13,067
Total
Emissions
(tpy)
73
326
424
308
1131
Average
Emissions
per Source
(tpy)
0.01
0.3
2
10
Q
- j
+ * *ป
* *
t
"
V 1 '\
~! Facility Lead Emissions (tpy)
ป 1-5
5-10
O 10-15
O 15-20
O >20
4 Figure A-3. Geographic distribution of point sources with >1 tpy Pb emissions in 2002
5 NEI.
July 2007
A-10
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Figure A-4 shows the geographic distribution of NEI emissions specifically for mobile
2 sources, which, as discussed in Section A. 1.1.2, are limited in this NEI to airport Pb emissions
3 associated with use of general aviation gasoline in piston-engine aircraft.
t,
J-^
*
Mobile Source Lead Emission (ton/sq mile)
| 0-0.099
[III] 0-1-0-99
^B ' -9-9
5 Figure A-4. Emissions density of mobile sources of Pb (general aviation gasoline) in 2002
6 NEI.
1
8 A.1.3 Largest Pb Point Sources in the 2002 NEI
9 While Section A.I.I focuses on source categories that rank highest due to cumulative
10 national Pb emissions, this section is intended to consider Pb emissions on the individual source
11 level. As mentioned in Section A. 1.2, the 2002 NEI includes 30 facilities with emissions
12 estimated to be greater than or equal to 5 tons per year (see Table A-3). Most of these sources
13 (Table A-4) are metallurgical industries, followed by waste disposal facilities and manufacturing
14 processes.
15
July 2007 A-11 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Table A-4. Point Sources with Pb emissions in 2002 NEI greater than or equal to 5 tpy.
Source Category Name
Primary Lead Smelting
Military Installation
Mining
Secondary Nonferrous Metals
Primary Copper Smelting
Electric Arc Furnaces
Secondary Lead Smelting
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
Military Installation
Hazardous Waste Incineration
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Industrial and Commercial Machinery Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber Products Manufacturing - Fabric
Coating
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Utility Boiler
Iron and Steel Foundries
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Mineral Products Manufacturing
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
Ferroalloys Production
Nonferrous Foundries
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Hazardous Waste Incineration
Coke Oven
Iron and Steel Foundries
Mining
State
MO
OK
MO
TX
AZ
IL
MO
IN
TN
PA
AR
KY
KS
IN
AR
IN
OH
IN
IN
NM
CT
OH
NE
MD
OH
VA
IA
MO
County Name
Jefferson County
Pittsburg County
Reynolds County
Potter County
Gila County
Peoria County
Iron County
Lake County
Madison County
Franklin County
Union County
Madison County
Marshall County
Cass County
Clark County
Floyd County
Cuyahoga County
Porter County
Lake County
Socorro County
Windham County
Washington
County
Nemaha County
Frederick County
Lorain County
Buchanan County
Jefferson County
Reynolds County
2002 Point
Emissions (TPY)
58.8
17.2
15.4
13.9
12.8
12.5
12.4
11.3
10.9
10.4
10.2
9.9
8.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
6.1
6.1
5.8
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.1
5.1
5
3 A.1.4 Data Sources, Limitations and Confidence
4 The Pb emissions information presented in the previous sections is drawn largely from
5 EPA's NEI for 2002 (USEPA, 2007a). The NEI is based on information submitted from State,
6 Tribal and local air pollution agencies and data obtained during the preparation of technical
7 support information for the EPA's hazardous air pollutant regulatory programs. The Agency has
8 recently developed version 3 of the NEI for 2002 and that version is anticipated to be posted on
9 the EPA's CHIEF website soon at (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html). The
10 information presented in this draft document is based on version 3.
11 The process of identifying sources that emit Pb into the air has been ongoing since before
12 the Clean Air Act of 1970. The comprehensiveness of emission inventories generally, and the
July 2007 A-12 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 NEI, specifically, depends upon what is known regarding which source types emit Pb, their
2 locations and their operating characteristics, as well as the reporting of this information to the
3 inventory. As noted above, the NEI relies on information that is available from a variety of
4 sources for this information. There are numerous steps, each with its own uncertainties,
5 associated with the development of this information for use in the emissions inventory. First, the
6 categories emitting Pb must be identified. Second, the sources' processes and control devices
7 must be known. Third, the activity throughputs and operating schedules of these sources must be
8 known. Finally, we must have emission factors to relate emissions to the operating throughputs,
9 process conditions and control devices. The process, control device, throughputs and operating
10 schedules are generally available for each source. However, the emission factors represent
11 average emissions for a source type and average emissions may differ significantly from source
12 to source. For some cases, emissions testing information provides source-specific information.
13 More information on emission factors and the estimation of emissions is found in the
14 introduction to EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (USEPA, 2006b). Further
15 information on emission factors is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/.
16 The NEI is limited with regarding to Pb emissions estimates for some sources such as
17 resuspended road dust (Section A. 1.1.3), biomass burning and trace levels of Pb in motor fuel
18 and lubricating oil (Section A. 1.1.2), and others. We have not yet developed estimates for the
19 NEI of Pb emissions associated with resuspension of Pb residing in roadway dust and nearby
20 surface soil. And emissions estimates are not yet in the NEI for the miscellaneous categories of
21 on-road emissions (e.g., combustion of fuel with Pb traces, lubricating oil, mechanical wear of
22 vehicle components, etc.). Emissions of Pb that may be emitted from wildfires, etc, are also not
23 quantified in the NEI.
24 Two aspects of the 2002 NEI development contribute to our assessment of the Pb
25 emissions information compiled in the 2002 NEI. The 2002 NEI has undergone extensive
26 external review, including the process for developing the inventory which includes extensive
27 quality assurance and quality assurance steps (QA/QC). For example, external reviewers had a
28 period of 3 months to review the draft 2002 NEI. In addition for point sources, we created a
29 QA/QC process and tracking database to provide feedback reports to data providers at regular
30 intervals during the QA of the data. The feedback reports include the following 4 QC reports.
31 Data integrity, latitude/longitudes QC, stack parameters QC, and emissions QC. Further, there
32 was additional QA/QC conducted for emission inventory information for facilities that are
33 included in the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) source categories (60FR14734). Version 3
34 of the 2002 NEI used in RTR have undergone additional QA/QC including SAB review and
35 comments received to Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859. For the RTR facilities, we have
July 2007 A-13 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 strong confidence in the quality of the data. The largest point source facility emitting Pb is
2 included in NEI data used in the RTR.
3 Generic limitations to the 2002 NEI include the following:
4 Consistency: The 2002 NEI for Pb is a composite of emissions estimates generated by
5 state and local regulatory agencies, industry, and EPA. Because the estimates
6 originated from a variety of sources, as well as for differing purposes, they will in turn
7 vary in quality, whether Pb is reported for particular source types, method of reporting
8 compound classes, level of detail, and geographic coverage.
9 Variability in Quality and Accuracy of Emission Estimation Methods: The accuracy of
10 emission estimation techniques vary with pollutants and source categories. In some
11 cases, an estimate may be based on a few or only one emission measurement at a
12 similar source. The techniques used and quality of the estimates will vary between
13 source categories and between area, major, and mobile source sectors. Generally, the
14 more review and scrutiny given to emissions data by States and other agencies, the
15 more certainty and accuracy there is in that data.
16
17
July 2007 A-14 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 A.2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
2 The EPA has been measuring Pb in the atmosphere since the 1970s. For the most part,
3 Pb concentrations have decreased dramatically over that period. This decrease is primarily
4 attributed to the removal of Pb from gasoline; however, some individual locations still have Pb
5 concentrations above the level of the NAAQS. The following sections describe the ambient Pb
6 measurement methods, the sites and networks where these measurements are made, as well as
7 how the ambient Pb concentrations vary geographically and temporally.
8 Ambient air Pb concentrations are measured by four monitoring networks in the United
9 States, all funded in whole or in part by EPA. These networks provide Pb measurements for
10 three different size classes of airborne PM: total suspended PM (TSP), PM less than or equal to
11 2.5 |im in diameter (PM^.s), and PM less than or equal to 10 jim in diameter (PMio). The
12 networks include the Pb TSP network, the PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network (CSN), the
13 Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, and the
14 National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) network. The subsections below describe each
15 network and the Pb measurements made at these sites.
16 In addition to these four networks, various organizations have operated other sampling
17 sites yielding data on ambient air concentrations of Pb, often for limited periods and/or for
18 primary purposes other than quantification of Pb itself. Most of these data are accessible via
19 EPA's Air Quality System (AQS): http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/. In an effort to gather as
20 much air toxics data, including Pb, into one database, the EPA and State and Territorial Air
21 Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
22 (STAPPA/ALAPCO) created the Air Toxics Data Archive. The Air Toxics Data Archive can be
23 accessed at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/atda/.
24 A.2.1 Ambient Pb Measurement Methods
25 A number of methods are used to collect Pb and measure Pb concentrations in the
26 atmosphere, however, most methods use a similar sample collection approaches. Ambient air is
27 drawn through an inlet for a predetermined amount of time (typically 24 hours) and the PM is
28 collected on a suitable filter media. After the sample has been collected, the filter may be used to
29 determine the mass of PM collected prior to then being used for determination of Pb. The filter
30 is chemically extracted and analyzed to determine the Pb concentration in the particulate
31 material. The concentration of Pb found in the atmosphere, in |ig/m3, is calculated based on the
32 concentration of Pb in the volume extracted, the size of the collection filter, and the volume of
33 air drawn through the filter.
July 2007 A-15 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The primary factors affecting the measurements made are the sampling frequency,
2 duration of sampling, type of inlet used, volume of air sampled, and the method of analyzing the
3 filter for Pb content. The following paragraphs describe how these factors affect the Pb
4 measurements.
5 A.2.1.1 Sampling Frequency
6 The frequency of Pb sampling used in the U.S. varies between one sample every day (1 in
7 1 sampling) to the more common frequency of one sample every 6 days (1 in 6 sampling). Semi-
8 continuous methods for the measurement of ambient metals (including Pb) are currently being
9 explored which would allow for more frequent sampling (as frequent as 1 sample per hour), but
10 more work is needed on these methods before they can be deployed in a network setting.
11 More frequent sampling reduces the uncertainty in estimates of quarterly or annual
12 averages associated with temporal variations in ambient concentrations. However, the costs of
13 sampling and analysis are directly tied to sample frequency. As such, it is necessary to evaluate
14 the reduction in measurement error versus the increase in sampling and analysis costs when
15 selecting the required sampling frequency. A discussion of the observed temporal variation of
16 Pb measurements is given later in this section.
17 A.2.1.2 Inlet Design
18 In ambient air monitors, a number of inlet designs have been developed that allow certain
19 particle size ranges to be sampled. The inlets use either impaction or cyclone techniques to
20 remove particles larger than a certain size (the size cutpoint) from the sample stream. Three
21 particle size cutpoints are used in ambient Pb measurements including TSP, PM2 5, PMi0. The
22 TSP inlet is designed to allow as much suspended paniculate into the sampling device as
23 possible while protecting against precipitation and direct deposition on to the filter (nominally 25
24 to 45 micrometers) (USEPA, 2004c).
25 Sampling systems employing inlets other than the TSP inlet will not collect Pb contained
26 in the PM larger than the size cutpoint. Therefore, they do not provide an estimate of the total Pb
27 in the ambient air. This is particularly important near sources which may emit Pb in the larger
28 PM size fractions (e.g., fugitive dust from materials handling and storage).
29 A.2.1.3 Volume of Air Sampled
30 The amount of Pb collected is directly proportional to the volume of air sampled. Two
31 different sampler types have evolved for PM and Pb sampling - a high-volume and a low-
32 volume sampler. High-volume samplers draw between 70 and 100 mVhr of air through an 8 inch
33 by 10 inch filter (0.05 m2 filter area). Low-volume samplers typically draw 1 m3/hr through a 47
July 2007 A-16 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 mm diameter filter (0.002 m2 filter area). Currently all Federal Reference Method (FRM) and
2 Federal Equivalence Method (FEM) for Pb-TSP are based on high-volume samplers.
3 A.2.1.4 Sample Analysis
4 After the samples have been collected on filters and the filters have been weighed, the
5 filters are analyzed for Pb content. A number of analytical methods can be used to analyze the
6 filters for Pb content including x-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF), proton-induced x-ray
7 emission (PIXE), neutron activation analysis (NAA), atomic absorption (AA), or inductively-
8 coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) (CD, pp. 2-80 to 2-81). A detailed discussion of
9 these methods was given in the 1986 CD (USEPA, 1986), and the reader is referred to that
10 document for more information on these analytical methods. A search conducted on the AQS
11 database3 shows that the method detection limits for all of these analytical methods (coupled
12 with the sampling methods) are very low, ranging from 0.01 |ig/m3 to as low as 0.00001 |ig/m3,
13 and are adequate for NAAQS compliance purposes.
14 A.2.2 Pb-TSP
15 This network is comprised of state and locally managed Pb monitoring stations which
16 measure Pb in TSP, i.e., particles up to 25 to 45 microns. These stations use samplers and
17 laboratory analysis methods which have either FRM or FEM status. The FRM and FEM method
18 descriptions can be found in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 40 part 50, Appendix
19 G. Sampling is conducted for 24-hour periods, with a typical sampling schedule of 1 in 6 days.
20 Some monitoring agencies "composite" samples by analyzing several consecutive samples
21 together to save costs and/or increase detection limits.
22 A.2.2.1 Monitor Locations
23 The locations of Pb-TSP sites in operation between 2003 and 2005 are shown in Figure
24 A-5. The state and local agencies which operate these sites report the data to EPA's AQS where
25 they are accessible via several web-based tools. EPA's series of annual air quality trends reports
26 have used data from this network to quantify trends in ambient air Pb concentrations. The most
27 recent Trends report for Pb-TSP can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/lead.html.
28 A review of the Pb-TSP network's coverage of the highest Pb emitting sources (as
29 identified in the current version of the 2002 NEI) was conducted as part of preparing this
30 document. This review indicates that many of the highest Pb emitting sources in the 2002 NEI
31 do not have nearby Pb-TSP monitors. This review indicates that only 2 of 26 facilities (both Pb
3 EPA's AQS can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/
July 2007 A-17 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 smelters4) identified as emitting greater than 5 tpy have a Pb-TSP monitor within 1 mile. The
2 lack of monitors near large sources should be addressed in the network design for the revised
3 rule in order to get monitors at these locations in the future. Additionally, none of the 189 Pb-
4 TSP sites included in the 2003-2005 analysis described in Sections A.2.2.2 and A.2.2.3 are
5 located within a mile of airports identified in the NEI as an airport where piston-engine aircraft
6 operate (i.e., aircraft that still use leaded aviation fuel). However, there are historical data for 12
7 Pb-TSP monitoring sites operating within 1 mile of such airports (going back to 1993). The
8 average maximum quarterly mean (for 1993-2002) of these 12 sites is less than 0.05 |ig/m3.
Rural
10 Figure A-5. Pb-TSP monitoring sites: 2003-2005.
11 The number of sites in the Pb-TSP network has decreased significantly since the 1980s
12 (see Figure A-6). The number of sites in the network reached its highest point in 1981 (946
13 sites). About 250 sampling sites operated during 2005. This decline in the number of Pb-TSP
14 sites is attributable to the dramatic decrease in Pb concentrations observed since the 1980s and
15 the need to fund new monitoring objectives (e.g., PM2.5 and ozone monitoring). Lead-TSP sites
4 Primary and secondary smelters were the source types given particular priority at the time of the last Pb
NAAQS review (USEPA, 1990; USEPA, 1991).
July 2007
A-18
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 in lower concentration areas were shut down to free up resources needed for monitoring of other
2 pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.
1000
900
ฃ 800
ซ
01
| 700
3
I 600
- Year
j
4 Figure A-6. Change in the number of Pb-TSP monitoring sites from 1980 to 2005.
5
6 A.2.2.2 Data Analysis Details
7 Lead-TSP data collected in 2003-2005 (parameter code 12128, durations '7' and 'C')
8 were extracted from EPA's AQS on May 22, 2007. Most of the monitors reporting data for that
9 timeframe utilized FRM or FEM, and therefore, are candidates for comparisons to the NAAQS.
10 Some of the Pb-TSP monitors, however, were placed for non-regulatory purposes (e.g., for toxics
11 monitoring initiatives) and utilize methods other than a FRM or FEM. Although measurements
12 from these monitors cannot be compared to the NAAQS for purposes of non-attainment
13 decisions, they were considered worthy for inclusion in this national Pb-TSP characterization.
14 The non-FRM/FEM Pb-TSP methods typically have lower uncertainties and detection limits than
15 the FRM/FEM. Detection limits vary significantly even for the data generated using FRM or
16 FEM. In summary aggregations, the AQS generally substitutes one half the method detection
17 level (MDL) for reported concentration readings less than or equal MDL. That protocol was not
18 utilized in this national aggregation; data were used 'as reported' to AQS. Only a small number
19 of Pb-TSP measurements for 2003-2005 were flagged for exceptional events, none of the
July 2007 A-19 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 exceptional event flags were concurred (i.e., approved) by the associated EPA Regional Office.
2 Data flags were ignored in this analysis.
3 A.2.2.2.1 Screening Criteria
4 Measurements of Pb-TSP with 24-hour sample collection duration were reported to AQS
5 for more than 350 monitors for the years 2003 to 2005. 189 of those monitors met the following
6 screening criteria and were used in this national characterization. The completeness criteria
7 employed for this national characterization were: 1) a minimum of 10 observations per quarter,
8 2) for at least one full year (all 4 quarters), and 3) at least 9 months with 4 observations each; all
9 three criteria had to be met for inclusion. 209 monitors met the 3-pronged criteria; of these 209
10 monitors, 20 were collocated with another complete monitor. Only one monitor from each
11 collocated pair (i.e., from each site location) was kept in the analysis, specifically the one with
12 highest maximum quarterly mean. Thus, data from 189 monitors at 189 distinct locations were
13 actually used; 110 of these monitors/sites had 3 complete years (and thus, 12 complete quarters),
14 36 monitors/sites had 2 complete years (and at least 8 complete quarters), and 43 monitors/sites
15 had only one compete year (thus, at least 4 complete quarters). Complete quarters that were not
16 part of a complete year were used. Likewise, all complete months were used, even if they did
17 not correspond to the complete years. The 189 sites have an average of about 28 complete
18 months. The 189 utilized monitors are listed along with various summary and demographic data
19 in Attachment A-2, Table 1.
20 A.2.2.2.2 Urban Classifications
21 The 189 monitors are located in 86 counties, in 23 States. 140 of the 189 sites were
22 deemed 'urban' and aggregated as such. Sites were labeled 'urban' if they located within a
23 defined urbanized area or urban cluster (per 2000 Census geographic definitions). All of the
24 'urban' designated sites were located in a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) per 2003 CBSA
25 geographic definitions. CBSA is a collective term for both metropolitan and micropolitan
26 statistical areas. A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a
27 micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population. Each
28 metro or micro area consists of one or more whole counties and includes the counties containing
29 the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and
30 economic integration with the urban core. The monitors in the analysis map to 65 unique
31 CBSA's. Only 10 of the 189 monitors are not located within a CBSA. CBSA's do not always
32 exclusively encompass wholes or parts of urbanized areas and/or urbanized clusters. 39 of the
33 189 Pb monitoring sites are located in a CBSA but are not classified as 'urban'. Although
34 'urban' locations (i.e., parts of urbanized areas or urban clusters) are found in counties not
35 defined as (or part of) a CBSA, all of the 140 urban sites in this characterization are located in a
July 2007 A-20 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 CBS A. 91 of the 140 urban sites are located in CBSA's with 1 million or greater population.
2 Note that the 65 CBSA's containing the Pb-TSP monitoring sites are generally among the largest
3 in the nation (with respect to total population). Almost 75 percent of the Pb-TSP CBSA's are
4 larger (in population) than the 75 percent of all U.S. CBSA's. With respect to total CBS A
5 population, the 5 overall largest CBSA's and 18 of the largest 25 contain at least one Pb-TSP
6 monitor.
7 A.2.2.2.3 Source-oriented Categorizations
8 Monitoring sites were classified as being 'source oriented' with regard to sources of Pb
9 emissions if: 1) they met a graduated cumulative emission ton per year by distance criterion, or
10 2) they were classified as source oriented in previous EPA analysis. Sixty of the 189 Pb-TSP
11 sites met at least one of these criteria. Of the 60 total source-oriented sites, 40 met the first
12 criterion and 51 met the second.
13 The graduated cumulative emission ton per year to distance criterion (criterion #1)
14 utilized the 2002 (version 3) national emission inventory (NEI) for Pb point sources and Pb area
15 non-point sources. The Pb point source emissions were assigned to the specific facility point
16 locations (longitude/latitude coordinates), and the area non-point inventory was allocated to
17 Census tracts and assumed uniform across those extents. To meet the graduated 'source-
18 oriented' criterion, a Pb monitoring site had to be within at least one multiplier of 0.1 miles
19 (checking up to 1 mile away) for a corresponding multiplier of 0.1 tpy of total point and non-
20 point emissions (e.g., Within 0.1 mile of a cumulative 0.1 tpy, within 0.2 miles of a cumulative
21 0.2 tpy, within 0.3 miles of a cumulative 0.3 tpy, ..., or within 1.0 miles of a cumulative 1.0 tpy)
22 The area non-point contribution to the comparison cumulative inventory was based on the
23 composite emission densities of the Census tract in which a site was located and all other tracts
24 with population centroids within a mile of the monitoring site.
25 The sites 'classified as source oriented in previous EPA analysis' (criterion #2) were
26 identified via a reference list that was last updated in 2003 (but currently under review); this list
27 has been utilized in recent EPA Trends Report analysis. The list encompasses 114 sites. Many
28 of the monitoring sites on this list did not have data that met the data completeness criteria for
29 2003-2005 because they have permanently discontinued Pb monitoring, most ostensibly because
30 the associated nearby Pb emission source(s) has implemented controls, closed operations, and/or
31 reduced production. Some ambient monitoring sites continue monitoring even after significant
32 assumed reductions in nearby new Pb emissions. Sites were not screened out of the source-
33 oriented classification in those instances. In addition to including such sites in the source-
34 oriented category, these sites were separately reviewed to see if they still had higher
35 concentrations than non-source sites because of previously emitted Pb becoming resuspended
July 2007 A-21 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 into the air and/or possible emission estimate errors. These sites are termed, "'previous' source-
2 oriented sites" in relevant figures and tables.
3 There are only nine sites that were categorized as "previous" source-oriented in this
4 national analysis. The particular circumstances related to the emission sources associated with
5 these nine monitoring sites vary considerably. In some instances the emission sources have been
6 closed for more than a decade and the facility locations have undergone remediation. For other
7 sources, production and clean-up status was not fully ascertained. In the case of one emission
8 source (that has numerous nearby monitoring sites), production was presumably halted at the end
9 of 2003 and no significant clean-up activity has yet been undertaken. For the monitoring sites
10 associated with this source, two sets of statistics were generated (or attempted). Statistics
11 representing the entire 3-year period were calculated and used everywhere applicable except for
12 the "previous" category, and statistics representing the post-production period (2004-2005) were
13 generated and used for the "previous" classification. Note that some of these monitoring sites
14 met the data completeness criteria for the 3-year period (2003-2005) but not for the 2-year period
15 (2004-2005). Because of the small number of sites included in the "previous" source oriented
16 classification and the uncertainty in the emission source status, results for this category should be
17 viewed with caution.
18 A.2.2.2.4 Population Associations
19 Two population statistics were summarized with the Pb concentration data, the 'total
20 population' within 1 mile of the site (a.k.a., a "radial mile") and the 'under age 5 population'
21 within 1 mile of the site. Populations assigned sites were based on Census block group
22 population densities, specifically the density of the block group in which the site was located and
23 (if relevant) the density of other block groups with population centroids within 1 mile of the site.
24 The average population density (expressed in square miles) was multiplied by pi (3.143) to
25 obtain a radial mile population. Population data and block group definitions utilized are from the
26 2000 Census.
27 The median size of populations associated with the Pb-TSP monitors in this analysis is
28 about 6,200 and the corresponding under age 5 median population is around 420. These median
29 populations are slightly smaller than the overall U.S. block group median radial mile populations
30 (19 percent smaller for total and 7 percent smaller for under age 5). Attachment A-2, Table 1
31 shows the assigned site-level populations and corresponding ranks (in relation to other
32 monitoring sites); CBSA information for each site is also shown. Based on the radial mile
33 population association (described above) approximately 1.73 million people (0.125 million under
34 the age of 5) are in proximity of a 2003-2005 Pb-TSP monitor included in this analysis.
July 2007 A-22 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 A.2.2.2.5 Statistical Metrics
2 Three basic statistics were computed for the 2003-2005 Pb-TSP concentration data:
3 annual means, maximum quarterly means, and maximum monthly means. These metrics were
4 calculated at the site level. The annual mean statistic is actually the average of the annual means
5 for the complete years; thus it is the average of three annual means, the average of two annual
6 means, or the only available single complete annual mean. The maximum quarterly mean
7 statistic represents the highest quarterly mean of the complete ones (sites have from four to 12
8 complete quarters), and the maximum monthly mean represents the highest monthly mean of the
9 complete ones (each site has from nine to 36 complete months).
10 Population weighted means were also calculated for the three metrics for various
11 aggregation levels. The site-level means were weighted by both total population and under age 5
12 population. To compute the population weighted measures, 1) the mean for each site in a
13 specific category was multiplied by its associated population (i.e., within a mile radius), 2) these
14 products (of #1) and the associated populations were summed, and 3) the sum of the products of
15 #1 were divided by the population sums. Theoretically, these population weighted means show
16 the average concentration exposure for each individual within a mile of a monitoring site. That
17 supposition, of course, assumes that concentrations reported at the monitor are uniform over the
18 entire radial mile
19 A.2.2.3 Current Concentrations
20 In the following subsections, analyses are presented for the different categorizations of
21 Pb-TSP monitoring sites described above. These are all Pb-TSP sites meeting screening criteria,
22 and the following subsets: sites in urban areas, sites in urban areas of population greater than 1
23 million, sites that are source-oriented, sites that are not known to be source-oriented, and sites
24 that were previously source-oriented.
25 A.2.2.3.1 All Sites
26 The site-level Pb-TSP concentrations and associated ranks for each of the three statistics
27 (annual mean, maximum quarterly mean, and maximum monthly mean) during the three-year
28 period, 2003-2005, are shown in Attachment A-2, Table 1. The distributions of sites for the
29 three statistics are shown in Figure A-7; the boxes depict inter-quartile ranges and medians,
30 whiskers depict the 5th and 95th percentiles, and asterisks identify composite averages.
31 Additional points on the distributions for these statistics are given in Attachment A-2, Table 2.
32 For example, the national composite average annual mean was 0.09 |ig/m3, and the
33 corresponding median annual mean was 0.02 |ig/m3. The national composite average maximum
34 quarterly mean was 0.17 |ig/m3 and the corresponding median maximum quarterly mean was
July 2007 A-23 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 0.03 |ig/m3. The national composite average maximum monthly mean was 0.30 |ig/m3 and the
2 median maximum monthly mean was 0.04 |ig/m3.
oo
O
o
O
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
4 Figure A-7. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
5 at the 189 Pb-TSP monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
6 Figure A-8 shows cumulative percentages of monitored populations ("total" and "under
7 age 5") associated with each of the three Pb metrics for various levels [>0.01 |ig/m3 (for annual
8 mean only), > 0.05 |ig/m3, > 0.20 |ig/m3, > 0.50 |ig/m3, and > 1.55 |ig/m3]. The phrase
9 "monitored populations" refers to populations residing in proximity to monitors as described in
10 Section A.2.2.2.4. The site-level values for the three statistical metrics (annual average,
11 maximum quarterly mean, and maximum quarterly mean) are mapped in Figures A-9, A-10, and
12 A-l 1. As seen when comparing these figures, the geographic locations of the high (and low)
13 concentration values for all three metrics are generally the same. In fact, there are significant
14 correlations among all three summary metrics; see Attachment A-2, Table 3.
July 2007 A-24 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Annual Mean
D total population n under age 5 population
D
O
O
~ c
c o
O IS
E 2
_ =
ฐ o
c a.
o
ฃ
o
Q.
100%
20%
80.6%
84.b%
'T/ฐ '"3/ฐ 1.7% 1.7% 0.6% 0.7% 00% 00%
I 1 1 == ,
>0.01
>0.05 >0.20
annual mean (ug/m3)
>0.50
>1.55
Maximum Quarterly Mean
total population D under age 5 population
1
30%
25%
20%
0%
5.1% 5.4%
1.9%
O.O5 > O.2O > O.5O
max quarterly mean (ug/m3)
> 1.55
Maximum Monthly Mean
total population n under age 5 population
50% n
c 40% -
I 30% -
I 20%
o
\ U /o
0%
37.0%
39.6%
10.0% 9.7%
3.3% 3.5% , ,0, , poi
> 0.05 > 0.20 > 0.50
max monthly mean (ug/m3)
> 1.55
4 Figure A-8. Percentages of Pb-TSP monitored populations residing in areas exceeding
5 various concentrations (for 3 different statistics).
July 2007 A-25 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
Concentration range
(jig/m3)
>1.55
D 0.50-1.55
0.20-0.50
O 0.05-0.20
<0.05
Figure A-9. Pb-TSP annual means (for all sites), 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-26
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
D
Concentration range
(jig/m3)
>1.55
0.50-1.55
0.20-0.50
0.05-0.20
<0.05
Figure A-10. Pb-TSP maximum quarterly means (for all sites), 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-27
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Concentration range
(jig/m3)
>1.55
D 0.50-1.55
0.20-0.50
0.05-0.20
<0.05
O
4 Figure A-ll. Maximum monthly Pb-TSP means (all sites), 2003-2005.
5
6 The site-level ratios of 1) maximum quarterly mean to annual mean, and 2) maximum
7 monthly mean to annual mean are presented in Attachment A-2, Table 4. For all TSP-Pb sites
8 included in the analysis, the national median for the ratio of site-level maximum quarterly
9 average to site-level annual mean was about 1.8; the national median for the ratio of site-level
10 maximum monthly mean to site-level annual mean was about 2.9.
11 Some seasonal variability is common for air Pb concentrations. However, the extent to
12 which seasonal variability is present depends on precipitation trends, changes in wind direction,
13 and mixing height variability for a given area. For monitors situated near Pb point sources,
14 factors related to the facilities' operations also contribute to temporal variability. Variation at
15 near-source locations is better characterized by short-term averaging times (e.g., monthly) than
16 longer-term averaging times (e.g., yearly). This is demonstrated in Table A-5. This table shows
July 2007
A-28
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
the number of TSP monitors, in the all sites database and the urban sites subset, that exceed
average levels of 0.05 to 1.5 |ig/m3 with averaging times or forms of maximum quarterly, and
maximum monthly. For example, with a stated level equal to the current standard of 1.5 |ig/m3,
3 sites in 3 counties (1 urban site) exceed with a quarterly averaging time and 11 sites in 6
counties (5 urban sites in 2 counties) with a maximum monthly average. Using the lowest level
examined, 0.05 |ig/m3, however, 75 sites in 36 counties (48 urban sites in 30 counties) would
exceed that level with a maximum quarterly average form and 88 sites in 41 counties (58 urban
sites in 34 counties) would exceed that level with a maximum monthly average form.
Table A-5. Comparison of numbers of sites that exceed various Pb-TSP levels using
different averaging times or forms, 2003-2005.
Level
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.55
Number of Sites/Counties that Exceed Level
Maximum Quarterly Mean
All Sites
(189 in 86 counties)
Sites
75
52
36
26
19
18
17
13
11
9
7
7
7
6
4
3
3
Counties
36
24
15
11
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
Urban Sites
(140 in 73 counties)
Sites
48
28
17
10
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
Counties
30
17
10
6
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Maximum Monthly Mean
All Sites
(189 in 86 counties)
Sites
88
69
49
37
31
27
26
23
20
19
15
14
13
13
13
11
11
Counties
41
33
21
16
13
12
11
10
10
9
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
Urban Sites
(140 in 73 counties)
Sites
58
43
26
17
14
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
Counties
34
27
16
11
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.2.2.3.2 Source-oriented Sites
As seen in the previously discussed Figure A-7, the national ("all sites") means are
substantially higher than the national medians for all three statistical metrics (annual mean,
maximum quarterly mean, and maximum monthly mean). This is due to a small number of
monitors with significantly higher levels. These monitors with higher concentrations are almost
exclusively associated with industrial point sources. Eliminating the source-oriented monitors
July 2007
A-29
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 from the national aggregations lowers most of the corresponding distribution statistics and makes
2 the means more comparable to the medians.
3 The distributions of the site-level metrics for the source-oriented sites, the non-source
4 oriented sites, and the "previous" source-oriented sites, are presented in Figures A-12, A-13, and
5 A-14, respectively. For comparison purposes, Figures A-15, A-16, and A-17 present the
6 categorical data distributions for each of the three statistical metrics on the same scales. In all of
7 these figures, the boxes depict inter-quartile ranges and medians, whiskers depict the 5th and 95th
8 percentiles, and asterisks identify composite averages. Additional points on the distributions of
9 these statistical metrics for these three categories of monitoring sites are given in Attachment A-
10 2, Table 2.
11 Per Figure A-16, the median maximum quarterly mean for source-oriented sites (0.25
12 Hg/m3) is about 14 times greater than the same statistic for non source-oriented sites (0.02
13 |ig/m3); in fact, that median (50th percentile) maximum quarterly mean for non-source oriented
14 sites is approximately the same value as the 5th percentile for source-oriented sites. The medians,
15 means, and population-weighted means of the site-level values of the three statistical metrics are
16 presented in Figure A-18 for the source-oriented and other groupings of monitoring sites.
July 2007 A-30 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
o
O
O
O
i -
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2 Figure A-12. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
3 at source-oriented monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
July 2007
A-31
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
o
O
O
O
Annual mean
1
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2 Figure A-13. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
3 at non-source-oriented monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
4
5
6
1
July 2007
A-32
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
O
'&
e
ง
o
O
O
0.5-
0,3-
0.
2
O
4
5
6
7
Annual mean Max quarterly Max monthly
mean mean
Figure A-14. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at monitoring sites near previous large emission sources, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-33
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 .0
0,9
0,8
0-7
0,6
"E
1 0.5
a
o
'3 0,4
ง 0.3
o
0.0-
All sites Source- Not source Previous
oriented oriented source-
oriented
Urban Urban CBSA Urban CBSA
pop. > 1M pop. < 1M
2
O
4
5
Figure A-15. Distribution of Pb-TSP annual mean concentrations at different categories of
sites, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-34
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
o
O
1 .8
1 .7
1 .6
1 .5
1 .4
1 .3
1 .2
^ 0.9
ฅ 0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
o.i
o.o
All sites
Source- Not source Previous
oriented oriented source-
oriented
Urban Urban CBSA Urban CBSA
pop. = 1M pop. < 1M
2 Figure A-16. Distribution of Pb-TSP maximum quarterly mean concentrations at different
3 categories of sites, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-35
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
I
o
O
All sites
Source-
oriented
Not source
oriented
Previous
source-
oriented
Urban Urban CBSA Urban CBSA
pop. = 1M pop. < 1M
2 Figure A-17. Distribution of Pb-TSP maximum monthly mean concentrations at different
3 categories of sites, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-36
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
Annual Mean
O median O mean O total
O -)[=.
g
o oo ' ill ii
population-weightedmean HI under age 5 population weighted mean
T1
_r-ra-i tfTI r-~kn J kn _Tkn
All sites Source- Not Source- Previous Urban Sites Urban Sites Urban Sites
Oriented Oriented Source- in CBSAs > in CBSAs <
Sites Sites Oriented 1 M 1 M
Sites population population
Maximum Quarterly Mean
D median D mean D total population-wsightedmean D under age 5 population weighted mean
^ฐ (Tifl -,
--040
e 03Q
n 020 r~ rx~
i
A 4 A f\ \ -
"S o'oo i ~~l 1 ' 1 - , ri ]fy \ _J h I i 1 ra 1 i b^i i
Q All sites Source-Oriented Not Source- Previous Source- Urban Sites Urban Sites in Urban Sites in
ฐ Sites Oriented Sites Oriented Sites CBSAs >1M CBSAs <1M
population population
Annual Mean
D median D mean D total population-weightedmean D under age 5 population weighted mean
00
c -i nn
n ฐ.n i i
_ U.bU
2 0.40 I
S n on ' ^^ S
O All sites Sourc
Orient
Sites
1 _ . . . r~ Jn~~n Jrn _ n-^.
e- Not Source- Revious Urban Sites Urban Sites Urban Sites
ed Oriented Source- in CBSAs > in CBSAs <
> Sites Oriented 1 M 1 M
Sites population population
2 Figure A-18. Medians, means, and population-weighted means for 3 site-level statistics.
July 2007 A-37 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Although 60 Pb-TSP monitoring sites met the source oriented classification criteria, that
2 number does not correspond to the number of represented or 'covered' significant emission
3 sources. Recall that the emission sliding scale was based on the aggregate emissions within one
4 mile of the site. Thus, instead of having only one significant source within a specified range, a
5 site tagged as source-oriented could actually have several nearby moderate sized emission
6 sources and/or many nearby small sources. However, the majority of the source-oriented sites in
7 this national analysis do have just one nearby significant emission source. Furthermore, many of
8 these significant emission sources have multiple Pb-TSP monitors in the vicinity. For example,
9 the Herculaneum primary Pb smelter has 7 nearby Pb-TSP monitoring sites that are included in
10 this national characterization (as well as others that operated during 2003-2005 but that did not
11 meet the screening criteria). Thus, the 60 source-oriented sites really represent fewer than 60
12 significant emission sources. For the 60 source-oriented sites, there are only 37 unique closest
13 emission sources (i.e., NEI site ID's). The 60 source-oriented sites are located in 29 different
14 counties.
15 Although the "previous" source-oriented category contains only a limited number of sites
16 (nine) with varied and irresolute circumstances, the distribution statistics for that category (for all
17 three metrics) are generally much higher than the non-source oriented levels; for example, the
18 "previous" median maximum quarterly mean of 0.10 |ig/m3 is more than five times higher than
19 the comparable non-source oriented level of 0.02 |ig/m3.
20 A.2.2.3.3 Urban Sites
21 The distributions of the site-level values for the three statistical metrics for the set of 140
22 sites classified as "urban" are presented in Figure A-19. The distributions for the subset of sites
23 (n = 91) located in a CBS A with one million or more population are presented in Figure A-20,
24 and for the subset of sites (n=49) located in a CBSA with less than a million population, in
25 Figure A-21. In these figures, the boxes depict inter-quartile ranges and medians, whiskers
26 depict the 5th and 95th percentiles, and asterisks identify composite averages. Additional points
27 on the distributions for these statistics for these three groupings of monitoring sites are given in
28 Attachment A-2, Table 2.
29 Previously mentioned Figures A-15, A-16, and A-17 plot on uniform scales the three
30 statistical metrics for these three categories of urban sites. The median and mean values for all
31 three concentration metrics are lower for sites in less populated CBSA's than they are for sites in
32 high population CBSA's. Figure A-22 shows cumulative percentages of urban monitored
33 populations ("total" and "under age 5") associated with each of the three Pb metrics for various
34 concentration ranges [>0.01 |ig/m3 (for annual mean only), > 0.05 |ig/m3, > 0.20 |ig/m3, > 0.50
July 2007 A-38 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
3, and > 1.55 |ig/m3]. The phrase "monitored populations" refers to populations residing in
2 proximity to monitors as described in Section A.2.2.2.4.
Ctf
-M
O
o
O
,8
.7
0,5
0,4
0,5
0.2
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
5 Figure A-19. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
6 at urban monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
9
10
11
12
13
July 2007
A-39
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Ctf
-M
(L>
O
o
O
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure A-20. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites located in metropolitan areas (CBSAs) with 1
million or more population, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-40
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
o
1
O
O
O
Q.7f
0.2-
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2 Figure A-21. Distribution of Pb-TSP concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
3 at urban monitoring sites located in CBSA's with less than 1 million
4 population, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-41
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
Annual Mean
total population n under age 5 population
9O%
g 80%
7O%
60%
5O%
40%
3O%
20%
1O%
0%
81 .O%
8.1 % 8.6%
| 1 1 2.2% 2.5% 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%
O.O1
ง 25%
| I 20%
c | 15% -
| | 10%
8. 0%
60%
o ^ o
ฃ ฃ ซ 40%
8-3
i* = a. 20%
& E * 0%
O.O5 > O.2O > O.5O
annual mean (ug/m3)
> 1.55
Maximum Quarterly Mean
D total population n under age 5 population
^b.o%
4.4% 4.5%
I 1 1 1.1% 13% Q1% Q1%
>0.05 >0.20 >0.50
max quarterly mean (ug/m3)
a 1.55
Maximum Monthly Mean
total population D under age 5 population
36.7%
39.2%
9.3% 8./%
2.6% 2.6% ! nป'n 1 1%
I I I . . .
>0.05 >0.20 >0.50
max monthly mean (ug/m3)
>1.55
2 Figure A-22. Percentages of Pb-TSP urban monitored populations residing in areas
3 (represented by 3 different statistics) exceeding various levels. (Note: Site
4 statistics were rounded to 2 decimal places before comparing to stated levels.)
July 2007
A-42
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 A.2.3 Pb-PM10
2 The NATTS network includes 23 sites in mostly urban, but some rural, areas (Figure A-
3 23). These sites are also operated by 21 state or local host agencies. All collect particulate
4 matter as PMio for toxic metals analysis, typically on a 1 in 6 day sampling schedule. Lead in
5 the collected sample is quantified via the ICP/MS method. The standard operating procedure for
6 metals by ICP/MS is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtox.html. These NATTS sites
7 are relatively new, with 2004 being the first year in which all were operating. The AQS can be
8 accessed at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
10 Figure A-23. Pb-PMi0 (NATTS) monitoring sites network.
11
12 A.2.3.1 Data Analysis Details
13 Lead -PMio data collected in 2003-2005 (parameter code 82128, duration '7') were
14 extracted from EPA's AQS on May 22, 2007. Most of the monitoring sites reporting such data
15 are in the NATTS network. The same screening criteria utilized for Pb-TSP were also
16 implemented for Pb-PMio: 1) a minimum of 10 observations per quarter, 2) for at least one full
17 year (all 4 quarters), and 3) at least 9 months with 4 observations each; all three criteria had to be
18 met for inclusion. 30 monitors met the 3-pronged criteria; six of the 30 sites had complete data
19 for all three years (2003-2005), 7 sites had only two years of complete data; and 17 sites had
20 only one usable year of data. As with the Pb-TSP data processing, the PMio data were used "as
July 2007 A-43 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 reported"; that is, 1A MDL substitutions were not made for reported concentrations less than or
2 equal MDL. Populations were associated with the Pb-PMio sites in the same manner as for Pb-
3 TSP. And, Pb-PMi0 sites were categorized similarly to the Pb-TSP sites. However, no Pb-PMi0
4 sites fell into the source-oriented classification. 21 of the 30 Pb-PMi0 sites were classified as
5 urban; 14 of those 21 sites are located in CBSA's of 1 million or more population and the other 7
6 are located in smaller CBSA's. The 30 Pb-PMi0 monitors are listed with various summary and
7 demographic data in Attachment A-2, Table 5.
8 A.2.3.2 Current Concentrations
9 Monitoring site-level concentrations and associated ranks for each of the 3 statistical
10 metrics (annual mean, maximum quarterly mean, and maximum monthly mean) are provided in
11 Attachment A-2, Table 5, referenced above. Figure A-24 shows the distributions of the annual
12 means, maximum quarterly averages, and maximum monthly means for the 30 Pb-PMi0 sites.
13 The national composite average annual mean for Pb-PMi0 was 0.007 |ig/m3 for the 3-year period,
14 2003-2005; the corresponding median annual mean was 0.006 |ig/m3. The national composite
15 average maximum quarterly mean was 0.013 |ig/m3 for 2003-2005 and the corresponding median
16 maximum quarterly mean was 0.010 |ig/m3. The national composite average maximum monthly
17 mean was 0.023 |ig/m3 and the median maximum monthly mean was 0.014 |ig/m3. Figure A-25
18 shows distribution boxplots for the 21 urban sites and Figure A-26 shows distribution boxplots
19 for the 17 urban sites located in CBSA's with one million or more population. In these three
20 figures, the boxes depict inter-quartile ranges and medians, whiskers depict the 5th and 95th
21 percentiles, and asterisks identify composite averages. Additional points on the distribution for
22 these statistics are given in Attachment A-2, Table 6.
23
July 2007 A-44 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
^b
c
o
o
O
0,08"
0.0?"
0,06
0,05
0,05
0,02
oo
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2 Figure A-24. Distribution of Pb-PMio concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
3 at all Pb monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
July 2007
A-45
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
0,08"
Ctf
-M
O
o
O
03
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2
3
4
5
6
1
Figure A-25. Distribution of Pb-PMi0 concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at urban monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-46
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Ctf
-M
(L>
O
o
O
0, 1?
0, 18
0, 15
0. 14
0. 15
0,12
0.09
0,08
0,0?
0,06
0,05
0,04
0,05
0,02
0,01
0,00"
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2 Figure A-26. Distribution of Pb-PMi0 concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
3 at urban monitoring sites in CBSAs of >1 million population, 2003-2005.
4 Site-level annual means are mapped in Figure A-27 and the corresponding maximum
5 quarterly means are mapped in Figure A-28.
July 2007
A-47
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Concentration range
(Hg/m3)
>0.015
0.010-0.015
0.000-0.010
< 0.005
2 Figure A-27. Pb-PMi0 annual means (for all sites), 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-48
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
(Hg/m3)
>k > 0.015
D 0.010-0.015
O 0.000-0.010
< 0.005
C>
2 Figure A-28. Pb-PMio maximum quarterly means (for all sites), 2003-2005
4 A.2.4 Pb-PM2.5
5 Two networks measure Pb in PM2.5, the EPA CSN and the IMPROVE network. The
6 CSN consists of 54 long-term trends sites [commonly referred to as the Speciation Trends
7 Network (STN)] and about 150 supplemental sites, all operated by state and local monitoring
8 agencies. Most STN sites operate on a 1 in 3 day sampling schedule, while most supplemental
9 sites operate on a 1 in 6 day sampling schedule. Sites in the CSN network determine the Pb
10 concentrations in PM2.5 samples and, as such, do not measure Pb in the size fraction >2.5 jim in
11 diameter. Lead is quantified via the XRF method. The standard operating procedure for metals
12 by XRF is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnamtil/files/ambient/pm25/spec/xrfsop.pdf Data
13 are managed through the AQ S.
14 The IMPROVE network is administered by the National Park Service, largely with
15 funding by EPA, on behalf of federal land management agencies and state air agencies that use
16 the data to track trends in rural visibility. Lead in the PM2.5 is quantified via the XRF method, as
July 2007 A-49 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 in the CSN. Data are managed and made accessible mainly through the IMPROVE website
2 (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/), but also are available via the AQS. Samplers are
3 operated by several different federal, state, and tribal host agencies on the same 1 in 3 day
4 schedule as the STN.
5 The locations of the CSN are shown in Figure A-29. Nearly all of the CSN sites are in
6 urban areas, often at the location of highest known PM2.5 concentrations. The CSN sites
7 generally began operation around 2000.
Trends
o
ป Tribal
9 Figure A-29. Pb-PM2.5 (STN) monitoring sites.
10 In the IMPROVE network, PM2.5 monitors are placed in "Class I" areas (including
11 National Parks and wilderness areas) and are mostly in rural locations. The oldest of these sites
12 began operation in 1988, while many others began in the mid 1990s. The locations of these sites
13 are shown in Figure A-30. There are 110 formally designated IMPROVE sites located in or near
14 national parks and other Class I visibility areas, virtually all of these being rural. Approximately
15 80 additional sites at various urban and rural locations, requested and funded by various parties,
16 are also informally treated as part of the network.
July 2007 A-50 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2 Figure A-30. Pb-PM2.5 (IMPROVE) monitoring sites.
3
4 A.2.4.1 Data Analysis Details
5 2003-2005 Pb-PM2.5 data (parameter code 88128, duration '7') were extracted from
6 EPA's AQS on May 22, 2007. Data generated with IMPROVE collection/analysis methods
7 were excluded from the national characterization on the basis that most of the monitors utilizing
8 those methods are located in rural or remote areas. Most remaining data are associated with
9 EPA'sCSN program.
10 The same screening criteria utilized for Pb-TSP and Pb-PMi0 were also implemented for
11 Pb-PM2.s: 1) a minimum of 10 observations per quarter, 2) for at least one full year (all 4
12 quarters), and 3) at least 9 months with 4 observations each; all three criteria had to be met for
13 inclusion. 257 monitors met the data completeness criteria; 149 of the 257 sites had complete
14 data for all three years (2003-2005), 66 sites had only two years of complete data; and 42 sites
15 had only one usable year of data. Pb-PM2.5 data were used "as reported"; 1A MDL substitutions
16 were not made for reported concentrations less than or equal MDL.
17 Populations were associated with the Pb-PM2.5 sites in the same manner as for Pb-TSP
18 and Pb-PMi0. PM2.s sites were also categorized similarly to the sites in the other size cuts.
July 2007 A-51 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Seven Pb-PMi0 sites were classified as source-oriented. 204 of the 257 Pb-PM2.5 sites were
2 classified as urban; 97 of those 204 sites are located in CBSA's of 1 million or more population
3 and the other 107 are located in smaller CBSA's. The 257 Pb-PM2 5 monitors are listed with
4 various summary and demographic data in Attachment A-2, Table 7.
5 A.2.4.2 Current Concentrations
6 The site-level Pb-PM2.s concentrations and associated ranks for each of the three statistics
7 (annual mean, maximum quarterly mean, and maximum monthly mean) during the three-year
8 period, 2003-2005, are shown in Attachment A-2, Table 7. Figure A-31 shows the distributions
9 of the three statistical metrics for the 257 Pb-PM2.s sites; the boxes depict inter-quartile ranges
10 and medians, whiskers depict the 5th and 95th percentiles, and asterisks identify composite
11 averages. Additional points on the distribution for these statistics are given in Attachment A-2,
12 Table 8. The national composite average annual mean was 0.004 |ig/m3 for the 3-year period,
13 2003-2005; the corresponding median annual mean was 0.003 |ig/m3. The national composite
14 average maximum quarterly mean was 0.008 |ig/m3 for 2003-2005 and the corresponding median
15 maximum quarterly mean was 0.005 |ig/m3. The national composite average maximum monthly
16 mean was 0.012 |ig/m3 and the median maximum monthly mean was 0.007 |ig/m3. As also
17 shown in Attachment A-2, Table 8, the median and mean site-level annual mean and maximum
18 quarterly mean levels for source oriented sites were approximately double those for the non-
19 source-oriented sites. Figure A-32 maps the annual means for Pb-PM2.s sites.
20
21
July 2007 A-52 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
o
1
O
O
O
Annual mean
Max quarterly
mean
Max monthly
mean
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure A-31. Distribution of Pb-PM2.s concentrations (represented by 3 different statistics)
at all Pb-PM2.5 monitoring sites, 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-53
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Concentration range
(jig/m3)
>K > 0.015
0 0.010-0.015
O 0.000-0.010
< 0.005
3
4
Figure A-32. Pb-PM2.5 annual means (for all sites), 2003-2005.
July 2007
A-54
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2
3 Calspan Corporation. (1977) Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices in the Metal Smelting and
4 Refining Industry. Volume III: Ferrous Smelting and Refining. Prepared for EPA's Office of Solid Waste.
5 No. SW-145C.3 1977.
6 ChevronTexaco. (2005) Aviation Fuels Technical Review. FTR-3.
7 http://www.chevronglobalaviation.com/docs/aviation_tech_review.pdf.
8 DOE Energy Information Agency. (2006) Fuel production volume data obtained from
9 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgaupuslA.htm accessed November 2006.
10 Eastern Research Group. (2002a) Development of Average Emission Factors and Baseline Emission Estimates for
11 the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP. Memorandum to Jim
12 Eddinger, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA. October, 2002. Docket number - OAR-
13 2002-0058-0022.
14 Eastern Research Group. (2002b) National Emission Trends for Large Municipal Waste Combustion Units, (years
15 1090 to 2005). Memorandum to Walt Stevenson. June 17, 2002, EPA Docket A-90-45 / Item VIII-B-7;
16 Eastern Research Group. (2002c) National Emission Trends for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units. Memo
17 to Walt Stevenson. June 12, 2002, EPA Docket A-98-18 / Item VI-B-2
18 EC/R Incorporated. (2006) Secondary Lead Smelter Industry - Source Characterization for Residual Risk
19 Assessment. Prepared for USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
20 Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. November.
21 Lehigh University. 1982. Characterization, Recovery, and Recycling of Electric Arc Furnace Dust. Final report
22 prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce. February 1982.
23 RTI International. (2005) Summary of EPA's 2004 Survey of Minimills. June.
24 RTI International. (2006) Characterization of the Glass Manufacturing Industry, Glass Manufacturing Area Source
25 NESHAP. Memorandum to Susan Fairchild, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. May 5
26 Schauer JJ, Lough GC, Shafer MM, Christensen WF, Arndt MF, DeMinter JT, Park J-S. (2006) Characterization of
27 metals emitted from motor vehicles. Health Effects Institute Report Number 113.
28 Stevenson, W. (2002) Emissions from Large MWCs at MACT Compliance. Memo to Docket from Walt Stevenson.
29 EPA Docket a-90-45 / Item VIII-B-11.
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986) Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-
31 83/028AF (NTIS PB87142386). Available online at:
32 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_pr_cd.html
33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
34 Secondary Lead Smelting. Federal Register, (60FR32587), June 23, 1995. Available at:
35 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnlalph.html
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998) Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility
3 7 Steam Generating Units - Final Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA
38 453/R-98-004a. February.
July 2007 A-55 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999a) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
2 Primary Lead Smelters: Final Rule. 4 June 1999. Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 107, page 30194.
3 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnlalph.html
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999b) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
5 Portland Cement Manufacturing: Final Rule. 14 June 1999. Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 113.
6 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/pcempg.html
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
8 (NESHAP) for Iron and Steel Foundries-Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-02-
9 013. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. December.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
11 (NESHAP) for Primary Copper Smelters: Final Rule. 12 June 2002. Federal Register, 67(113): 40478.
12 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/copper/frl2jn02.pdf.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003a) Emission estimates for integrated iron and steel plants.
14 Memorandum to Docket, February 3, 2003. Document no. IV-B-4 in Docket No. OAR-2002-0083
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003b) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
16 Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing: Final Rule. 20 May 2003. Federal Register, Volume 68, No. 97.
17 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/iisteel/iisteelpg.html
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004a) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
19 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters: Final Rule. 13 September 2004. Federal
20 Register, Volume 69, No. 176. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004b) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron
22 and Steel Foundries; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(78): 21906-21940. April 22.
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005) "Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement
24 Standards, Volume V: Emission Estimates and Engineering Costs," September 2005, Appendix C.
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006) Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-
26 5/144aF. Available online at: www.epa. gov/ncea/
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007a) National Emissions Inventory for 2002, version 3, draft. Office of
28 Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 22, 2007.
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b) Airport-specific emissions of lead from combustion of leaded
30 aviation gasoline, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html
July 2007 A-56 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-1. Largest Stationary Source Categories for Pb in the 2002 NEI.
Boilers and Process Heaters
Materials including coal, oil, natural gas (or, at times, other substances such as wood and petroleum coke) are
burned in boilers and process heaters to produce steam. With regard to boilers, the steam is used to produce
electricity or provide heat, while process heaters are used in industrial processes. Lead is present naturally in the
fuel and is emitted to air following combustion. The extent of emissions depends on the concentration of Pb in the
fuel, the quantity of fuel burned, and PM control devices applied.
Industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters are used at a wide variety of facilities (e.g.,
refineries, chemical and manufacturing plants, etc), as well as in a "stand alone" mode to provide heat for large
building complexes. Consequently, there are thousands of these sources throughout the country, generally located in
urban areas, and they range widely in size. Most coal-fired industrial boilers emit about 0.06 tpy, with the larger ones
emitting about 0.07 tpy due to the use of high efficiency particulate matter (PM) control (ERG, 2002a). Reductions in
Pb emissions are projected as a result of the national emissions standard promulgated for this category in 2004 (U.S.
EPA, 2004a).
Among utility boilers, coal-fired boilers have the highest Pb emissions, oil-fired utility plants emit somewhat lower
amounts, and gas-fired plants emit very low levels of Pb (USEPA, 1998). There are approximately 1,300 coal-fired
electric utility boilers in the U.S. ranging in size from 25 to approximately 1,400 MWe. Based on emission factor
calculations, a 325 MWe coal-fired boiler would be expected to emit approximately 0.021 tpy Pb, based on the use of
an electrostatic precipitator for PM control (USEPA, 1998). Although there are exceptions, coal-fired utility boilers
tend to be located in non-urban areas.
Iron and Steel Foundries
Iron and steel foundries melt scrap, ingot, and other forms of iron and steel and pour the molten metal into molds for
particular products. While located in 44 of the lower 48 states (in both cities and rural areas), the 650 existing
foundries in the U.S., are most heavily concentrated in the Midwest (IN, IL, OH, Ml, Wl, and MN) - roughly 40% of
foundries with almost 60% of U.S. production (USEPA, 2002a). Most are iron foundries operated by manufacturers
of automobiles and large industrial equipment and their suppliers. The largest Pb emission sources at iron foundries
are large furnaces, emissions from which generally range from about 0.3 to 3 tpy (generally released at heights of 25-
30 feet), depending on the throughput of the furnace, the type and operating characteristics of the emission control
system, and the Pb content in the metal charged to the furnace. Regulations promulgated in 2004 are projected to
yield emissions reductions of approximately 25 tpy for this category (USEPA, 2004b).
Hazardous Waste Incineration/ Combustion Facilities
Hazardous waste combustors include hazardous waste incinerators, as well as boilers and industrial furnaces that
burn hazardous waste for energy or material recovery (e.g., production of halogen acid from the combustion of
chlorine-bearing materials). Industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste include cement kilns, lightweight aggregate
kilns, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Lead is a trace contaminant in the hazardous waste, fossil fuels,
and raw materials used in the combustors. In 2005, there were nearly 270 hazardous waste combustor sources in
operation in the United States (70 FR at 59530), with approximately 40 percent of them in the states of Texas and
Louisiana. As a result of emissions standards promulgated in 2005, EPA estimates that cumulative Pb emissions
from hazardous waste combustors will be reduced to approximately 4.0 tons per year by the compliance in 2008
(USEPA, 2005), a 95% reduction from 1990 levels.
Primary Lead Smelting
At primary Pb smelters, Pb-bearing ore concentrates are smelted to produce Pb metal. Lead is emitted from primary
Pb smelters as process emissions, process fugitive emissions, and fugitive dust emissions (CD, p. 2-21). U.S. EPA
promulgated a national emissions standard in 1999 for this category which includes an emissions limit for Pb (U.S.
EPA 1999a). In the 1990s, there were three operating primary Pb smelters in the U.S: one in Montana and two in
Missouri, emitting an estimated total of about 260 tpy Pb. In 2002, there were two in operation (estimated emissions
shown in Table A-1); one of the two had less than 1 tpy Pb emissions. As of 2005, there was only one operating
primary Pb smelter in the U.S., located in Missouri with estimated total emissions of 25 tpy (CD, p. 2-20). Thus, total
Pb emissions from this category have decreased about 90% since 1990.
Secondary Lead Smelting
Secondary Pb smelters are recycling facilities that use blast, rotary, reverberatory, and/or electric furnaces to recover
Pb metal from Pb-bearing scrap materials, primarily Pb-acid batteries. This category does not include remelters and
refiners or primary Pb smelters. At secondary Pb smelters, Pb may be emitted from process emissions, process
fugitive emissions and fugitive dust emissions from wind or mechanically induced entrainment of dust from stockpile
and plant yards and roadways. In 1995, U.S. EPA promulgated a national emissions standard for this category which
July 2007 A-57 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-1. Largest Stationary Source Categories for Pb in the 2002 NEI.
includes an emissions limit for Pb (USEPA, 1995). In 2002, there were 15 secondary smelters operating in 11 states,
most of which are in the eastern half of the U.S. Estimates of total emissions (process and fugitive) for individual
facilities as of 2002 range between 1 and 4 tpy, with one facility having total emissions on the order of 12 tpy
(USEPA, 2007a; EC/R, 2006). Total Pb emissions (tpy) for this category decreased about 60% from 1990 to 2002.
Military Installations
This source category includes sources that are military facilities. The types of sources contributing to Pb emissions
from this category include, among others, rocket and engine test facilities, ammunition manufacturing, weapons
testing, waste combustion and boilers. While there are over 300 military facilities in the NEI, only 10% emit over 0.1
tpy of Pb and only 3% emit over 1 tpy. The two largest facilities (listed in Table A-4) are a missile ammunition
production plant and a weapons testing facility and these two facilities account for over 75% of the category
emissions.
Mining
This category includes various mining facilities that extract ore from the earth containing Pb, zinc, copper and/or other
non-ferrous metals (such as gold and silver), and/or non-metallic minerals such as talc and coal. This category does
not include the smelting or refining of the metals and minerals. These facilities produce ore concentrates (such as
Pb, zinc, and copper concentrates) that are transported to other facilities where further processes, such as smelting
and refining take place. The 2002 NEI indicates that there are 3 mining facilities in the U.S. emitting greater than 0.5
tpy Pb, one of which emits more than 5 tpy. This facility is in Missouri and produces Pb, zinc, and copper
concentrates that are shipped to customers for further processing.
Integrated Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Integrated iron and steel manufacturing includes facilities engaged in the production of steel from iron ore. The
processes involved include sinter plants, blast furnaces that produce iron, and basic oxygen process furnaces that
produce steel, as well as several ancillary processes including hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and
ladle metallurgy. There are currently 17 facilities. The range of Pb emissions is from 2 to 8 tpy per facility. Stack
heights range from heights of 30 - 50 feet. The facilities are located in 9 states; mostly in the Midwest (USEPA,
2003a). U.S. EPA promulgated a national emissions standard in 2003 for this category which includes an emissions
limit for PM (USEPA, 2003b).
Municipal Waste Combustors: Small & Large
Municipal waste combustors (MWCs) incinerate municipal or municipal-type solid waste. The amount of municipal
waste incinerated (about 14% of U.S. municipal waste) has remained stable over the past decade. The amount of Pb
emitted from municipal waste combustors depends on the amount of Pb in the refuse, with typical sources including
paper, inks, cans and other metal scrap and plastics (CD, pp. 2-35 to 2-36). As of 2005, Clean Air Act required
MACT was completed for all and existing new municipal waste incineration units and national Pb emissions from
municipal waste incineration are now less than 10 tons per year, about a 97% reduction since 1990. There are
currently 66 large MWC plants and 26 small MWC plants operating nationally, with individual large MWC plants
projected to emit less than 0.1 tpy Pb, and small MWC plants less than 0.02 tpy Pb (ERG, 2002b,c; Stevenson,
2002).
Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
This category includes manufacturers of flat glass, glass containers, and other pressed and blown glass and
glassware, with Pb emitted primarily from the pressed and blown glass industry sector. Some container plants also
make a leaded-glass product, but this is not typical of container glass plants. Lead may also be added to flat glass
for use in microwaves and flat-screen TVs. Emissions from individual facilities may range from a few pounds per
year up to several tons per year depending on Pb content of their glass and the level of control. Furnace stacks for
these facilities are typically of the order of 35-60 feet high. As of 2005, about 22 tons of Pb is emitted from glass
manufacturing annually. Glass plants are located in 35 States (RTI, 2006). U.S. EPA is currently developing an
emissions regulation for this category, scheduled for promulgation in December 2007.
Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
In the steelmaking process that uses an electric arc furnace (EAF), the primary raw material is scrap metal, which is
melted and refined using electric energy. Since scrap metal is used instead of molten iron, there are no cokemaking
or ironmaking operations associated with steel production that use an EAF. There are currently 141 EAFs at 93
facilities, with estimated total nationwide Pb and Pb compound emissions of approximately 80 tons, and the average
per facility is approximately 0.75 tpy. Stack heights range from heights of 30 - 50 feet. The facilities are located in 32
states; mostly in the northeast and Midwest, with ninety percent of the facilities located in urban areas. This
information is drawn from multiple sources (Lehigh, 1982; Calspan, 1977; RTI, 2005). U.S. EPA is developing a
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions regulation for this category, scheduled for promulgation in December 2007.
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
The Pb acid battery manufacturing category includes establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing storage
batteries from Pb alloy ingots and Pb oxide. The Pb oxide may be prepared by the battery manufacturer or may be
July 2007 A-58 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
Attachment A-1. Largest Stationary Source Categories for Pb in the 2002 NEI.
purchased from a supplier. There has been a general decline in number of facilities, with 58 facilities currently in
operation (data obtained from the Battery Council International (BCI)). The range of facility specific Pb and Pb
compound emissions is from 1 x 10"5 to just below 10 tpy, with an average of about 0.5 tpy. The facilities are located
in urban and rural areas of 23 states and Puerto Rico (2002 NEI).
Primary Copper Smelting
This source category includes all industries which refine copper concentrate from mined ore to anode grade copper,
using pyrometallic processes. Seven primary copper smelters are currently operating in the U.S. Six of these seven
smelters use conventional smelter technology which includes batch converter furnaces for the conversion of matte
grade copper to blister copper, while the seventh uses a continuous flash furnace. Two of the three largest smelters
are located in AZ, and the third is in Utah. The largest facility emitted an estimated 12.8 tons Pb in 2002, while
emissions for the other two large facilities are estimated between 0.1 to 5 tpy. No other source in this category emits
more than 0.1 tpy. In 2002, U.S. EPA promulgated a national emissions standard, including limits for PM, for this
category (USEPA, 2002b).
Portland Cement Manufacturing
Portland cement manufacturing is an energy intensive process in which cement is made by grinding and heating a
mixture of raw materials such as limestone, clay, sand, and iron ore in a rotary kiln (a large furnace fueled by coal, oil,
gas, coke and/or various waste materials). Lead, a trace contaminant both of the raw materials and some fuel
materials (e.g., coal), is emitted with particulate material from the kiln stacks, which range in height from near 10
meters to more than 100 meters. Relatively smaller Pb emissions occur from grinding, cooling, and materials
handling steps in the manufacturing process. These facilities are generally located in areas with limestone deposits
and in rural areas or near small towns. The largest numbers of facilities are in Pennsylvania and California, although
a significant percentage of facilities are in the Midwest. As of 2004, there were 107 Portland cement plants in the
U.S. (O'Hare, 2006), with all but three reporting less than 1 tpy of Pb emissions. The highest estimated Pb emissions
for a facility in the 2002 NEI is 5.4 tpy. In 1999, U.S. EPA promulgated a national emissions standard, including a
limit for PM (as a surrogate for metal HAP, including Pb), for this category (USEPA, 1999b).
July 2007 A-59 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2.
Additional Details of Air Quality Analyses
July 2007 A-60 Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 1. Pb-TSP monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
011090003
011090006
060250005
060371103
060371301
060371601
060374002
060374004
060375001
060375005
060651003
060658001
060711004
060719004
080010005
080010006
080310002
080310015
080410011
080650001
100010002
100031007
100031008
100032004
100051002
120571065
120571066
120571073
120571075
121030004
121030018
121033005
130890003
132150011
150032004
170310001
170310022
170310026
170310052
170313103
170313301
170314201
170316003
171170002
171190010
171193007
171430037
171630010
180350008
180350009
180890023
180892008
180892011
180930004
180970063
180970076
180970078
181010001
181630006
260490021
261130001
261630001
261630005
261630015
261630019
poc
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
5
5
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
1
4
1
lat
31.79056
31.79278
32.67611
34.06659
33.92899
34.01407
33.82376
33.79236
33.92288
33.95080
33.94603
33.99958
34.10374
34.10688
39.79601
39.82574
39.75119
39.70012
38.83139
39.24778
38.98472
39.55111
39.57778
39.73944
38.64444
27.89222
27.96028
27.96583
28.05000
27.94639
27.78556
27.87583
33.69833
32.43083
21.39667
41.67275
41.68920
41.87333
41.96743
41.96528
41.78278
42.14000
41.87194
39.39804
38.69417
38.86056
40.69889
38.61222
40.15806
40.15944
41.65278
41.63944
41.59250
38.88944
39.76083
39.75889
39.81110
38.89028
37.97167
43.04722
44.31056
42.22861
42.26722
42.30278
42.43083
long
-85.97917
-85.98056
-115.48333
-118.22688
-118.21071
-118.06056
-118.18921
-118.17533
-118.37026
-118.43043
-117.40063
-117.41601
-117.62914
-117.27411
-104.97754
-104.93699
-104.98762
-104.98714
-104.82778
-106.29139
-75.55556
-75.73083
-75.61111
-75.55806
-75.61306
-82.53861
-82.38250
-82.37944
-82.37806
-82.73194
-82.74000
-82.69639
-84.27333
-84.93167
-157.97167
-87.73246
-87.53932
-87.64507
-87.74982
-87.87639
-87.80528
-87.79917
-87.82611
-89.80975
-90.15361
-90.10583
-89.58474
-90.16028
-85.42111
-85.41556
-87.43944
-87.49361
-87.47194
-86.55194
-86.29722
-86.28972
-86.11447
-86.76083
-87.56722
-83.67028
-84.89194
-83.20833
-83.13222
-83.10667
-83.00028
state
AL
AL
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
HI
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
county name
Pike
Pike
Imperial
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Riverside
Riverside
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Adams
Adams
Denver
Denver
El Paso
Lake
Kent
New Castle
New Castle
New Castle
Sussex
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Pinellas
Pinellas
Pinellas
DeKalb
Muscogee
Honolulu
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Macoupin
Madison
Madison
Peoria
St. Clair
Delaware
Delaware
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lawrence
Marion
Marion
Marion
Martin
Vanderburgh
Genesee
Missaukee
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
cbsa name
Troy, AL
Troy, AL
El Centra, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Sant
Riverside-San Bernardino-Onfc
Riverside-San Bernardino-Onfc
Riverside-San Bernardino-Onfc
Riverside-San Bernardino-Onfc
Denver-Aurora, CO
Denver-Aurora, CO
Denver-Aurora, CO
Denver-Aurora, CO
Colorado Springs, CO
Edwards, CO
Dover, DE
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilming
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilming
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilming
Seaford, DE
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Mariett;
Columbus, GA-AL
Honolulu, HI
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
Peoria, IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
Muncie, IN
Muncie, IN
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lfs
Bedford, IN
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Evansville, IN-KY
Flint, Ml
Cadillac, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
population
(mile radius)
461
461
16,385
29,329
47,423
13,333
20,131
61,497
19,148
33,968
16,320
16,247
18,777
14,861
2,025
3,313
22,019
14,438
10,581
5,903
352
2,041
3,170
34,053
5,450
14,463
5,793
4,541
10,691
13,048
11,289
2,151
7,888
10,871
23,622
13,648
22,040
28,739
42,187
10,302
23,749
6,070
14,862
40
8,014
5,397
12,643
3,512
2,108
980
5,959
7,144
9,815
393
12,176
9,171
14,196
84
13,666
9,889
58
14,329
11,314
17,729
28,362
under age
5
population
(mile
radius)
31
31
1,290
1,633
5,066
1,066
1,232
6,697
1,680
1,358
1,278
1,678
1,578
1,755
183
256
974
809
552
361
22
209
160
2,649
390
612
465
340
490
557
571
58
663
1,037
1,207
971
1,708
1,203
2,877
670
1,678
303
1,071
2
529
360
1,109
430
104
82
603
612
729
32
875
602
1,175
5
817
994
3
798
923
1,771
2,628
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa popOO
29,605
29,605
142,361
12,365,627
12,365,627
12,365,627
12,365,627
12,365,627
12,365,627
12,365,627
3,254,821
3,254,821
3,254,821
3,254,821
2,157,756
2,157,756
2,157,756
2,157,756
537,484
49,471
126,697
5,687,147
5,687,147
5,687,147
156,638
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
4,247,981
281,768
876,156
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
366,899
2,721,491
118,769
118,769
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
45,922
1,525,104
1,525,104
1,525,104
342,815
436,141
44,962
4,452,557
4,452,557
4,452,557
4,452,557
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
4.45
4.45
0.01
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.86
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.26
1.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.07
0.00
0.18
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.31
0.10
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
6.53
0.00
0.04
0.00
1.71
1.71
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.01
0.00
source
oriented?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
prev.
source
oriented?
(see end
notes)
1
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
10
10
11
12
12
9
12
10
5
7
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
7
12
11
4
4
4
4
4
4
12
12
4
4
8
12
12
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
years
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
months
31
31
34
36
34
27
36
28
14
17
36
35
35
36
36
31
34
20
35
28
12
10
9
11
12
12
35
35
12
12
24
36
36
34
35
35
36
34
32
34
35
24
32
36
34
36
35
36
34
35
34
33
34
26
36
35
33
34
33
36
33
35
34
36
34
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.6875
0.3808
0.0175
0.0225
0.0188
0.0186
0.0149
0.0112
0.0222
0.0057
0.0097
0.0121
0.0142
0.0186
0.1697
0.0304
0.0315
0.0153
0.0156
0.0165
0.0033
0.0039
0.0052
0.0097
0.0033
0.0049
0.5835
0.1934
0.0041
0.0028
0.0042
0.0006
0.1000
0.1000
0.0014
0.0143
0.0270
0.0405
0.0214
0.0149
0.0308
0.0113
0.0303
0.0103
0.0768
0.0150
0.0137
0.0433
0.2944
1.1901
0.0389
0.0219
0.0368
0.0270
0.0320
0.0142
0.0108
0.0272
0.0065
0.0100
0.0032
0.0087
0.0166
0.0178
0.0103
max
quarterl
y mean
1.9233
0.9100
0.0248
0.0627
0.0313
0.0300
0.0400
0.0938
0.0667
0.0118
0.0114
0.0179
0.0343
0.0773
0.5558
0.0957
0.1780
0.0212
0.0891
0.0224
0.0040
0.0046
0.0063
0.0115
0.0042
0.0062
1.2600
0.2933
0.0054
0.0041
0.0071
0.0067
0.1000
0.1000
0.0029
0.0229
0.0353
0.0613
0.0260
0.0271
0.0750
0.0133
0.0387
0.0113
0.3280
0.0193
0.0279
0.0707
0.4657
3.4750
0.0691
0.0296
0.1352
0.0270
0.0770
0.0254
0.0251
0.0299
0.0126
0.0153
0.0056
0.0107
0.0259
0.0252
0.0138
max
monthly
mean
2.6600
1.6900
0.0404
0.1460
0.0440
0.0480
0.0960
0.1020
0.1700
0.0150
0.0160
0.0220
0.0800
0.1420
1.1037
0.2086
0.2955
0.0305
0.1387
0.0310
0.0051
0.0058
0.0081
0.0163
0.0048
0.0094
1.7400
0.4800
0.0105
0.0067
0.0112
0.0200
0.1000
0.1000
0.0072
0.0360
0.0440
0.0900
0.0400
0.0440
0.1950
0.0175
0.0500
0.0140
0.9100
0.0320
0.0320
0.1050
0.7371
4.5582
0.0910
0.0590
0.3050
0.0270
0.1123
0.0360
0.0288
0.0358
0.0286
0.0209
0.0080
0.0124
0.0340
0.0299
0.0149
metr c and population ranks (of all Pb-TSP sites)
annual
mean
5
11
92
81
87
89
101
116
82
138
124
111
106
88
25
72
68
99
98
96
160
154
142
123
159
146
7
24
153
164
152
182
36.5
36.5
175
105
77
55
84
102
70
115
73
119
44
100
109
52
13
2
58
83
62
78
66
107
117
76
134
122
161
127
95
91
120
max
quarterly
mean
3
9
108
67
92
93
79
55
66
134
137
122.5
90
60
18
53
40
117
56
114
173
168
161
135
170
162
7
27
166
172
153
157
51.5
51.5
181
113
88
68
102
99
63
131
82
138
24
121
98
64
19
1
65
96
47
100
61
104
107
95
133
128
165
139
103
106
130
max
monthly
mean
5
10
98
57
93
89
70
66
53
139
137
130
77.5
58
14
49
38
119
59
117
183
178
166
136
185
162
9
28
156
175
153
132.5
68
68
172
108
93
75
101
93
50
135
87.5
142.5
19
114
115.5
64
22
1
73
85
37
125
63
106.5
123
109
124
131
167
148
113
121
140
pop. (M rad.)
162.5
162.5
28
8
3
49
18
2
20
7
29
31
22
37
137
124
16
42
59
100
166
136
125
6
102
41
101
111
58
50
55
134
79
57
13
48
15
9
5
60
12
97
36
184
77
103
51
120
135
153
99
87
64
165
53
68
44
179
47
63
181
43
54
24
10
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
162.5
162.5
25
18
3
37
27
1
15
24
26
16
19
13
133
118
42
51
75
106
167
125
135
6
102
64
87
109
85
73
72
158
62
39
29
43
14
30
5
60
17
113
36
183
78
107
34
92
148
153
66
65
58
161
46
67
31
178
50
41
182
52
44
11
7
July 2007
A-61
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 1. Pb-TSP monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
261630027
261630033
270370001
270370020
270370421
270370423
270370442
270530050
270530963
270530964
270530965
270530966
270530967
270530968
270531007
271231003
271377001
271377555
290930016
290930021
290930023
290930024
290930025
290930026
290930027
290930029
290930030
290990004
290990005
290990008
290990009
290990010
29099001 1
290990013
290990015
291892003
295100085
340231003
360470122
360632008
360713001
360713002
360713004
360850067
390170015
390290019
390290020
390290022
390350038
390350042
390350049
390350050
390350061
390350069
390490025
390510001
390910003
390910005
390910006
390910007
391670008
391670009
401159005
401159006
401159007
poc
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
lat
42.29222
42.30667
44.83333
44.76535
44.77720
44.77500
44.74036
45.00123
44.95540
44.88855
45.00448
44.98133
44.99646
44.89301
45.04182
44.96322
47.52336
46.73264
37.62528
37.65417
37.50333
37.47972
37.51056
37.45917
37.48611
37.47167
37.46639
38.26330
38.26722
38.26194
38.28444
38.24110
38.26820
38.27361
38.26167
38.64972
38.65630
40.47222
40.71980
43.08216
41.46107
41.45887
41.47633
40.59733
39.48990
40.63111
40.63972
40.63500
41.47694
41.48222
41.44667
41.44250
41.47506
41.51918
39.92806
41.57528
40.34306
40.34278
40.34111
40.34472
39.43361
39.37696
36.98580
36.98460
36.97190
long
-83.10694
-83.14889
-93.11500
-93.03248
-93.04097
-93.06278
-93.00556
-93.26712
-93.25827
-93.19538
-93.24005
-93.26615
-93.23488
-93.23323
-93.29873
-93.19023
-92.53631
-92.16337
-91.12917
-91.13056
-90.69556
-90.69028
-90.69750
-90.68639
-90.69000
-90.68944
-90.69000
-90.37850
-90.37944
-90.39417
-90.38194
-90.37680
-90.37380
-90.38000
-90.37972
-90.35056
-90.19810
-74.47139
-73.94788
-79.00099
-74.36343
-74.35392
-74.36827
-74.12619
-84.36407
-80.54694
-80.52389
-80.54667
-81.68194
-81.70889
-81.65111
-81.64917
-81.67596
-81.63794
-82.98111
-83.99639
-83.75500
-83.76028
-83.75778
-83.75444
-81.50250
-81.53730
-94.84920
-94.82490
-94.85180
state
Ml
Ml
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
county name
Wayne
Wayne
Dakota
Dakota
Dakota
Dakota
Dakota
Hennepin
Hennepin
Hennepin
Hennepin
Hennepin
Hennepin
Hennepin
Hennepin
Ramsey
St. Louis
St. Louis
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
St. Louis
St. Louis (City)
Middlesex
Kings
Niagara
Orange
Orange
Orange
Richmond
Butler
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Fulton
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Washington
Washington
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
cbsa name
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloominc
Duluth, MN-WI
Duluth, MN-WI
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
New York-Northern New Jerse
New York-Northern New Jerse
Buffalo-Niagra Falls, NY Metro
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Midc
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Midc
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Midc
New York-Northern New Jerse
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY
East Liverpool-Salem, OH
East Liverpool-Salem, OH
East Liverpool-Salem, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Columbus, OH
Toledo, OH
Bellefontaine, OH
Bellefontaine, OH
Bellefontaine, OH
Bellefontaine, OH
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH
Miami, OK
Miami, OK
Miami, OK
population
(mile radius)
6,024
17,402
5,074
162
478
886
168
16,318
46,218
209
19,106
17,156
14,621
11,243
14,889
9,247
8,942
4,527
58
58
138
32
138
32
32
32
32
2,418
2,418
2,418
9,804
2,799
2,418
3,570
1,988
12,303
9,140
13,850
92,660
6,795
1,481
1,257
6,816
21,834
4,668
5,385
6,414
3,318
7,329
18,776
9,720
8,771
6,141
23,566
15,220
1,503
1,536
1,546
1,217
2,156
1,947
314
1,573
1,573
1,573
under age
5
population
(mile
radius)
516
1,843
404
7
24
83
11
923
3,929
0
1,095
439
580
789
1,118
474
428
287
4
4
7
2
7
2
2
2
2
197
197
197
820
215
197
318
178
512
783
1,124
5,785
386
99
86
434
1,373
373
322
354
202
585
1,575
758
695
444
1,961
1,226
110
108
126
87
185
114
21
117
117
117
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa popOO
4,452,557
4,452,557
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
2,968,806
275,486
275,486
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
2,721,491
18,323,002
18,323,002
1,170,111
621,517
621,517
621,517
18,323,002
2,009,632
112,075
112,075
112,075
2,148,143
2,148,143
2,148,143
2,148,143
2,148,143
2,148,143
1,612,694
659,188
46,005
46,005
46,005
46,005
164,624
164,624
33,194
33,194
33,194
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
1.10
0.55
3.16
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.26
0.01
0.16
0.00
0.41
0.05
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
58.80
58.80
58.80
0.00
0.00
58.80
58.80
58.80
0.01
0.01
1.70
0.07
0.03
1.80
1.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.33
0.09
0.62
0.34
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
source
oriented?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
prev.
source
oriented?
(see end
notes)
1 "#
1 "#
1 "#
1 "#
1 *
1 *
1 "#
1
1
1
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
5
12
8
12
9
12
10
12
12
4
12
12
7
6
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
6
5
5
12
12
6
8
12
10
11
11
12
12
12
11
4
10
9
4
9
9
9
4
8
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
6
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
5
4
4
4
years
1
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
months
14
34
24
32
27
34
28
35
36
14
35
35
20
18
35
33
33
34
34
36
18
18
14
15
33
32
18
24
36
31
31
34
36
35
36
34
11
27
22
12
26
26
26
11
24
36
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
14
11
11
11
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0256
0.0236
0.0781
0.0051
0.0037
0.0018
0.0027
0.0051
0.0039
0.0045
0.0039
0.0047
0.0075
0.0019
0.0026
0.0065
0.0047
0.0014
0.6918
0.5460
0.2291
0.5898
0.2477
0.2266
0.2678
0.2824
0.1665
1.1300
0.3711
0.0910
0.0957
0.0388
0.4778
0.2633
1.4501
0.0063
0.0134
0.0403
0.0276
0.0054
0.0606
0.1257
0.0305
0.0059
0.0107
0.0144
0.0158
0.0139
0.0205
0.0169
0.1214
0.0362
0.0477
0.0170
0.0114
0.1332
0.0922
0.1058
0.1578
0.1497
0.0054
0.0073
0.0412
0.0316
0.0505
max
quarterl
y mean
0.0267
0.0410
0.1153
0.0100
0.0069
0.0050
0.0062
0.0093
0.0071
0.0114
0.0080
0.0080
0.0142
0.0033
0.0067
0.0129
0.0362
0.0031
1.3070
0.7187
0.3433
0.6677
0.3263
0.2523
0.8761
0.7148
0.2017
1.4750
0.6779
0.1857
0.1664
0.0813
1.3047
0.8683
1.9277
0.0500
0.0216
0.1537
0.0333
0.0060
0.0820
0.2417
0.0386
0.0082
0.0248
0.0253
0.0247
0.0367
0.0300
0.0280
0.2367
0.0550
0.3600
0.0233
0.0197
0.2667
0.1467
0.1467
0.2667
0.2200
0.0100
0.0495
0.0613
0.0378
0.1030
max
monthly
mean
0.0353
0.0601
0.2300
0.0200
0.0120
0.0100
0.0080
0.0120
0.0100
0.0180
0.0140
0.0120
0.0225
0.0080
0.0080
0.0350
0.0900
0.0050
4.1933
0.9960
0.6320
1.6026
0.6320
0.3555
1.4414
1.4740
0.3330
2.0731
1.0655
0.3700
0.1750
0.1680
2.2070
3.5680
3.2884
0.0500
0.0290
0.1878
0.0360
0.0080
0.1580
0.4025
0.0400
0.0140
0.0650
0.0300
0.0310
0.0800
0.0600
0.0430
0.4500
0.1000
0.5600
0.0470
0.0270
0.6100
0.2700
0.2200
0.3600
0.2600
0.0130
0.0880
0.0927
0.0623
0.1257
metr c and population ranks (of all Pb-TSP sites)
annual
mean
79
80
42
144
158
173
165
143
156
151
155
149
130
171
166
135
148
177
4
8
21
6
20
23
15
14
26
3
12
40
38
59
10
16
1
136
110
56
74
140
48
31
71
137
118
103
97
108
85
94
33
64
51
93
114
29
39
35
27
28
139
131
54
67
50
max
quarterly
mean
101
77
49
142.5
155
167
163
146
152
136
150.5
150.5
129
177
158
132
87
180
5
12
23
17
25
30
10
13
36
4
16
38
41
58
6
11
2
75
116
42
91
164
57
32
83
148
109
105
110
86
94
97
33
74
21
112
119
28.5
44
45
28.5
34
142.5
76
69
84
50
max
monthly
mean
111
82
47
132.5
150
160
169.5
150
160
134
144
150
129
169.5
169.5
112
74
184
2
16
24.5
11
24.5
35
13
12
36
7
15
32
52
54
6
3
4
87.5
122
51
106.5
169.5
55.5
31
101
142.5
80
120
118
77.5
83.5
95
30
68
27
91
126
26
42
48
33
43
145
76
71
81
60
pop. (M rad.)
98
25
106
175
161
157
171
30
4
170
21
26
40
56
34
67
70
112
182.5
182.5
176.5
187
176.5
187
187
187
187
130.5
130.5
130.5
65
126
130.5
119
138
52
69
45
1
90
150
151
89
17
109
104
94
123
85
23
66
71
96
14
33
148
147
146
152
133
139
168
143.5
143.5
143.5
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
79
9
100
176
164
152
169
45
4
189
35
90
69
53
33
86
93
116
180.5
180.5
174.5
186
174.5
186
186
186
186
128.5
128.5
128.5
49
124
128.5
112
134
81
54
32
2
103
149
151
91
23
105
111
108
126
68
20
57
59
89
8
28
145
146
136
150
132
144
168
139.5
139.5
139.5
July 2007
A-62
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 1. Pb-TSP monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
401159008
410510246
420030002
420032001
420070505
420110005
420110717
420111717
420210808
420250105
420450002
421010449
421290007
450031001
450130007
450190003
450190046
450190047
450410001
450410002
450430006
450430007
450430009
450430010
450450008
450452002
450470001
450470002
450510002
450630005
450631002
450790006
450790007
450790019
450790021
450830001
450850001
450910005
470930027
470931017
471570044
471633001
471633002
471633003
471870100
471870102
471871101
480610006
480850003
480850007
480850009
481130018
481130057
481130066
481410033
482011034
484790016
490351001
721270003
poc
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
lat
36.97160
45.56130
40.50056
40.39667
40.68500
40.46630
40.47667
40.37722
40.34806
40.80306
39.83556
39.98250
40.16667
33.43253
32.43654
32.88394
32.94275
32.84461
34.19794
34.16764
33.36378
33.34973
33.37399
33.36960
34.84045
34.94165
34.18111
34.16520
33.70460
33.78560
33.96900
34.00740
34.09584
33.99330
33.81655
34.94774
33.92423
34.96303
35.98306
35.97500
35.08750
36.52556
36.52472
36.52806
35.80222
35.80222
35.79944
25.89251
33.14250
33.14722
33.14472
32.74556
32.77890
32.73972
31.77694
29.76799
27.51083
40.70861
18.44917
long
-94.82500
-122.67878
-80.07194
-79.86361
-80.32500
-75.75890
-75.75917
-75.91444
-78.88278
-75.60833
-75.37250
-75.08306
-79.87500
-81.89233
-80.67785
-79.97754
-79.65718
-79.94804
-79.79885
-79.85040
-79.29426
-79.29821
-79.28570
-79.29840
-82.40291
-82.22961
-82.15224
-82.16048
-78.87745
-81.11978
-81.06533
-81.02329
-80.96230
-81.02414
-80.78114
-81.93255
-80.33774
-81.00085
-83.95222
-83.95444
-90.07250
-82.27333
-82.26806
-82.26833
-86.66028
-86.66028
-86.66500
-97.49382
-96.82472
-96.82556
-96.82889
-96.78250
-96.87306
-96.78278
-106.50167
-95.22058
-99.51972
-112.09472
-66.05306
state
OK
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
PR
county name
Ottawa
Multnomah
Allegheny
Allegheny
Beaver
Berks
Berks
Berks
Cambria
Carbon
Delaware
Philadelphia
Westmoreland
Aiken
Beaufort
Charleston
Charleston
Charleston
Florence
Florence
Georgetown
Georgetown
Georgetown
Georgetown
Greenville
Greenville
Greenwood
Greenwood
Horry
Lexington
Lexington
Richland
Richland
Richland
Richland
Spartanburg
Sumter
York
Knox
Knox
Shelby
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sullivan
Williamson
Williamson
Williamson
Cameron
Collin
Collin
Collin
Dallas
Dallas
Dallas
El Paso
Harris
Webb
Salt Lake
San Juan
cbsa name
Miami, OK
Portia nd-Vancouver-Beavertor
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Reading, PA
Reading, PA
Reading, PA
Johnstown, PA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilming
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilming
Pittsburgh, PA
Augusta-Richmond County, G/
Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, S
Charleston-North Charleston, i
Charleston-North Charleston, i
Charleston-North Charleston, i
Florence, SC
Florence, SC
Georgetown, SC
Georgetown, SC
Georgetown, SC
Georgetown, SC
Greenville, SC
Greenville, SC
Greenwood, SC
Greenwood, SC
Myrtle Beach-Conway-North M
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
Columbia, SC
Spartanburg, SC
Sumter, SC
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, Is
Knoxville, TN
Knoxville, TN
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-V/
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-V/
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-V/
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesr.
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesr.
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesr.
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
El Paso, TX
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Laredo, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo,
population
(mile radius)
1,573
24,303
19,559
10,120
6,497
692
575
7,376
2,606
8,477
10,156
8,653
7,739
437
4,928
4,401
63
7,000
3,426
1,795
5,247
1,579
2,447
6,173
7,967
7,266
7,853
1,490
4,510
736
8,086
17,143
4,405
15,569
123
7,505
4,990
3,453
8,586
7,817
6,730
942
942
942
165
165
165
14,803
3,837
3,837
3,837
6,451
4,591
8,270
13,680
14,785
14,880
215
319
under age
5
population
(mile
radius)
117
1,771
1,045
769
218
44
39
390
115
513
859
413
445
24
330
275
4
294
224
106
427
119
185
511
381
494
667
116
227
66
551
574
233
287
10
552
407
221
826
763
548
65
65
65
10
10
10
1,422
415
415
415
491
578
622
1,005
1,770
1,441
23
5
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa popOO
33,194
1,927,881
2,431,087
2,431,087
2,431,087
373,638
373,638
373,638
152,598
740,395
5,687,147
5,687,147
2,431,087
499,684
141,615
549,033
549,033
549,033
193,155
193,155
55,797
55,797
55,797
55,797
559,940
559,940
66,271
66,271
196,629
647,158
647,158
647,158
647,158
647,158
647,158
253,791
104,646
1,330,448
616,079
616,079
1,205,204
298,484
298,484
298,484
1,311,789
1,311,789
1,311,789
335,227
5,161,544
5,161,544
5,161,544
5,161,544
5,161,544
5,161,544
679,622
4,715,407
193,117
968,858
2,509,007
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.20
0.01
4.81
4.81
2.11
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.76
5.76
0.00
0.37
0.37
0.37
2.55
2.55
2.55
0.00
3.18
3.18
3.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
source
oriented?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
prev.
source
oriented?
(see end
notes)
1
1
1
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
4
4
12
12
11
11
11
12
12
11
12
12
12
4
12
12
12
4
4
8
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
4
12
4
12
12
12
12
12
11
9
9
6
12
12
12
8
8
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
7
6
12
12
11
12
years
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
3
months
11
11
30
35
31
33
30
33
36
33
35
31
36
12
34
34
33
12
13
24
32
35
35
33
34
32
32
31
35
12
32
12
36
35
35
34
35
27
26
26
17
35
36
35
23
23
24
35
35
34
33
34
35
20
17
36
36
32
36
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0312
0.0081
0.0096
0.0396
0.0563
0.0618
0.1301
0.2570
0.0383
0.0779
0.0372
0.0203
0.0352
0.0000
0.0006
0.0014
0.0005
0.0022
0.0010
0.0011
0.0072
0.0002
0.0038
0.0049
0.0023
0.0001
0.0028
0.0071
0.0009
0.0018
0.0046
0.0030
0.0004
0.0048
0.0001
0.0018
0.0025
0.0021
0.0182
0.0143
0.0100
0.1249
0.0614
0.0651
0.2527
0.2575
0.0811
0.0053
0.2271
0.1186
0.4961
0.0274
0.0362
0.0090
0.0120
0.0081
0.0121
0.0421
0.0014
max
quarterl
y mean
0.0408
0.0101
0.0378
0.0567
0.1531
0.0940
0.1800
0.3967
0.0569
0.2493
0.0400
0.0350
0.0400
0.0000
0.0022
0.0041
0.0032
0.0037
0.0026
0.0034
0.0166
0.0017
0.0081
0.0169
0.0071
0.0006
0.0063
0.0163
0.0020
0.0033
0.0179
0.0069
0.0014
0.0097
0.0012
0.0035
0.0064
0.0042
0.0233
0.0193
0.0100
0.1959
0.1463
0.1259
0.9867
0.6953
0.3027
0.0085
0.3453
0.2111
0.6982
0.0804
0.0611
0.0209
0.0585
0.0220
0.0163
0.0762
0.0100
max
monthly
mean
0.0708
0.0110
0.0503
0.1140
0.2300
0.1580
0.2820
0.8020
0.0920
0.3560
0.0400
0.0380
0.0400
0.0000
0.0070
0.0104
0.0068
0.0058
0.0063
0.0102
0.0420
0.0054
0.0158
0.0265
0.0125
0.0018
0.0112
0.0320
0.0053
0.0052
0.0356
0.0090
0.0042
0.0144
0.0038
0.0062
0.0108
0.0082
0.0400
0.0375
0.0100
0.2843
0.2920
0.2322
1.9120
0.9460
0.7020
0.0090
0.7954
0.4760
0.9692
0.2338
0.1029
0.0420
0.0600
0.0478
0.0230
0.1188
0.0125
metr c and population ranks (of all Pb-TSP sites)
annual
mean
69
129
125
57
49
46
30
18
60
43
61
86
65
189
183
176
184
169
180
179
132
186
157
145
168
187
163
133
181
174
150
162
185
147
188
172
167
170
90
104
121
32
47
45
19
17
41
141
22
34
9
75
63
126
113
128
112
53
178
max
quarterly
mean
78
140
85
73
43
54
39
20
72
31
80.5
89
80.5
189
183
171
179
174
182
176
125
185
149
124
154
188
160
126.5
184
178
122.5
156
186
145
187
175
159
169
111
120
142.5
37
46
48
8
15
26
147
22
35
14
59
70
118
71
115
126.5
62
142.5
max
monthly
mean
79
154
86
62
46
55.5
41
20
72
34
101
104
101
189
173
157
174
179
176
158
97
180
138
127
146.5
188
152
115.5
181
182
110
163.5
186
141
187
177
155
165
101
105
160
40
39
45
8
18
23
163.5
21
29
17
44
65
96
83.5
90
128
61
146.5
pop. (M rad.)
143.5
11
19
62
92
159
160
84
127
74
61
72
82
164
108
115
180
88
122
140
105
141
128
95
78
86
80
149
113
158
76
27
114
32
178
83
107
121
73
81
91
155
155
155
173
173
173
38
117
117
117
93
110
75
46
39
35
169
167
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
139.5
10
38
55
123
159
160
101
143
80
47
98
88
165
110
117
179
114
121
147
94
137
131
82
104
83
61
142
120
154
76
71
119
115
170
74
99
122
48
56
77
156
156
156
172
172
172
22
96
96
96
84
70
63
40
12
21
166
177
These sites were classified as "previous" source-oriented but because production (and related lead emissions) at the associated source was not terminated until December, 2003, only data for 2004-2005 were considered for the "previous" source oriented characterization.
Data for 2004-2005 did not meet completeness criteria..
July 2007
A-63
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 2. Pb-TSP monitoring site distribution statistics
Appendix A
All sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
189
189
189
min
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
pctS
0.0010
0.0031
0.0054
pet 10
0.0019
0.0041
0.0080
pet 15
0.0032
0.0063
0.0100
pct20
0.0042
0.0071
0.0112
pct25
0.0052
0.0100
0.0140
pctSO
0.0071
0.0126
0.0200
pct35
0.0097
0.0179
0.0288
pct40
0.0114
0.0224
0.0320
pct45
0.0143
0.0254
0.0380
median
0.0166
0.0299
0.0430
mean
0.0856
0.1705
0.3015
pctSS
0.0203
0.0367
0.0503
pct60
0.0272
0.0495
0.0880
pct65
0.0316
0.0627
0.1000
pct70
0.0396
0.0820
0.1460
pct75
0.0606
0.1259
0.2200
pctSO
0.0957
0.1857
0.2955
pctSS
0.1332
0.2667
0.4760
pct90
0.2527
0.4657
0.9100
pct95
0.4778
0.8761
1 .6900
max
1.4501
3.4750
4.5582
Source-oriented sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
60
60
60
min
0.0072
0.0100
0.0100
pctS
0.0095
0.0180
0.0311
pet 10
0.0142
0.0221
0.0378
pet 15
0.0229
0.0309
0.0420
pct20
0.0375
0.0731
0.1000
pct25
0.0440
0.0880
0.1580
pctSO
0.0616
0.1206
0.1814
pctSS
0.0775
0.1502
0.2311
pct40
0.0933
0.1829
0.2881
pct45
0.1122
0.2064
0.3577
median
0.1253
0.2470
0.4263
mean
0.2348
0.4678
0.8369
pctSS
0.1455
0.2800
0.5200
pct60
0.1815
0.3272
0.6320
pct65
0.2281
0.3526
0.7663
pct70
0.2549
0.5107
0.9280
pct75
0.2655
0.6866
1 .0307
pctSO
0.3327
0.7167
1.4577
pctSS
0.4869
0.8930
1.7150
pct90
0.5866
1.2823
2.1401
pct95
0.9109
1 .6992
3.4282
max
1.4501
3.4750
4.5582
Not source-oriented sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
129
129
129
min
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
pctS
0.0006
0.0022
0.0051
pet 10
0.0014
0.0033
0.0062
pet 15
0.0021
0.0042
0.0080
pct20
0.0028
0.0060
0.0090
pct25
0.0038
0.0067
0.0105
pctSO
0.0045
0.0080
0.0120
pctSS
0.0051
0.0100
0.0140
pct40
0.0057
0.0114
0.0160
pct45
0.0081
0.0138
0.0220
median
0.0100
0.0179
0.0290
mean
0.0162
0.0322
0.0525
pctSS
0.0113
0.0229
0.0320
pct60
0.0142
0.0253
0.0360
pct65
0.0153
0.0280
0.0404
pct70
0.0175
0.0343
0.0480
pct75
0.0214
0.0386
0.0600
pctSO
0.0272
0.0495
0.0880
pctSS
0.0308
0.0613
0.1000
pct90
0.0372
0.0773
0.1387
pct95
0.0433
0.1030
0.2300
max
0.1497
0.2493
0.3560
Previous source-oriented sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
Urban sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
20
20
20
min
0.0090
0.0100
0.0100
pctS
0.0095
0.0148
0.0185
pet 10
0.0107
0.0203
0.0325
pet 15
0.0158
0.0280
0.0400
pct20
0.0282
0.0450
0.0710
pct25
0.0375
0.0682
0.1000
pctSO
0.0432
0.0907
0.1340
pctSS
0.0717
0.1332
0.1715
pct40
0.0978
0.1840
0.2540
pct45
0.1107
0.2192
0.3442
median
0.1440
0.2445
0.4027
mean
0.2265
0.4563
0.7216
pctSS
0.1966
0.2893
0.5050
pct60
0.2279
0.3348
0.5960
pct65
0.2384
0.3517
0.6320
pct70
0.2578
0.4128
0.6846
pct75
0.2751
0.5667
0.8666
pctSO
0.2884
0.6913
1.2187
pctSS
0.4202
0.7167
1.4577
pct90
0.5679
0.7974
1 .5383
pct95
0.8899
2.1755
3.0804
max
1.1901
3.4750
4.5582
n
140
140
140
min
0.0001
0.0006
0.0018
pctS
0.0012
0.0032
0.0062
pet 10
0.0021
0.0042
0.0081
pet 15
0.0032
0.0067
0.0103
pct20
0.0045
0.0080
0.0120
pct25
0.0052
0.0104
0.0149
pctSO
0.0074
0.0131
0.0204
pctSS
0.0097
0.0174
0.0287
pct40
0.0112
0.0214
0.0315
pct45
0.0138
0.0247
0.0360
median
0.0149
0.0260
0.0400
mean
0.0594
0.1100
0.1958
pctSS
0.0168
0.0300
0.0440
pct60
0.0187
0.0364
0.0502
pct65
0.0230
0.0405
0.0800
pct70
0.0304
0.0612
0.1000
pct75
0.0365
0.0766
0.1164
pctSO
0.0404
0.0979
0.1814
pctSS
0.0780
0.1534
0.2469
pct90
0.1200
0.2430
0.4050
pct95
0.2601
0.4312
0.8560
max
1.4501
1.9277
3.5680
Urban sites, located in MSA's >= 1 million population
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
91
91
91
min
0.0006
0.0033
0.0067
pctS
0.0026
0.0060
0.0082
pet 10
0.0042
0.0071
0.0110
pet 15
0.0051
0.0100
0.0124
pct20
0.0075
0.0114
0.0160
pct25
0.0090
0.0133
0.0200
pctSO
0.0103
0.0197
0.0290
pctSS
0.0113
0.0220
0.0340
pct40
0.0142
0.0252
0.0360
pct45
0.0150
0.0267
0.0400
median
0.0178
0.0300
0.0440
mean
0.0711
0.1343*
0.2442
pctSS
0.0205
0.0353
0.0500
pct60
0.0225
0.0400
0.0601
petes
0.0276
0.0567
0.0960
pct70
0.0315
0.0667
0.1029
pct75
0.0368
0.0773
0.1460
pctSO
0.0396
0.0957
0.1878
pctSS
0.0563
0.1537
0.2338
pct90
0.1000
0.2367
0.4760
pct95
0.3711
0.8683 *
1.7400
max
1.4501
1.9277
3.5680
Urban sites, located in CBSA's < 1 million population
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
49
49
49
min
0.0001
0.0006
0.0018
pctS
0.0006
0.0020
0.0048
pet 10
0.0010
0.0026
0.0053
pet 15
0.0014
0.0034
0.0063
pct20
0.0018
0.0037
0.0072
pct25
0.0025
0.0063
0.0102
pctSO
0.0030
0.0069
0.0108
pctSS
0.0046
0.0085
0.0144
pct40
0.0048
0.0126
0.0209
pct45
0.0065
0.0166
0.0286
median
0.0100
0.0179
0.0310
mean
0.0378
0.0649
0.1060
pctSS
0.0121
0.0224
0.0320
pct60
0.0143
0.0248
0.0400
pct65
0.0156
0.0279
0.0404
pct70
0.0175
0.0386
0.0800
pct75
0.0305
0.0585
0.0920
pctSO
0.0779
0.1000
0.1387
pctSS
0.1000
0.1467
0.2600
pct90
0.1332
0.2493
0.3560
pct95
0.1578
0.2667
0.6100
max
0.2944
0.4657
0.8020
These values rounded to 0.14 and 0.87 [ig/m , respectively, in a preliminary analysis based on 92 sites in this subset. Subsequent QA led to a change in the data set and in the value for the first statistical metric.
July 2007
A-64
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 3. Correlation among the three Pb-TSP site level statistics, 2003-2005
Appendix A
All sites
Urban sites
Annual
mean
Maximum
quarterly
mean
Maximum
monthly
mean
Annual
mean
1.00
Maximum
quarterly
mean
0.92
1.00
Maximum
monthly
mean
0.87
093
1.00
Annual
mean
Maximum
quarterly
mean
Maximum
monthly
mean
Annual
mean
1.00
Maximum
quarterly
mean
0.95
1.00
Maximum
monthly
mean
0.83
0.93
1.00
Source-oriented sites
Annual
mean
Maximum
quarterly
mean
Maximum
monthly
mean
Annual
mean
1.00
Maximum
quarterly
mean
0.89
1.00
Maximum
monthly
mean
0.82
0.91
1.00
Urban sites located in MSA > 1M population
Annual
mean
Maximum
quarterly
mean
Maximum
monthly
mean
Annual
mean
1.00
Maximum
quarterly
mean
0.95
1.00
Maximum
monthly
mean
0.83
0.93
1.00
July 2007
A-65
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 4. Pb-TSP mteric ratio statistics
Appendix A
TSP Category
All sites
Source-oriented sites
Non-source-oriented
sites
Previous source-
oriented sites
Urban sites
Urban sites in CBSAs >
1M population
Urban sites in CBSAs <
1M population
Ratio
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
ratio of max quarterly mean to
annual mean
ratio of max monthly mean to annual
mean
n
189
60
149
9
140
91
49
mm
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
pctS
1.1135
1.3553
1.0787
1.4735
1.1368
1.3140
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.1077
1.3046
1.2648
1.4392
pctIO
1 .2080
1 .5556
1 .2484
1.8318
1 .2034
1 .4769
1 .0567
1 .2843
1 .0000
1 .0000
1 .2080
1 .4769
1 .3522
1 .7365
pct15
1.2852
1.8176
1.3167
1.9768
1.2648
1.6578
1.1228
1.6963
1.0000
1.0000
1.2745
1.6578
1.3838
1.9615
pct20
1.3433
1.9537
1.3529
2.1856
1.3095
1.8680
1.1718
1.8265
1.0000
1.0000
1.3095
1.8346
1.4152
2.0898
pct25
1.3848
2.1483
1.3966
2.2786
1.3826
2.0164
1.2639
1.8518
1.2844
1.7515
1.3759
1.9910
1.5299
2.2033
pctSO
1 .4837
2.3056
1 .5077
2.4255
1 .4753
2.2496
1.3167
1 .9373
1.2844
1.7515
1 .4753
2.2676
1.5608
2.3056
pct35
1.5299
2.4173
1.5205
2.5440
1.5591
2.3671
1.4079
2.1845
1.4769
1.8793
1.5167
2.3690
1.6127
2.5035
pct40
1.6157
2.5481
1.5749
2.6154
1.6332
2.5200
1.5090
2.4362
1.4769
1.8793
1.6157
2.5370
1.6901
2.6417
pct45
1.7256
2.6417
1.7261
2.7606
1.7079
2.5851
1.5505
2.5272
1.4961
2.7692
1.6829
2.5619
1.9505
2.9528
median
1.7970
2.8558
1.7773
2.9639
1.8151
2.7967
1.6536
2.6341
1.4961
2.7692
1.7366
2.6726
2.0025
3.1207
mean
2.3614
4.4247
2.0702
3.7763
2.4980
4.7287
2.0260
3.2812
2.1334
3.2977
2.3159*
4.0747 *
2.3597
4.5456
pct55
1.8916
2.9726
1.8582
3.1613
1.9665
2.9508
1.7261
2.7379
1.4961
2.7692
1.7900
2.8714
2.0091
3.5286
pct60
2.0053
3.5128
1.9280
3.5393
2.0293
3.4823
1.7327
2.7606
1.7310
2.7863
1.8451
2.9508
2.1715
4.4055
pct65
2.1595
4.0128
2.0220
3.7682
2.2498
4.0858
1.8440
3.2344
1.7310
2.7863
2.0496
3.5868
2.2498
4.5723
pct70
2.3170
4.4273
2.2286
4.0401
2.4153
4.5723
2.0234
3.7682
1 .7620
3.1159
2.3164
4.0253
2.6223
5.0000
pct75
2.5890
4.9871
2.3849
4.5092
2.6899
5.5927
2.2073
4.0814
1.7620
3.1159
2.4317
4.6478
2.7241
5.5497
pctSO
2.7976
5.7675
2.6159
4.6536
2.9390
6.3223
2.4242
4.4902
1.9586
3.7241
2.7033
5.6357
3.1395
5.8680
pct85
3.2023
6.5038
2.8588
5.3012
3.4555
7.6473
2.7257
4.9340
1.9586
3.7241
3.0063
6.4892
3.4555
7.3340
pctSO
3.9233
8.5462
3.2865
6.2826
4.1647
9.1396
3.0956
5.3012
7.4913
11.6532
3.8141
8.0000
3.9762
9.3326
pct95
5.9868
11.8424
3.8592
10.2029
7.3577
12.1935
5.4114
8.5646
7.4913
11.6532
7.3577 *
9.3770
4.8718
12.1935
max
12.0000
39.0000
7.5516
13.5518
12.0000
39.0000
7.5516
11.7469
7.4913
11.6532
12.0000
36.0000
7.6772
19.1113
These values rounded to 2.5, 7.6, and 4.0 ug/m , respectively, in a preliminary analysis based on 92 sites in this subset. Subsequent QA led to a change in the data set and the statistical metric values.
July 2007
A-66
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 5. Pb-PK^0 monitor site information
Appendix A
site
080770017
110010043
120571065
120573002
121030018
121030026
130890002
170314201
211930003
250250042
261630033
295100085
360850106
360850111
360850131
360850132
410510030
410510080
410510244
410510246
410610119
440070022
450250001
481390017
481410041
482011035
482011039
490110004
530330080
530630016
poc
1
1
5
5
5
5
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
1
1
1
7
7
8
7
7
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
lat
39.06363
38.91889
27.89222
27.96565
27.78556
27.85004
33.68750
42.14000
37.28306
42.32944
42.30667
38.65630
40.57811
40.57997
40.58806
40.58061
45.49742
45.49667
45.53500
45.56130
45.33897
41.80795
34.61712
32.47361
31.76054
29.73371
29.67005
40.90297
47.57027
47.66083
long
-108.56102
-77.01250
-82.53861
-82.23040
-82.74000
-82.71459
-84.29028
-87.79917
-83.22028
-71.08278
-83.14889
-90.19810
-74.18430
-74.19872
-74.16882
-74.15158
-122.67467
-122.60222
-122.69889
-122.67878
-117.90480
-71.41500
-80.19879
-97.04250
-106.50045
-95.25759
-95.12849
-111.88447
-122.30860
-117.35722
state
CO
DC
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
IL
KY
MA
Ml
MO
NY
NY
NY
NY
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
Rl
SC
TX
TX
TX
TX
LIT
WA
WA
county name
Mesa
District of Columbi
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Pinellas
Pinellas
DeKalb
Cook
Perry
Suffolk
Wayne
St. Louis (City)
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond
Richmond
Multnomah
Multnomah
Multnomah
Multnomah
Union
Providence
Chesterfield
Ellis
El Paso
Harris
Harris
Davis
King
Spokane
cbsa name
Grand Junction, CO
Washington-Arlington-Alexand
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearw;
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Mariett;
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
St. Louis, MO-IL
New York-Northern New Jerse
New York-Northern New Jerse
New York-Northern New Jerse
New York-Northern New Jerse
Portia nd-Vancouver-Beavertor
Portia nd-Vancouver-Beavertor
Portia nd-Vancouver-Beavertor
Portia nd-Vancouver-Beavertor
La Grande, OR
Providence-New Bedford-Fall I
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T)
El Paso, TX
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Ogden-Clearfield, LIT
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Spokane, WA
population
(mile radius)
11,955
42,772
14,463
1,163
11,289
14,792
3,554
6,070
731
59,254
17,402
9,140
37
189
15,295
18,213
11,525
23,978
17,548
24,303
41
35,343
165
239
18,637
8,874
13,417
13,879
11,847
6,466
under age 5
population
(mile radius)
783
2,494
612
94
571
950
210
303
37
3,235
1,843
783
5
18
895
1,054
323
1,464
415
1,771
3
3,116
14
17
1,480
764
1,183
1,301
695
527
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa popOO
116,255
4,796,183
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
2,395,997
4,247,981
9,098,316
4,391,344
4,452,557
2,721,491
18,323,002
18,323,002
18,323,002
18,323,002
1,927,881
1,927,881
1,927,881
1,927,881
24,530
1,582,997
5,161,544
679,622
4,715,407
4,715,407
442,656
3,043,878
417,939
sum
point/nonpt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.548
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.020
0.001
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
source
oriented?
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
4
7
8
8
4
6
12
4
12
6
12
10
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
8
7
12
8
6
4
12
12
10
11
4
years
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
months
13
20
23
24
12
17
34
12
34
22
35
30
11
11
10
11
11
22
21
23
20
36
20
17
12
36
31
29
32
12
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0049
0.0052
0.0062
0.0035
0.0022
0.0023
0.0026
0.0060
0.0040
0.0049
0.0212
0.0127
0.0071
0.0074
0.0069
0.0095
0.0056
0.0055
0.0063
0.0097
0.0018
0.0098
0.0029
0.0151
0.0118
0.0077
0.0056
0.0059
0.0049
0.0059
max
quarterl
y mean
0.0056
0.0085
0.0207
0.0048
0.0030
0.0034
0.0046
0.0076
0.0066
0.0085
0.0390
0.0170
0.0117
0.0123
0.0115
0.0223
0.0104
0.0088
0.0098
0.0273
0.0027
0.0547
0.0049
0.0211
0.0167
0.0106
0.0113
0.0081
0.0085
0.0108
max
monthly
mean
0.0085
0.0097
0.0469
0.0075
0.0047
0.0045
0.0106
0.0094
0.0078
0.0151
0.0667
0.0256
0.0150
0.0160
0.0120
0.0300
0.0123
0.0144
0.0190
0.0608
0.0030
0.1529
0.0071
0.0370
0.0253
0.0116
0.0136
0.0111
0.0146
0.0211
metric and population ranks (of all Pb-PM 10 sites)
annual
mean
22
20
13
25
29
28
27
14
24
23
1
3
10
9
11
7
17
19
12
6
30
5
26
2
4
8
18
15
21
16
max
quarterly
mean
24
20
6
26
29
28
27
22
23
18
2
7
10
9
11
4
15
17
16
3
30
1
25
5
8
14
12
21
19
13
max
monthly
mean
24
22
4
26
28
29
21
23
25
12
2
7
13
11
18
6
17
15
10
3
30
1
27
5
8
19
16
20
14
9
pop. (M rad.)
15
2
12
24
18
11
23
22
25
1
9
19
30
27
10
7
17
5
8
4
29
3
28
26
6
20
14
13
16
21
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
14
3
17
24
18
11
23
22
25
1
4
13
29
26
12
10
21
7
20
5
30
2
28
27
6
15
9
8
16
19
July 2007
A-67
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 6. Pb-PM10 monitoring site distribution statistics
Appendix A
All sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
30
30
30
min
0.0018
0.0027
0.0030
pct5
0.0022
0.0030
0.0045
pctIO
0.0024
0.0040
0.0059
pct15
0.0029
0.0048
0.0075
pct20
0.0038
0.0053
0.0081
pct25
0.0049
0.0066
0.0094
pctSO
0.0049
0.0078
0.0101
pct35
0.0052
0.0085
0.0111
pct40
0.0055
0.0085
0.0118
pct45
0.0056
0.0088
0.0123
median
0.0059
0.0101
0.0140
mean
0.0068
0.0131
0.0231
pct55
0.0060
0.0106
0.0146
pct60
0.0062
0.0110
0.0150
pct65
0.0069
0.0115
0.0160
pct70
0.0073
0.0120
0.0201
pct75
0.0077
0.0167
0.0253
pctSO
0.0096
0.0189
0.0278
pct85
0.0098
0.021 1
0.0370
pct90
0.0123
0.0248
0.0539
pct95
0.0151
0.0390
0.0667
max
0.0212
0.0547
0.1529
Urban sites
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
21
21
21
min
0.0022
0.0030
0.0045
pct5
0.0023
0.0034
0.0047
pctIO
0.0026
0.0046
0.0085
pct15
0.0049
0.0056
0.0094
pct20
0.0049
0.0076
0.0097
pct25
0.0049
0.0081
0.0106
pctSO
0.0052
0.0085
0.0111
pct35
0.0055
0.0085
0.0116
pct40
0.0056
0.0085
0.0123
pct45
0.0056
0.0088
0.0136
median
0.0059
0.0098
0.0144
mean
0.0070
0.0140
0.0266
pct55
0.0059
0.0104
0.0146
pct60
0.0060
0.0106
0.0151
pct65
0.0062
0.0108
0.0190
pct70
0.0063
0.0113
0.021 1
pct75
0.0077
0.0167
0.0253
pctSO
0.0097
0.0170
0.0256
pct85
0.0098
0.0207
0.0469
pct90
0.0118
0.0273
0.0608
pct95
0.0127
0.0390
0.0667
max
0.0212
0.0547
0.1529
Urban sites, located in MSA's >= 1 million DODU
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
17
17
17
mm
0.0022
0.0030
0.0045
pct5
0.0022
0.0030
0.0045
ation
pctIO
0.0023
0.0034
0.0047
pct15
0.0026
0.0046
0.0094
pct20
0.0049
0.0076
0.0097
pct25
0.0049
0.0085
0.0106
pctSO
0.0052
0.0085
0.0116
pct35
0.0052
0.0085
0.0116
pct40
0.0055
0.0085
0.0123
pct45
0.0056
0.0088
0.0136
median
0.0056
0.0098
0.0144
mean
0.0070
0.0149
0.0290
pct55
0.0060
0.0104
0.0146
pct60
0.0062
0.0106
0.0151
pct65
0.0063
0.0113
0.0190
pct70
0.0063
0.0113
0.0190
pct75
0.0077
0.0170
0.0256
pctSO
0.0097
0.0207
0.0469
pct85
0.0098
0.0273
0.0608
pct90
0.0127
0.0390
0.0667
pct95
0.0212
0.0547
0.1529
max
0.0212
0.0547
0.1529
Urban sites, located in CBSA's < 1 million population
annual mean
max quarter mean
max monthly mean
n
4
4
4
mm
0.0049
0.0056
0.0085
pct5
0.0049
0.0056
0.0085
pctIO
0.0049
0.0056
0.0085
pct15
0.0049
0.0056
0.0085
pct20
0.0049
0.0056
0.0085
pct25
0.0054
0.0069
0.0098
pctSO
0.0059
0.0081
0.0111
pct35
0.0059
0.0081
0.0111
pct40
0.0059
0.0081
0.0111
pct45
0.0059
0.0081
0.0111
median
0.0059
0.0095
0.0161
mean
0.0071
0.0103
0.0165
pct55
0.0059
0.0108
0.021 1
pct60
0.0059
0.0108
0.021 1
pct65
0.0059
0.0108
0.021 1
pct70
0.0059
0.0108
0.021 1
pct75
0.0089
0.0137
0.0232
pctSO
0.0118
0.0167
0.0253
pct85
0.0118
0.0167
0.0253
pct90
0.0118
0.0167
0.0253
pct95
0.0118
0.0167
0.0253
max
0.0118
0.0167
0.0253
July 2007
A-68
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 7. Pb-PM2.5 monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
010050002
010730023
010731009
010732003
010890014
010970003
011011002
011030011
020200018
040130019
040137003
040137020
040139997
040139998
040191028
051190007
051450001
060070002
060190008
060250005
060290014
060371103
060631009
060658001
060670006
060670010
060730003
060731002
060850005
060990005
061072002
061112002
080010006
080410011
080770017
081230008
090090027
100010003
100032004
110010042
110010043
120330004
120571075
120573002
120730012
120861016
121030026
130210007
130510017
130590001
130690002
130890002
131150005
132150011
132450091
150032004
160270004
170310057
170310076
170314201
170434002
171150013
171192009
180030004
180372001
poc
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
lat
31.66414
33.55306
33.45972
33.49972
34.69083
30.76972
32.40694
34.51861
61.20667
33.48385
33.28936
33.47333
33.50364
33.45513
32.29515
34.75611
35.24861
39.75750
36.78139
32.67611
35.35611
34.06659
39.80833
33.99958
38.61417
38.55833
32.79139
33.12778
37.34850
37.64167
36.33222
34.27750
39.82574
38.83139
39.06363
40.20917
41.30111
39.15500
39.73944
38.88083
38.91889
30.52500
28.05000
27.96565
30.43972
25.79417
27.85004
32.77944
32.09278
33.94583
31.52430
33.68750
34.26333
32.43083
33.43333
21.39667
43.56240
41.91473
41.75137
42.14000
41.77120
39.86694
38.90278
41.09472
38.39139
long
-85.60623
-86.81500
-87.30556
-86.92417
-86.58306
-88.08750
-86.25639
-86.97694
-149.82083
-112.14257
-112.15732
-111.85418
-112.09500
-111.99610
-110.98230
-92.27583
-91.71528
-121.84222
-119.77222
-115.48333
-119.04028
-118.22688
-120.47167
-117.41601
-121.36694
-121.49194
-116.94167
-117.07417
-121.89500
-120.99361
-119.29028
-118.68472
-104.93699
-104.82778
-108.56102
-104.82306
-72.90278
-75.51806
-75.55806
-77.03250
-77.01250
-87.20417
-82.37806
-82.23040
-84.34833
-80.20611
-82.71459
-83.64694
-81.14417
-83.37222
-82.76510
-84.29028
-85.27250
-84.93167
-82.02194
-157.97167
-116.56323
-87.72273
-87.71375
-87.79917
-88.15250
-88.92556
-90.14306
-85.10194
-86.92917
state
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AK
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
DE
DE
DC
DC
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
county_name
Barbour
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Madison
Mobile
Montgomery
Morgan
Anchorage Munich
Maricopa
Maricopa
Maricopa
Maricopa
Maricopa
Pima
Pulaski
White
Butte
Fresno
Imperial
Kern
Los Angeles
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
Sacramento
San Diego
San Diego
Santa Clara
Stanislaus
Tulare
Ventura
Adams
El Paso
Mesa
Weld
New Haven
Kent
New Castle
District of Columbii
District of Columbii
Escambia
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Leon
Miami-Dade
Pinellas
Bibb
Chatham
Clarke
Coffee
DeKalb
Floyd
Muscogee
Richmond
Honolulu
Canyon
Cook
Cook
Cook
DuPage
Macon
Madison
Allen
Dubois
cbsa name
Eufaula, AL-GA
Birmingham- Hoover, AL
Birmingham-Hoover, AL
Birmingham-Hoover, AL
Huntsville, AL
Mobile, AL
Montgomery, AL
Decatur, AL
Anchorage, AK
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Little Rock-North Little Rock, A
Searcy, AR
Chico, CA
Fresno, CA
El Centre, CA
Bakersfield, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santi
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontt
Sacramento- Arden-Arcade-R
Sacramento- Arden-Arcade-R
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marc
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marc
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clฃ
Modesto, CA
Visalia-Porterville, CA
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventu
Denver-Aurora, CO
Colorado Springs, CO
Grand Junction, CO
Greeley, CO
New Haven-Milford, CT
Dover, DE
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmingt
Washington-Arlington-Alexandr
Washington-Arlington-Alexandr
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, F
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwa
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwa
Tallahassee, FL
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami E
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwa
Macon, GA
Savannah, GA
Athens-Clarke County, GA
Douglas, GA
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-MariettE
Rome, GA
Columbus, GA-AL
Augusta-Richmond County, Gfi
Honolulu, HI
Boise City-Nampa, ID
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lls
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lls
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lls
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN
Decatur, IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
Fort Wayne, IN
Jasper, IN
population
(mile radius)
197
6,693
71
4,052
5,583
5,526
5,481
975
15,123
18,127
111
560
29,451
19,938
8,520
3,841
3,081
16,060
21,144
16,385
18,619
29,329
420
16,247
16,004
20,302
31,832
32,726
23,283
12,894
17,172
3,102
3,313
10,581
11,955
5,349
17,229
10,128
34,053
5,251
42,772
4,934
10,691
1,163
3,291
23,836
14,792
6,732
6,616
13,999
1,072
3,554
2,911
10,871
6,898
23,622
13,093
86,435
33,132
6,070
11,993
5,738
7,856
11,028
4,115
under age 5
population
(mile radius)
6
450
2
284
298
413
333
52
1,295
1,987
14
51
3,131
2,547
426
271
122
1,003
1,825
1,290
1,625
1,633
23
1,678
820
1,058
2,817
3,429
1,608
1,023
1,813
212
256
552
783
489
1,454
677
2,649
170
2,494
273
490
94
173
1,804
950
599
612
364
90
210
172
1,037
593
1,207
1,291
8,481
2,642
303
699
531
504
813
289
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa_popOO
31,636
1,052,238
1,052,238
1,052,238
342,376
399,843
346,528
145,867
319,605
3,251,876
3,251,876
3,251,876
3,251,876
3,251,876
843,746
610,518
67,165
203,171
799,407
142,361
661,645
12,365,627
3,254,821
1,796,857
1,796,857
2,813,833
2,813,833
1,735,819
446,997
368,021
753,197
2,157,756
537,484
116,255
180,936
824,008
126,697
5,687,147
4,796,183
4,796,183
412,153
2,395,997
2,395,997
320,304
5,007,564
2,395,997
222,368
293,000
166,079
45,022
4,247,981
90,565
281,768
499,684
876,156
464,840
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
9,098,316
114,706
2,721,491
390,156
52,511
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.01
0.00
0.01
0.04
source
oriented?
1
1
1
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
8
12
11
12
12
12
12
11
6
7
4
4
12
6
12
12
7
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
9
12
8
12
11
6
12
12
4
8
12
12
5
12
8
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
12
11
7
4
years
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
months
25
36
34
36
34
36
34
30
17
20
10
11
36
18
35
33
22
36
36
36
32
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
33
36
34
25
36
20
34
32
18
36
36
12
24
36
36
16
34
22
29
30
36
33
32
32
34
36
35
36
36
23
35
32
20
12
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0027
0.0180
0.0024
0.0450
0.0024
0.0038
0.0045
0.0028
0.0043
0.0044
0.0027
0.0026
0.0027
0.0033
0.0017
0.0029
0.0021
0.0026
0.0030
0.0119
0.0026
0.0053
0.0025
0.0058
0.0022
0.0029
0.0039
0.0035
0.0026
0.0033
0.0034
0.0020
0.0077
0.0019
0.0023
0.0020
0.0029
0.0024
0.0046
0.0037
0.0035
0.0019
0.0023
0.0027
0.0020
0.0020
0.0025
0.0029
0.0017
0.0022
0.0013
0.0027
0.0023
0.0036
0.0025
0.0010
0.0022
0.0071
0.0054
0.0040
0.0047
0.0067
0.0079
0.0474
0.0042
max
quarterly
mean
0.0033
0.0296
0.0032
0.0967
0.0040
0.0060
0.0083
0.0042
0.0067
0.0057
0.0049
0.0038
0.0047
0.0047
0.0022
0.0042
0.0046
0.0039
0.0050
0.0172
0.0046
0.0098
0.0041
0.0088
0.0031
0.0037
0.0059
0.0050
0.0063
0.0065
0.0046
0.0032
0.0163
0.0028
0.0035
0.0034
0.0043
0.0038
0.0084
0.0058
0.0063
0.0026
0.0034
0.0042
0.0034
0.0068
0.0039
0.0069
0.0029
0.0029
0.0022
0.0042
0.0030
0.0101
0.0038
0.0021
0.0046
0.0115
0.0063
0.0054
0.0063
0.0142
0.0208
0.1674
0.0051
max
monthly
mean
0.0053
0.0475
0.0044
0.2091
0.0057
0.0096
0.0115
0.0060
0.0101
0.0100
0.0067
0.0058
0.0069
0.0075
0.0035
0.0061
0.0063
0.0054
0.0066
0.0342
0.0061
0.0228
0.0054
0.0151
0.0047
0.0052
0.0078
0.0064
0.0138
0.0090
0.0060
0.0042
0.0185
0.0048
0.0056
0.0054
0.0066
0.0051
0.0114
0.0075
0.0093
0.0042
0.0052
0.0069
0.0049
0.0163
0.0088
0.0147
0.0041
0.0041
0.0032
0.0077
0.0040
0.0086
0.0067
0.0031
0.0096
0.0172
0.0087
0.0085
0.0072
0.0228
0.0413
0.3091
0.0063
metric and population ranks (of all Pb-PI\$ 5 sites)
annual
mean
168
4
196
2
193
95
68
163
72
69
175
181
177
133
240
155
217
179
152
10
180
46
190
40
211
159
90
122
185
130
128
228
24
232
205
229
157
192
65
106
119
234
206
170
227
224
191
156
238
208
245
174
202
111
188
253
207
29
44
89
62
31
21
1
83
max
quarterly
mean
212
5
213
2
175
100
51
169
76
112
136
190
143
142
245
165
148
182
132
15
144
40
174
46
219
197
103
133
90
83
146
215
16
229
200
205
159
192
49
107
87
237
209
171
207
75
185
72
226
228
246
164
223
38
188
247
149
34
88
121
86
23
9
1
129
max
monthly
mean
197
4
221
2
183
83
58
170
71
75
148
177
137
123
244
168
156
192.5
149
11
164
26
192.5
47
215
200
117
153
50
89
172
224
37
214
189
194
150
204
61
122
87
223
199
140
209
43
92
48
229
231
248
119
235
100
144
249
82
39
95
104
131
27
7
1
157
pop. (M rad.)
237
148
248
181
163
164
165
216
68
45
244
224
20
42
128
183
196
63
35
61
44
21
227
62
64
38
18
17
33
88
56
195
191
110
96
167
54
114
14
170
10
173
109
212
192
29
71
145
149
78
213
188
198
108
143
32
86
4
15
157
95
161
135
105
180
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
244
143
252
173
170
151
163
217
53
26
231
218
13
19
148
178
205
75
29
56
41
40
227
39
89
68
15
9
42
72
30
185
181
129
96
142
48
108
16
196
21
176
141
211
194
31
77
119
116
160
212
187
195
71
120
60
55
3
17
169
104
132
137
90
171
A-69
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 7. Pb-PM2.5 monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
180390003
180650003
180890022
180892004
180970078
181411008
181630012
191130037
191530030
191630015
201730010
202090021
210190017
210590005
210590014
210670012
211110043
211110048
211170007
211250004
211451004
211930003
212270007
220150008
220330009
240030019
240053001
240330030
250130008
250250042
260050003
260330901
260770008
260810020
261130001
261150005
261610008
261630001
261630033
270530963
270953051
271095008
271230871
280350004
280430001
280470008
280490018
280670002
290470005
290530001
290990012
291860005
292070001
295100085
300530018
300630031
310550019
320030560
320030561
320310016
330110020
330150014
340070003
340230006
340273001
poc
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
lat
41.66778
40.01167
41.60667
41.58528
39.81110
41.69361
38.02167
42.00833
41.60306
41.53000
37.70111
39.11750
38.45917
37.78083
37.74111
38.06500
38.23222
38.24056
39.07250
37.08722
37.06556
37.28306
36.99333
32.53417
30.46111
39.10111
39.31083
39.05528
42.19446
42.32944
42.76778
46.49361
42.27806
42.98417
44.31056
41.76389
42.24056
42.22861
42.30667
44.95540
46.20703
43.99691
44.96145
31.32364
33.83611
30.39014
32.29681
31.68844
39.30306
38.79500
38.43778
37.89694
36.97000
38.65630
48.38417
46.87491
41.24722
36.15861
36.16399
39.52508
43.00056
43.07528
39.92304
40.47279
40.78763
long
-85.96944
-85.52361
-87.30472
-87.47444
-86.11447
-86.23667
-87.56944
-91.67861
-93.64306
-90.58750
-97.31389
-94.63556
-82.64056
-87.07556
-87.11806
-84.50000
-85.82528
-85.73167
-84.52500
-84.06333
-88.63778
-83.22028
-86.41833
-93.74972
-91.17694
-76.72944
-76.47444
-76.87833
-72.55571
-71.08278
-86.14861
-84.36417
-85.54194
-85.67139
-84.89194
-83.47194
-83.59972
-83.20833
-83.14889
-93.25827
-93.75941
-92.45037
-93.03589
-89.28717
-89.79722
-89.04972
-90.18831
-89.13506
-94.37639
-92.91806
-90.36139
-90.42222
-90.14000
-90.19810
-115.54806
-113.99525
-95.97556
-115.11083
-115.11393
-119.80772
-71.46806
-70.74806
-75.09762
-74.42251
-74.67630
state
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
MD
MD
MD
MA
MA
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MN
MN
MN
MN
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
NE
NV
NV
NV
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
county_name
Elkhart
Henry
Lake
Lake
Marion
St. Joseph
Vanderburgh
Linn
Polk
Scott
Sedgwick
Wyandotte
Boyd
Daviess
Daviess
Fayette
Jefferson
Jefferson
Kenton
Laurel
McCracken
Perry
Warren
Bossier
East Baton Rouge
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Prince George's
Hampden
Suffolk
Allegan
Chippewa
Kalamazoo
Kent
Missaukee
Monroe
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wayne
Hennepin
Mille Lacs
Olmsted
Ramsey
Forrest
Grenada
Harrison
Hinds
Jones
Clay
Cooper
Jefferson
Ste Genevieve
Stoddard
St. Louis (City)
Lincoln
Missoula
Douglas
Clark
Clark
Washoe
Hillsborough
Rockingham
Camden
Middlesex
Morris
cbsa name
Elkhart-Goshen, IN
New Castle, IN
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lls
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-lls
ndianapolis-Carmel, IN
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI
Evansville, IN-KY
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines-West Des Moines,
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island,
Wichita, KS
Kansas City, MO-KS
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-O
Owensboro, KY
Owensboro, KY
Lexington-Fayette, KY
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY
Louisville-Jefferson County, KY
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-
London, KY
Paducah, KY-IL
Bowling Green, KY
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Washing! on-Arlington-Alexandr
Springfield, MA
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA
Allegan, Ml
Sault Ste. Marie, Ml
Kalamazoo-Portage, Ml
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, Ml
Cadillac, Ml
Monroe, Ml
Ann Arbor, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Ml
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Blooming
Rochester, MN
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Blooming
Hattiesburg, MS
Grenada, MS
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
Jackson, MS
Laurel, MS
Kansas City, MO-KS
St. Louis, MO-IL
St. Louis, MO-IL
Missoula, MT
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
Reno-Sparks, NV
Manchester-Nashua, NH
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmingt
New York-Northern New Jerse'
New York-Northern New Jerse'
population
(mile radius)
15,220
230
20,723
9,253
14,196
11,117
8,186
12,081
18,800
14,648
9,916
16,777
10,273
1,966
12,807
11,049
6,017
18,033
13,446
1,533
6,540
731
4,261
1,442
6,220
6,013
13,104
2,200
9,610
59,254
2,452
12,252
2,717
17,217
58
245
13,440
14,329
17,402
46,218
44
8,145
23,791
7,946
92
8,284
3,728
5,587
471
36
5,285
237
164
9,140
6,215
13,208
20,254
29,471
35,010
17,291
17,718
10,536
28,490
12,900
981
under age 5
population
(mile radius)
1,526
15
1,880
647
1,175
439
415
699
1,587
1,126
925
1,476
493
109
693
541
441
1,511
890
98
385
37
198
115
426
584
646
175
436
3,235
148
501
165
1,764
3
13
879
798
1,843
3,929
3
539
2,265
635
6
576
230
438
33
2
346
10
7
783
322
583
1,392
2,516
3,377
1,022
1,125
348
2,404
608
73
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa_popOO
182,791
48,508
9,098,316
9,098,316
1,525,104
316,663
342,815
237,230
481,394
376,019
571,166
1,836,038
288,649
109,875
109,875
408,326
1,161,975
1,161,975
2,009,632
52,715
98,765
104,166
375,965
705,973
2,552,994
2,552,994
4,796,183
680,014
4,391,344
105,665
38,543
314,866
740,482
44,962
145,945
322,895
4,452,557
4,452,557
2,968,806
163,618
2,968,806
123,812
23,263
246,190
497,197
83,107
1,836,038
2,721,491
2,721,491
95,802
767,041
1,375,765
1,375,765
342,885
380,841
4,391,344
5,687,147
18,323,002
18,323,002
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.01
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
source
oriented?
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
4
12
11
8
12
4
12
12
12
11
7
12
12
4
7
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
7
9
4
8
12
11
12
11
12
12
11
10
12
12
12
11
12
9
12
11
11
11
12
12
11
12
11
4
12
12
12
12
5
7
12
12
12
11
11
12
years
1
3
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
months
12
36
32
24
36
12
34
35
33
33
18
36
35
12
19
36
36
36
36
36
36
34
35
32
31
17
26
12
25
35
35
36
33
35
33
32
30
36
33
36
31
35
27
35
31
32
31
35
36
33
36
34
11
36
35
36
35
15
20
36
34
36
33
24
35
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0044
0.0037
0.0102
0.0090
0.0048
0.0042
0.0031
0.0033
0.0027
0.0063
0.0023
0.0048
0.0043
0.0037
0.0020
0.0038
0.0042
0.0048
0.0048
0.0037
0.0029
0.0041
0.0035
0.0050
0.0036
0.0032
0.0063
0.0039
0.0024
0.0027
0.0039
0.0023
0.0049
0.0048
0.0022
0.0042
0.0038
0.0042
0.0118
0.0031
0.0015
0.0027
0.0042
0.0048
0.0021
0.0023
0.0045
0.0030
0.0026
0.0022
0.0089
0.0041
0.0034
0.0095
0.0017
0.0020
0.0030
0.0025
0.0027
0.0024
0.0034
0.0024
0.0043
0.0047
0.0027
max
quarterly
mean
0.0048
0.0055
0.0128
0.0120
0.0071
0.0054
0.0057
0.0044
0.0037
0.0084
0.0032
0.0066
0.0060
0.0044
0.0027
0.0066
0.0070
0.0071
0.0106
0.0048
0.0043
0.0059
0.0056
0.0089
0.0101
0.0061
0.0080
0.0069
0.0035
0.0039
0.0055
0.0038
0.0068
0.0083
0.0057
0.0049
0.0060
0.0051
0.0182
0.0041
0.0023
0.0043
0.0073
0.0128
0.0032
0.0034
0.0071
0.0073
0.0040
0.0028
0.0126
0.0060
0.0044
0.0140
0.0029
0.0035
0.0042
0.0039
0.0044
0.0040
0.0053
0.0028
0.0052
0.0063
0.0038
max
monthly
mean
0.0056
0.0074
0.0204
0.0244
0.0087
0.0072
0.0080
0.0071
0.0058
0.0118
0.0053
0.0100
0.0096
0.0061
0.0036
0.0101
0.0100
0.0133
0.0170
0.0095
0.0059
0.0079
0.0098
0.0147
0.0198
0.0087
0.0101
0.0099
0.0045
0.0056
0.0079
0.0046
0.0097
0.0104
0.0102
0.0074
0.0087
0.0063
0.0329
0.0072
0.0036
0.0067
0.0084
0.0302
0.0056
0.0062
0.0112
0.0180
0.0050
0.0041
0.0191
0.0095
0.0068
0.0192
0.0039
0.0051
0.0055
0.0061
0.0086
0.0060
0.0062
0.0036
0.0069
0.0114
0.0059
metric and population ranks (of all Pb-PI\$ 5 sites)
annual
mean
71
108
14
19
59
77
145
132
167
37
199
56
76
105
226
97
82
58
54
107
158
87
117
50
113
137
36
94
197
176
91
200
53
57
209
78
104
79
11
143
242
169
80
55
218
198
67
153
186
212
20
85
125
16
239
223
150
189
165
194
129
195
74
64
172
max
quarterly
mean
140
120
29
32
65
122
109
156
194
50
214
80
96
154
234
79
68
66
37
139
160
102
116
45
39
93
55
73
203
184
119
191
74
52
111
137
95
130
13
172
243
158
60
28
216
206
64
58
179
232
30
99
153
25
225
204
170
181
155
180
123
233
125
89
189
max
monthly
mean
185
125
29
23
94
132
113
136
179
57
195
73
81
167
241
72
74
52
40
86
175
116
77
49
31
99
70
76
218
187
114
217
80
67
69
124
93
159
12
130
242
146
107
14
186
163
64
38
207
227
34
84
141
32
236
205
190
166
101.5
173
161
240
138
60
176
pop. (M rad.)
67
233
36
124
77
103
131
93
43
74
117
58
112
206
89
104
158
47
80
209
152
218
179
210
154
159
85
203
120
6
201
92
199
55
249
231
81
76
52
9
250
133
31
134
246
130
186
162
226
253
169
232
241
125
155
83
39
19
13
53
51
111
23
87
215
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
45
230
27
111
62
145
150
103
43
65
79
47
140
207
107
130
144
46
81
210
157
222
189
206
149
123
112
193
147
12
199
138
197
34
247
234
83
92
28
7
248
131
25
114
245
125
184
146
225
253
162
240
242
95
164
124
51
20
10
73
66
161
22
117
215
A-70
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 7. Pb-PM2.5 monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
340390004
350010023
360050083
360050110
360290005
360310003
360551007
360556001
360610062
360632008
360710002
360810124
361010003
361030001
370210034
370350004
370510009
370570002
370670022
370810013
371070004
371190041
371590021
371830014
380150003
380171004
380530002
390171004
390350038
390350060
390490081
390530003
390610040
390610042
390870010
390930016
390933002
390950026
390990014
391510020
391530023
400450890
401091037
401431127
410170120
410290133
410390060
410510246
410610119
420010001
420030008
420030064
420270100
420290100
420430401
420450002
420490003
420692006
420710007
420950025
420990301
421010004
421010136
421255001
421290008
poc
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
1
1
1
6
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
lat
40.64144
35.13426
40.86586
40.81616
42.87684
44.39309
43.14620
43.16100
40.72052
43.08216
41.49947
40.73620
42.09071
40.74583
35.60972
35.72889
35.04142
35.81444
36.11056
36.10917
35.23146
35.24028
35.55187
35.85611
46.82543
46.93375
47.58120
39.53000
41.47694
41.49396
40.08778
38.94996
39.12861
39.10500
38.51972
41.43944
41.46306
41.62056
41.09587
40.80056
41.08806
36.08518
35.61278
36.20490
44.06390
42.31408
44.02631
45.56130
45.33897
39.92000
40.46556
40.32361
40.81139
39.83444
40.24500
39.83556
42.14175
41.44278
40.04667
40.62806
40.45694
40.00889
39.92750
40.44528
40.30469
long
-74.20836
-106.58551
-73.88075
-73.90207
-78.80988
-73.85892
-77.54813
-77.60357
-74.00409
-79.00099
-74.00973
-73.82317
-77.21025
-73.42028
-82.35083
-81.36556
-78.95311
-80.26250
-80.22667
-79.80111
-77.56879
-80.78556
-80.39504
-78.57417
-100.76821
-96.85535
-103.29950
-84.39250
-81.68194
-81.67854
-82.95972
-82.10910
-84.50417
-84.55111
-82.66556
-82.16167
-82.11444
-83.64139
-80.65843
-81.37333
-81.54167
-99.93494
-97.47222
-95.97654
-121.31258
-122.87924
-123.08374
-122.67878
-117.90480
-77.31000
-79.96111
-79.86833
-77.87703
-75.76861
-76.84472
-75.37250
-80.03861
-75.62306
-76.28333
-75.34111
-77.16556
-75.09778
-75.22278
-80.42083
-79.50567
state
NJ
NM
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
county_name
Union
Bernalillo
Bronx
Bronx
Erie
Essex
Monroe
Monroe
New York
Niagara
Orange
Queens
Steuben
Suffolk
Buncombe
Catawba
Cumberland
Davidson
Forsyth
Guilford
Lenoir
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Wake
Burleigh
Cass
Me Kenzie
Butler
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Gallia
Hamilton
Hamilton
Lawrence
Lorain
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Stark
Summit
Ellis
Oklahoma
Tulsa
Deschutes
Jackson
Lane
Multnomah
Union
Adams
Allegheny
Allegheny
Centre
Chester
Dauphin
Delaware
Erie
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Northampton
Perry
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Washington
Westmoreland
cbsa name
New York-Northern New Jerse'
Albuquerque, NM
New York-Northern New Jerse'
New York-Northern New Jerse'
Buffalo-Niagra Falls, NY Metro!
Rochester, NY
Rochester, NY
New York-Northern New Jerse'
Buffalo-Niagra Falls, NY Metro!
Rough keepsie-Newburgh-Midd
New York-Northern New Jerse'
Corning, NY
New York-Northern New Jerse'
Asheville, NC
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC
Fayetteville, NC
Thomasville-Lexington, NC
Winston-Salem, NC
Greensboro-High Point, NC
Kinston, NC
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N
Salisbury, NC
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Bismarck, ND
Fargo, ND-MN
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Columbus, OH
Point Pleasant, WV-OH
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-O
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Toledo, OH
Youngst own-Warren- Boardmar
Canton-Massillon, OH
Akron, OH
Oklahoma City, OK
Tulsa, OK
Bend, OR
Medford, OR
Eugene-Springfield, OR
Portland- Vancouver- Beaverton
La Grande, OR
Gettysburg, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
State College, PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmingt
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmingt
Erie, PA
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA
Lancaster, PA
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, I
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmingt
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmingt
Pittsburgh, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
population
(mile radius)
28,906
17,981
141,922
143,387
14,765
40
11,659
21,463
217,799
6,795
24,210
76,878
590
3,109
716
3,399
7,337
4,897
9,488
8,152
185
11,143
2,190
20,076
18,067
206
3
2,001
7,329
10,123
16,557
132
25,543
11,153
3,726
8,851
2,913
7,401
7,317
15,043
20,652
196
3,759
5,312
5,467
9,659
15,018
24,303
41
1,430
19,960
6,909
17,851
6,584
6,731
10,156
9,507
3,176
23,906
12,539
216
40,153
49,302
157
2,609
under age 5
population
(mile radius)
2,313
1,254
12,738
13,236
866
3
642
1,565
7,958
386
2,633
5,204
33
230
44
272
607
380
797
567
11
765
137
1,730
1,001
21
0
128
585
1,169
1,216
10
1,269
827
191
738
318
510
498
1,441
1,394
10
176
409
316
807
560
1,771
3
127
889
279
310
529
615
859
936
136
1,757
1,013
10
3,461
4,171
10
106
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa_popOO
18,323,002
729,649
18,323,002
18,323,002
1,170,111
1,037,831
1,037,831
18,323,002
1,170,111
621,517
18,323,002
98,726
18,323,002
369,171
341,851
336,609
147,246
421,961
643,430
59,648
1,330,448
130,340
797,071
94,719
174,367
2,009,632
2,148,143
2,148,143
1,612,694
57,026
2,009,632
2,009,632
288,649
2,148,143
2,148,143
659,188
602,964
406,934
694,960
1,095,421
859,532
115,367
181,269
322,959
1,927,881
24,530
91,292
2,431,087
2,431,087
135,758
5,687,147
509,074
5,687,147
280,843
560,625
470,658
740,395
509,074
5,687,147
5,687,147
2,431,087
2,431,087
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.05
1.56
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.17
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.12
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.01
1.75
0.02
0.08
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
source
oriented?
1
1
1
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
12
8
12
12
12
12
7
5
4
4
4
12
12
4
12
12
8
8
12
8
11
12
4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
8
4
11
4
8
12
12
8
11
12
12
12
4
12
12
12
8
12
12
9
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
years
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
months
36
22
36
36
36
34
20
15
12
11
11
36
36
11
36
35
22
23
36
23
34
36
11
34
36
36
35
36
35
36
34
16
25
11
33
10
20
36
35
24
29
34
36
36
11
35
35
36
20
35
36
23
35
32
34
34
34
33
35
36
36
36
34
36
35
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0044
0.0013
0.0040
0.0047
0.0106
0.0015
0.0036
0.0031
0.0070
0.0052
0.0034
0.0038
0.0028
0.0032
0.0019
0.0025
0.0021
0.0032
0.0026
0.0028
0.0028
0.0029
0.0032
0.0021
0.0012
0.0019
0.0012
0.0092
0.0120
0.0123
0.0038
0.0043
0.0056
0.0079
0.0048
0.0157
0.0238
0.0035
0.0131
0.0060
0.0050
0.0012
0.0022
0.0031
0.0014
0.0019
0.0015
0.0075
0.0012
0.0037
0.0112
0.0143
0.0032
0.0046
0.0063
0.0042
0.0057
0.0054
0.0073
0.0065
0.0035
0.0052
0.0038
0.0050
0.0051
max
quarterly
mean
0.0059
0.0020
0.0059
0.0064
0.0157
0.0021
0.0040
0.0037
0.0092
0.0063
0.0040
0.0055
0.0034
0.0039
0.0031
0.0036
0.0037
0.0047
0.0036
0.0043
0.0046
0.0042
0.0040
0.0038
0.0023
0.0027
0.0026
0.0147
0.0163
0.0207
0.0052
0.0072
0.0069
0.0114
0.0095
0.0244
0.0337
0.0053
0.0253
0.0082
0.0069
0.0019
0.0033
0.0045
0.0018
0.0029
0.0025
0.0182
0.0020
0.0070
0.0141
0.0239
0.0043
0.0086
0.0122
0.0057
0.0153
0.0087
0.0175
0.0095
0.0056
0.0071
0.0061
0.0067
0.0070
max
monthly
mean
0.0067
0.0027
0.0067
0.0079
0.0192
0.0028
0.0048
0.0045
0.0190
0.0065
0.0053
0.0068
0.0042
0.0051
0.0052
0.0060
0.0057
0.0087
0.0063
0.0064
0.0062
0.0052
0.0057
0.0041
0.0036
0.0038
0.0040
0.0273
0.0282
0.0270
0.0073
0.0085
0.0113
0.0286
0.0137
0.0450
0.0465
0.0069
0.0382
0.0157
0.0098
0.0027
0.0046
0.0056
0.0021
0.0035
0.0041
0.0398
0.0026
0.0082
0.0252
0.0356
0.0061
0.0105
0.0190
0.0073
0.0323
0.0115
0.0231
0.0152
0.0084
0.0090
0.0104
0.0084
0.0097
metric and population ranks (of all Pb-PI\$ 5 sites)
annual
mean
70
247
88
63
13
243
114
141
30
47
123
96
161
139
230
187
220
138
182
164
162
160
134
216
249
233
251
18
9
8
100
75
43
22
61
5
3
120
7
38
51
248
210
144
244
235
241
25
250
109
12
6
140
66
35
81
42
45
28
33
121
48
101
52
49
max
quarterly
mean
106
251
101
84
18
248
177
193
44
91
176
117
208
183
217
198
195
141
199
161
147
168
178
186
244
236
238
22
17
10
126
61
70
35
42
7
4
124
6
53
71
252
210
151
253
227
241
12
250
67
24
8
162
48
31
110
19
47
14
41
115
63
94
78
69
max
monthly
mean
145
254
147
115
33
250
211
219
36
151
196
143
225
206
201
169
182
96
158
155
160
202
181
232
243
237
233
18
17
19
128
105
63
15
51
6
5
139
9
45
78
253
216
188
257
246
230
8
255
111
21
10
165
66
35
129
13
59
25
46
108
88
68
106
79
pop. (M rad.)
22
48
3
2
73
252
98
34
1
144
27
5
222
194
219
189
139
174
122
132
239
102
204
40
46
235
255
205
140
115
60
243
25
101
187
127
197
137
141
69
37
238
185
168
166
119
70
26
251
211
41
142
49
150
146
113
121
193
28
91
234
11
7
242
200
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
24
58
2
1
84
249
113
44
4
156
18
5
224
183
220
177
118
158
93
126
236
97
200
37
76
228
256
203
122
63
59
241
57
88
190
100
166
136
139
49
50
237
192
153
167
91
128
32
251
204
82
174
168
134
115
85
78
201
35
74
239
8
6
238
208
A-71
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment A-2
Table 7. Pb-PM2.5 monitoring site information
Appendix A
site
421330008
440070022
440071010
450190049
450250001
450450009
450790019
460990006
470370023
470654002
470931020
470990002
471570047
471631007
471650007
480430002
480430101
481130050
481130069
481390015
481410044
481410053
481670014
482010024
482010026
482010055
482011034
482011039
482030002
482430004
482450022
482570005
482730314
483030001
483390078
483550034
483611100
490110004
490353006
490494001
500070012
510870014
511390004
515200006
517600020
517700014
530330024
530330032
530330048
530330057
530330080
530630016
540390011
540391005
540511002
550270007
550590019
550710007
550790026
551198001
551330027
720610001
poc
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
lat
39.96528
41.80795
41.84092
32.79098
34.61712
34.90105
33.99330
43.54429
36.17633
35.05093
36.01944
35.11611
35.16895
36.54065
36.29778
30.36580
29.30250
32.77417
32.81995
32.43694
31.76567
31.75852
29.26332
29.90111
29.80250
29.69574
29.76799
29.67005
32.66900
30.66938
29.86395
32.56917
27.42694
33.59085
30.35030
27.81180
30.19417
40.90297
40.73639
40.34139
44.48028
37.55833
38.66333
36.60778
37.51056
37.25611
47.75333
47.54556
47.61846
47.56333
47.57027
47.66083
38.44861
38.36806
39.91597
43.43500
42.50472
44.13861
43.06111
45.20389
43.02028
18.42472
long
-76.69944
-71.41500
-71.36094
-79.95869
-80.19879
-82.31307
-81.02414
-96.72644
-86.73890
-85.12631
-83.87361
-87.47000
-90.02157
-82.52167
-86.65278
-103.64910
-103.16782
-96.79778
-96.86008
-97.02500
-106.45523
-106.50105
-94.85657
-95.32694
-95.12555
-95.49924
-95.22058
-95.12849
-94.16745
-104.02463
-94.31776
-96.31583
-97.29861
-101.84759
-95.42514
-97.46563
-93.86694
-111.88447
-111.87222
-111.71361
-73.21444
-77.40028
-78.50472
-82.16444
-77.49833
-79.98500
-122.27722
-122.32222
-122.32972
-122.33833
-122.30860
-117.35722
-81.68389
-81.69361
-80.73406
-88.52778
-87.80930
-87.61611
-87.91250
-90.60000
-88.21500
-66.11639
state
PA
Rl
Rl
SC
SC
SC
SC
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
VT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WV
WV
WV
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
PR
county_name
York
Providence
Providence
Charleston
Chesterfield
Greenville
Richland
Minnehaha
Davidson
Hamilton
Knox
Lawrence
Shelby
Sullivan
Sumner
Brewster
Brewster
Dallas
Dallas
Ellis
El Paso
El Paso
Galveston
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harris
Harrison
Jeff Davis
Jefferson
Kaufman
Kleberg
Lubbock
Montgomery
Nueces
Orange
Davis
Salt Lake
Utah
Chittenden
Henrico
Page
Bristol (City)
Richmond (City)
Roanoke (City)
King
King
King
King
King
Spokane
Kanawha
Kanawha
Marshall
Dodge
Kenosha
Manitowoc
Milwaukee
Taylor
Waukesha
Guaynabo
cbsa name
York-Hanover, PA
Providence-New Bedford-Fall F
Providence-New Bedford-Fall F
Charleston-North Charleston, 5
Greenville, SC
Columbia, SC
Sioux Falls, SD
Nashville-Davidson- Murfreesb
Chattanooga, TN-GA
Knoxville, TN
Lawrenceburg, TN
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VX
Nashville-Davidson- Murfreesb
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T>
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T>
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T>
El Paso, TX
El Paso, TX
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Marshall, TX
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, T>
Kingsville, TX
Lubbock, TX
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown,
Corpus Christi, TX
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Ogden-Clearfield, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
Provo-Orem, UT
Burlington-South Burlington, V
Richmond, VA
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VX
Richmond, VA
Roanoke, VA
Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Seattle- Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
Spokane, WA
Charleston, WV
Charleston, WV
Wheeling, WV-OH
Beaver Dam, Wl
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN
Manitowoc, Wl
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West All
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West All
San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo,
population
(mile radius)
10,121
35,343
7,855
17,744
165
9,032
15,569
15,357
12,600
4,702
3,772
202
13,177
6,580
4,332
1,792
2
3,394
1,034
658
16,581
16,866
4,521
12,022
8,454
32,884
14,785
13,417
78
2
259
9,794
4,535
9,473
561
5,907
345
13,879
23,803
6,101
14,539
11,300
754
5,019
11,322
10,951
7,357
6,716
47,956
2,325
11,847
6,466
708
4,033
5,133
100
1,595
529
27,788
16
10,917
319
under age 5
population
(mile radius)
696
3,116
412
647
14
592
287
1,086
739
187
211
12
1,051
321
387
105
0
151
76
43
1,695
1,295
260
1,163
914
3,369
1,770
1,183
3
0
13
856
240
855
55
531
20
1,301
1,757
659
564
1,040
33
276
736
755
368
386
795
133
695
527
45
202
256
6
85
29
2,359
1
707
5
urban
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cbsa_popOO
381,751
1,582,997
1,582,997
549,033
559,940
647,158
187,093
1,311,789
476,531
616,079
39,926
1,205,204
298,484
1,311,789
5,161,544
5,161,544
5,161,544
679,622
679,622
4,715,407
4,715,407
4,715,407
4,715,407
4,715,407
4,715,407
62,110
385,090
5,161,544
31,963
249,700
4,715,407
403,280
385,090
442,656
968,858
376,774
198,889
1,096,957
298,484
1,096,957
288,309
3,043,878
3,043,878
3,043,878
3,043,878
3,043,878
417,939
309,635
309,635
153,172
85,897
9,098,316
82,887
1,500,741
1,500,741
2,509,007
sum
point/non-pt
Pb El TPY
w/in 1 mile
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.10
source
oriented?
1
data completeness
(complete periods)
qtrs
12
12
5
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
10
12
12
12
11
7
8
12
12
11
12
12
11
12
11
11
11
10
11
9
11
11
10
10
11
12
11
10
12
12
12
8
8
12
4
8
12
7
12
12
12
4
9
8
6
12
12
8
12
12
12
12
years
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
3
3
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
months
34
36
14
36
36
36
34
36
34
34
29
35
36
33
32
20
25
34
36
31
34
34
32
35
31
32
31
30
32
25
32
30
29
28
32
36
32
29
36
36
35
24
24
35
12
24
35
22
33
33
36
11
25
25
19
36
36
25
36
36
36
36
3-year metrics
annual
mean
0.0058
0.0065
0.0030
0.0022
0.0021
0.0026
0.0048
0.0022
0.0038
0.0038
0.0039
0.0021
0.0033
0.0031
0.0030
0.0011
0.0008
0.0027
0.0036
0.0034
0.0036
0.0078
0.0023
0.0041
0.0027
0.0020
0.0030
0.0023
0.0018
0.0008
0.0021
0.0029
0.0009
0.0010
0.0032
0.0013
0.0019
0.0035
0.0042
0.0034
0.0023
0.0030
0.0027
0.0036
0.0027
0.0074
0.0030
0.0095
0.0032
0.0074
0.0034
0.0038
0.0026
0.0043
0.0065
0.0036
0.0038
0.0039
0.0058
0.0020
0.0097
0.0018
max
quarterly
mean
0.0112
0.0432
0.0037
0.0035
0.0035
0.0050
0.0092
0.0031
0.0065
0.0050
0.0049
0.0030
0.0045
0.0049
0.0051
0.0017
0.0013
0.0041
0.0077
0.0057
0.0060
0.0148
0.0028
0.0066
0.0038
0.0026
0.0073
0.0042
0.0027
0.0014
0.0030
0.0063
0.0017
0.0024
0.0042
0.0021
0.0028
0.0059
0.0077
0.0072
0.0029
0.0042
0.0045
0.0057
0.0033
0.0140
0.0046
0.0134
0.0052
0.0150
0.0055
0.0062
0.0043
0.0067
0.0081
0.0059
0.0057
0.0060
0.0115
0.0030
0.0185
0.0026
max
monthly
mean
0.0169
0.1103
0.0051
0.0048
0.0044
0.0060
0.0122
0.0052
0.0107
0.0071
0.0059
0.0040
0.0076
0.0086
0.0068
0.0043
0.0028
0.0055
0.0169
0.0085
0.0090
0.0236
0.0041
0.0087
0.0056
0.0037
0.0160
0.0072
0.0035
0.0028
0.0049
0.0128
0.0024
0.0062
0.0058
0.0033
0.0041
0.0071
0.0131
0.0095
0.0037
0.0064
0.0081
0.0083
0.0064
0.0283
0.0073
0.0201
0.0089
0.0260
0.0075
0.0087
0.0048
0.0077
0.0124
0.0083
0.0073
0.0113
0.0245
0.0050
0.0217
0.0058
metric and population ranks (of all Pb-PI\$ 5 sites)
annual
mean
39
32
147
213
219
184
60
214
99
103
93
215
131
142
146
252
256
166
110
126
116
23
201
86
178
225
149
204
236
257
221
154
255
254
135
246
231
118
84
127
203
148
171
112
173
26
151
17
136
27
124
102
183
73
34
115
98
92
41
222
15
237
max
quarterly
mean
36
3
196
202
201
134
43
218
82
131
138
221
152
135
128
255
257
173
56
108
97
21
230
81
187
239
59
166
235
256
220
85
254
242
167
249
231
105
57
62
224
163
150
114
211
26
145
27
127
20
118
92
157
77
54
104
113
98
33
222
11
240
max
monthly
mean
42
3
203
213
220
171
56
198
65
134
174
234
120
101.5
142
222
252
191
41
103
90
24
228
98
184
239
44
133
245
251
210
54
256
162
180
247
226
135
53
85
238
154
112
109.5
152
16
127
30
91
20
121
97
212
118
55
109.5
126
62
22
208
28
178
pop. (M rad.)
116
12
136
50
240
126
65
66
90
175
184
236
84
151
178
207
256
190
214
221
59
57
177
94
129
16
72
82
247
257
230
118
176
123
223
160
228
79
30
156
75
100
217
172
99
106
138
147
8
202
97
153
220
182
171
245
208
225
24
254
107
229
under age 5
pop (M rad.)
105
14
152
110
232
121
172
67
99
191
186
235
69
165
154
209
255
198
214
221
38
54
179
64
80
11
33
61
250
257
233
86
182
87
216
133
229
52
36
109
127
70
223
175
101
98
159
155
94
202
106
135
219
188
180
243
213
226
23
254
102
246
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix B: Background on Case Studies
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents B-i
List of Exhibits B-ii
List of Attachments B-iii
B. BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDIES B-l
B.I. PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY B-l
B.I.I. Description of Case Study Location B-l
B.I.2. Description of Primary Pb Smelter B-2
B.I.3. Human Exposure Measurements B-4
B.I.4. Emissions B-6
B.I.5. Summary of Environmental Data B-7
B.I.5.1. Air Monitoring B-8
B.I.5.2. Soil B-10
B.I.5.3. Indoor Dust B-10
B.I.5.4. Deposition B-ll
B.2. SECONDARYPB SMELTER CASE STUDY B-ll
B.2.1. Description of Case Study Location B-12
B.2.2. Description of Secondary Pb Smelter B-l3
B.2.3. Human Exposure Measurements B-l5
B.2.4. Emissions B-l5
B.2.5. Summary of Environmental Data B-16
B.2.5.1. Air Monitoring B-16
B.2.5.2. Soil B-18
B.2.5.3. Indoor Dust B-18
B.2.5.4. Deposition B-18
REFERENCES B-19
July 2007 B-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit B-l. Facility Location Map -Primary Pb Smelter B-3
Exhibit B-2. Summary of 2001 PbB Measurements for Herculaneum Residents B-4
Exhibit B-3. Summary of 2002 PbB Measurements for Herculaneum Residents B-5
Exhibit B-4. Percentage of Tested Children with PbB Levels above 10 |ig/dL in Jefferson
County (1997 through 2003; 2005) B-6
Exhibit B-5. Summary of Environmental Data Sources for Primary Pb Smelter Case Study....B-8
Exhibit B-6. Distribution of 2005 Annual Average Values for Pb-TSP Measurements at Monitor
Sites across the United States Relative to Monitors near the Primary Pb
Smelter B-9
Exhibit B-7. Population Data around Secondary Pb Smelters in the United States B-12
Exhibit B-8. Facility Location Map - Secondary Pb Smelter B-14
Exhibit B-9. Summary of Environmental Data Sources for Secondary Pb Smelter Case
Study B-16
Exhibit B-10. Distribution of 2005 Annual Average Values for Pb-TSP at Monitor Sites across
the United States Relative to Monitors near the Secondary Pb Smelter B-l8
July 2007 B-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment B-l. Air Monitoring Locations around the Primary Pb Smelter B-21
Attachment B-2. Average Annual Pb Concentrations from AQS Monitors Located around the
Primary Pb Smelter B-22
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS Located around the
Primary Pb Smelter B-23
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter B-32
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter B-50
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter B-56
Attachment B-7. Average Soil Pre-Excavation, Post-Excavation, and Recontamination
Pb Results for 31 Residential Locations within One Mile of the
Primary Pb Smelter B-64
Attachment B-8. Indoor Dust/Wipe Sample Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter B-65
Attachment B-9. Soil and Air Deposition Monitoring Locations around the Primary Pb
Smelter B-68
Attachment B-10. Soil Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter B-69
Attachment B-11. Air Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter B-73
Attachment B-l2. Air Monitoring Locations around the Secondary Pb Smelter B-76
Attachment B-13. Average Annual Pb Concentrations from AQS Monitors Located around the
Secondary Pb Smelter B-77
July 2007 B-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
1 B. BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDIES
2 This appendix provides descriptions of the primary lead (Pb) smelter and secondary Pb
3 smelter case study locations, accompanied by an overview of the available human exposure
4 measurements (i.e., human blood Pb [PbB] levels), emissions, and environmental data for each
5 site. The primary Pb smelter is discussed in Section B.I; the secondary Pb smelter is discussed
6 in Section B.2.
7 B.I. PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
8 The Herculaneum Lead Smelter (HLS) is currently the largest source of Pb metal and the
9 only currently operating Pb smelter in the United States (Missouri Department of Natural
10 Resources (MDNR), 2005). The HLS facility (hereafter referred to as the "primary Pb smelter")
11 represents a relatively large point source that has been active for more than a century (MDNR,
12 2005) and for which a large amount of site-specific data characterizing both media
13 concentrations (soil, indoor dust, and ambient air) and human PbB levels is available. Pb
14 contaminant conditions for the area surrounding this facility are dominated by emissions from
15 this facility, with older historical automobile and other point source emissions being of relatively
16 lesser importance. Environmental sampling conducted around the primary Pb smelter has shown
17 Pb contamination throughout the community surrounding the smelter. Available environmental
18 data are discussed in Section B.I.5 and presented in Attachments B-l through B-13.
19 B.I.I. Description of Case Study Location
20 The primary Pb smelter facility is located in Herculaneum, Missouri. The City of
21 Herculaneum is in Jefferson County, about 42 kilometers (km) (26 miles [mi]) southwest of St.
22 Louis, and its approximate area is 9 square kilometers (km2). As of 2000, an estimated 37,562
23 people were living within a 10-km radius of the primary Pb smelter (2,064 within 2 km; 14,237
24 between 2 and 5 km; and 21,261 between 5 and 10 km). Of this population in 2000, 3,880 were
25 children 7 years of age and younger (171 within 2 km; 1,545 between 2 and 5 km; and 2,164
26 between 5 and 10 km) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).l
1 In 2002, the company that owns the primary Pb smelter facility offered a voluntary property acquisition of
homes within a specified geographic area, approximately 3/8 mile around the smelter. The 2000 U.S. Census
population counts in the U.S. Census blocks that comprise the buy-out area were excluded from these population
estimates (since it is known that individuals no longer reside in these areas).
July 2007 B-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 B.1.2. Description of Primary Pb Smelter
2 The primary Pb smelter facility is located at 881 Main Street in Herculaneum, Missouri
3 (see Exhibit B-l). The property associated with this facility covers 52 acres and consists of 3
4 main areas: (1) the smelter plant, which is located on the east side of Main Street; (2) office
5 buildings located on the west side of Main Street; and (3) a 40- to 50- foot (ft) high furnace
6 waste (i.e., slag) storage pile that covers 24 acres. The facility is bordered on the east by the
7 Mississippi River, on the southeast by Joachim Creek, on the west and north-northwest by
8 residential areas, and on the south-southwest by the slag pile. A large part of the slag pile is
9 located in the floodplain wetlands of Joachim Creek and the Mississippi River.
10 The principal processing occurring at the facility includes: (1) sintering, smelting, and
11 refining of Pb ore; (2) sulfuric acid production from waste sulfur-containing gases generated by
12 the sintering operation; and (3) wastewater treatment. Sources at the facility include various
13 stacks and vents from plant processes, fugitive emissions from ore handling operations, wind
14 erosion from the slag pile, and fugitive emissions from transport of Pb concentrate over local
15 roads. A Pb ore concentrate, consisting of approximately 80 percent Pb sulfide, is processed at
16 the smelter. The ore is transported by truck from eight Pb mines near Viburnum, Missouri,
17 approximately 121 km (75 mi) south-southwest of Herculaneum. The smelting operation
18 generates a molten slag, 20 percent of which is sent to the slag storage pile as waste. Stack and
19 fugitive emissions from the facility and deposition of these emissions to soil and surface water
20 have resulted in elevated Pb concentrations in the surrounding areas (MDNR, 1999), as cited in
21 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2003).
July 2007 B-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit B-l. Facility Location Map - Primary Pb Smelter
2
3
Photo courtesy of USGS
0 250500 1.000
I I I I I I I I I
Meters
July 2007
B-3
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
B.1.3. Human Exposure Measurements
PbB levels at or above 10 micrograms (ug) per deciliter (dL) have been recorded for
Herculaneum residents, including children less than 72 months of age (ATSDR, 2002; 2003).
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) and the Jefferson County Health
Department (JCHD), in cooperation with ATSDR, have offered PbB testing to the residents of
Herculaneum and surrounding communities. Results of two such testing events conducted in
2001 and 2002 have been documented in DHSS/ATSDR health consultation reports (ATSDR,
2002; 2003) and are summarized here.
A total of 935 Herculaneum residents were tested in 2001. A summary of PbB results by
age group is provided in Exhibit B-2. Of the children less than 72 months old that were tested in
2001, 33 (28 percent) had PbBs of 10 ug/dL or greater. In the area closest to the primary Pb
smelter, 30 out of 67 (45 percent) of the children under 72 months of age who were tested in
2001 had PbBs equal to or above 10 ug/dL (ATSDR, 2002).
Exhibit B-2. Summary of 2001 PbB Measurements for Herculaneum Residents
PbB (Mg/dL)
Number of Individuals
Tested a
Percent of Individuals
Tested in PbB Range b
Children Less than 72 Months of Age
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 or Higher
85
27
5
1
72%
23%
4%
1%
Children Between 6 and 17 Years of Age
Oto9
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 or Higher
149
13
0
0
92%
8%
-
-
Adults 18 Years of Age or Older
Olo24
25 to 39
40 to 49
50 or Higher
653
1
0
1
>99%
<1%
-
<1%
"Data derived from ATSDR (2002).
b Percentile estimates (based on reported values and the total sample size of the study) have been added to
tables to facilitate interpretation of the results.
the
July 2007
B-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
In September 2002, DHSS and JCHD conducted a voluntary community-wide PbB
testing event, during which 340 Herculaneum residents were tested. Exhibit B-3 summarizes
results sorted by age group for Herculaneum residents. As shown in Exhibit B-3, of the children
less than 72 months old that were tested in 2002, 8 (14 percent) had PbBs of 10 ug/dL or higher.
Exhibit B-3. Summary of 2002 PbB Measurements for Herculaneum Residents
PbB (M9/dL)
Number of Individuals
Tested a
Percent of Individuals
Tested in PbB Range b
Children Less than 72 Months of Age
Oto9
10to19
20 to 29
30 or Higher
50
6
2
0
86%
10%
4%
-
Children Between 6 and 17 Years of Age
Oto9
10to19
20 to 29
30 or Higher
127
2
0
0
98%
2%
-
-
Adults 18 Years of Age or Older
Olo24
25 to 39
40 to 49
50 or Higher
147
5
1
0
96%
3%
1%
-
"Data derived from ATSDR (2003, Tables 1 to 3).
b Percentile estimates (based on reported values and the total sample size of the study) have been added to the
tables to facilitate interpretation of the results.
While summarized data for Herculaneum are not available for more recent years than
2002, county-level information on the numbers of children with PbB levels above 10 |ig/dL is
available from the State of Missouri web site through 2005 (although 2004 data are not
available). While not necessarily specific to the town of Herculaneum, it is noted that the
percentage of tested children with PbB levels above 10 |ig/dL in Jefferson County declined
slightly in 2005 as compared to 2002 and 2003 (see Exhibit B-4).
July 2007
B-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit B-4. Percentage of Tested Children with PbB Levels above 10 ug/dL in Jefferson
County (1997 through 2003; 2005)
Parameter
Number of Children Tested
Percent Tested Above
10|jg/dl_
Year
1997
367
8%
1998
412
3%
1999
293
4%
2000
656
4%
2001
1207
4%
2002
1355
2%
2003
2070
2%
2005
1607
1%
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
Note: Data derived from State of Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) (2007).
B. 1.4. Emissions
The Pb emissions estimates used for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) scenario for the primary Pb smelter case study were obtained from U.S. EPA Region
7 and reflect the proposed 2007 Revision of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) developed for
the facility (MDNR, 2007a; 2007b). Rather than representing current conditions at the facility,
these emissions represent the maximum allowable Pb emissions (per the proposed 2007 SIP)
estimated to result in attainment of the current NAAQS.2
2 Several different Herculaneum emission situations are alternately discussed within this report and other
appendices. While they are related, each is distinct and provides a different type of information. The 2002 NEI
emissions (discussed in Appendix A) are emissions reported by the Doe Run Company to the state. While these
emissions may be derived from stack tests and should reflect 2002 production levels, emissions such as building or
storage pile fugitives and emissions from materials handling or activity on facility roads may be less completely
accounted for in the 2002 reported values. These 2002 NEI emissions should not be confused with current
conditions or maximum allowable Pb emissions. "Current conditions at the facility" may be described as the actual
emissions being released from all facility-related sources at present, given current controls, work practices, and
process throughputs. The "maximum allowable Pb emissions" refers to the emissions allowed under the proposed
2007 SIP revision. The 2007 SIP revision proposes a portfolio of controls focused on reducing Pb emissions from
sources identified as significant contributors to recent NAAQS exceedances (e.g., Pb emissions associated with
materials handling, activity on facility roads, building fugitives, among others). A lesser contributor to air Pb
concentrations in Herculaneum, but a large source of measured emissions, is the facility's main stack. Due to the
main stack height and the high process temperature, considerable dispersion occurs resulting in a low impact from
the main stack on the air concentrations in the City of Herculaneum. As a result of this condition, in combination
with lower actual production and other process controls at the Herculaneum plant, the reported main stack emissions
(either in the 2002 NEI or the current actual emissions) are considerably lower than their SIP allowable level.
Altogether, the maximum allowable emissions from facility-related sources have been modeled by Missouri in their
2007 SIP revision for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 1.5 ug/m3 per quarter NAAQS. Thus, it is the
maximum allowable emissions under the proposed 2007 SIP revision that are used for the current NAAQS scenario
for this case study.
July 2007
B-6
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The proposed 2007 SIP describes maximum allowable Pb emissions from processes at
2 the facility, fugitive emissions from transferring of materials, fugitive emissions from storage at
3 the slag pile and other process storage piles, building fugitives, and emissions associated with
4 dust from roadways in the vicinity of the smelter. Particle sizes for emissions from road segment
5 emission points around the primary Pb smelter ranged from 1.6 to 25.3 micrometers (um).
6 Particle sizes for emissions from all other emission points at the primary Pb smelter ranged from
7 1.6 to 45 um. Note that EPA has not completed its review of the proposed 2007 SIP revision
8 associated with these emissions. Consequently, the dispersion model runs completed for this
9 assessment using these emissions should be considered illustrative only. Emissions and release
10 parameters, particle size inputs, and other inputs used for fate and transport modeling of the
11 primary Pb smelter are provided in Appendix D, Attachments D-l to D-6.
12 B.1.5. Summary of Environmental Data
13 The environmental data sets available for the primary Pb smelter case study are
14 summarized in Exhibit B-5. These data are discussed in the sections following this exhibit.
July 2007 B-7 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit B-5. Summary of Environmental Data Sources for Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Medium
Ambient air
Residential Soil
Indoor dust
Deposition to soil
Deposition to air
Data Set a
EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) Database
Monitors not in AQS b
Pre-excavation
Post-excavation
Recontamination
assessment
Recontamination
assessment
Soil boxes
Filters
Timeframe
2001 to 2005
2001 to 2003
2000 to 2004
2000 to 2004
2002 to 2006
2002 to 2006
2003 to 2004 c
2003 to 2004 c
Locations
9 locations
4 locations
Over 900 locations
around the primary
Pb smelter
Approximately 300
locations around the
primary Pb smelter
31 residences
17 residences
10 locations
10 locations
Comments
Pb-total suspended particulate
matter (TSP) monitors located
within 10 km of facility; see
Attachments B-1 and B-2
Pb-TSP monitors located
along roads; see Attachments
B-1 and B-3
Locations within
approximately 2.4 km (1 .5 mi)
of facility; see Attachment B-4
Locations within
approximately 2.4 km (1 .5 mi)
of facility; see Attachment B-5
Locations within
approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of
facility; see Attachments B-6
and B-7
Locations within
approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of
facility; see Attachment B-8
See Attachments B-9 and B-
10
See Attachments B-9 and B-
11
2 a Several data sources existed, including analyses conducted by the U.S. EPA, the primary Pb smelter facility,
3 ATSDR, MDNR, and various consultants. Aside from the U.S. EPA's AQS air monitoring data, the data
4 represented in this table were obtained electronically from the U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006). The data presented in this
5 table are the only environmental data discussed and summarized for the primary Pb smelter in this appendix and in
6 the associated attachments. Attempts were made to obtain environmental data from sources outside the U.S. EPA,
7 but no additional data were received within the time available for this assessment.
8 b The four monitors not in AQS were placed by the Superfund program for their objectives, and are additional to the
9 nine AQS monitors in place for U.S. EPA's air monitoring program objectives. The data for the four Superfund
10 monitors are not stored in AQS, but were received directly from the U.S. EPA Region 7.
11 ฐ These are the most recent data available from the U.S. EPA Region 7.
12
13 B.I.5.1. Air Monitoring
14 As shown in Exhibit B-5, two air monitoring data sets are available from the U.S. EPA
15 for the primary Pb smelter. Attachment B-1 shows the locations of the 13 air monitoring
16 locations relative to the facility.
17 Air monitoring data for the nine AQS monitors are provided by year in Attachment B-2.
18 These data indicate a reduction in average annual Pb concentration between 2001 and the
19 subsequent years. The largest difference was observed for Monitor ID 290990005 (located near
20 a public school, approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from the smelter's main stack [see Attachment B-
21 1]), where average annual Pb concentrations decreased from 2.10 ug/m3 in 2001 to 0.28 to 0.44
22 ug/m3 for the subsequent years. It is additionally noted that for 2005, however, the most recent
July 2007
B-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
year for which annual average values are reported in Attachment B-2, exceedances of the
NAAQS (1.5 |ig/dL as a maximum quarterly average) occurred at a different monitor during
three of the four quarters (USEPA, 2007). Air monitoring data for the four additional monitoring
sites not in AQS are provided by year in Attachment B-3. In general, data were collected from
the four monitors for portions of years over the period of 2001 through 2003. A complete year's
set of data (for 2002) was available for only two monitors (Full-Scale Analysis IDs 100 and
102).
For comparison purposes, the average annual Pb concentrations for 2005 from AQS
monitors located around the primary Pb smelter were compared to AQS monitor results across
the United States. Exhibit B-6 shows the distribution of average annual Pb concentrations in
TSP for 208 monitoring sites across the United States (with average annual monitored Pb
concentrations sorted in ascending order). The 2005 monitor results for the nine AQS monitors
located in the vicinity of the primary Pb smelter are indicated using a solid square (). The
annual average Pb concentrations for the 208 monitoring sites ranged from 0.001 to 1.56 ug/m3.
The 1.56 ug/m3 maximum annual average is associated with monitoring site 290990015, one of
the monitoring sites identified within 10 km of the primary Pb smelter. Of the 208 monitoring
site locations, the nine within 10 km of the primary Pb smelter all fall within the top 30 percent
of annual average values for all 208 monitoring sites, with four of the nine monitoring sites in the
top 10 percent.
Exhibit B-6. Distribution of 2005 Annual Average Values for Pb-TSP Measurements at
Monitor Sites across the United States Relative to Monitors near the Primary Pb Smelter
22
23
- Monitor Around Primary Pb Smelter
Monitors Across the United States (N=208)
July 2007
B-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 B.l.5.2. Soil
2 As shown in Exhibit B-5, three soil data sets are available from the U.S. EPA for the
3 primary Pb smelter: pre-excavation, post-excavation, and recontamination assessment data. Pre-
4 excavation soil samples were collected from residential locations around the smelter prior to soil
5 removal activities. Pre-excavation soil sample results for over 900 residential locations around
6 the primary Pb smelter are presented in Attachment B-4. Average soil concentrations at these
7 sampling locations ranged from 53 to 23,350 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
8 Based on pre-excavation sampling results, Pb-contaminated soil in a subset of the 900
9 sampled residential yards near the smelter was removed, replaced with clean backfill, and re-
10 seeded with grass. Post-excavation soil data were available for over 300 residential locations.
11 Post-excavation soil samples were collected immediately following excavation, prior to the yards
12 being backfilled with clean soil. Post-excavation results are presented in Attachment B-5.
13 Average soil concentrations at these properties ranged from 70 to 2,757 mg/kg.
14 The U.S. EPA has recently conducted post-remediation residential yard soil sampling at
15 31 locations within a radius of approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of the primary Pb smelter to
16 determine whether residential yards in which Pb-contaminated soil was removed and replaced
17 with clean soil are becoming recontaminated. Results from the recontamination assessment
18 samples are provided in Attachment B-6. For most of the 31 recontamination assessment
19 locations within 1.3 km (0.8 mi) of the facility, average Pb concentrations in the replacement
20 "clean" soil increased between 2002 and 2006. Refer to Attachment B-7 for a summary of the
21 pre-excavation, post-excavation, and recontamination assessment data for these 31 residential
22 locations.
23 B.l.5.3. Indoor Dust
24 The interiors of 17 of the 31 residential properties identified for the soil recontamination
25 assessment were also assessed for Pb levels in indoor dust. Indoor dust removal (in which areas
26 inside homes were wiped and/or vacuumed) was performed at these residences prior to
27 recontamination sampling. Attachment B-8 provides a summary of recontamination indoor dust
28 sample results for these 17 properties. Carpet dust samples collected during recontamination
29 sampling events at these residences contained Pb concentrations that ranged from 122 to 4,350
30 mg/kg. Pb loadings in window sill wipe samples ranged from 5.6 to 1,385 ug per square foot
31 (ft2). No general patterns were identified at homes during successive sampling events. Pb
32 concentrations and/or loadings may have increased, decreased, or remained generally the same
33 (see Attachment B-8). This lack of pattern may be attributed in part to inconsistent house
34 cleaning protocols within the homes.
July 2007 B-10 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 B.l.5.4. Deposition
2 As shown in Exhibit B-5, soil boxes3 were set up at 10 locations (primarily along roads)
3 within approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi) of the main stack at the primary Pb smelter. Deposition
4 monitoring locations are shown in Attachment B-9. From 2003 to 2004, samples were collected
5 monthly to measure Pb deposition on soil; results for these locations are presented in Attachment
6 B-10. Maximum concentrations at the nine locations (excluding the control site) ranged from 25
7 to 406 mg/kg in 2003 and from 25.3 to 527 mg/kg in 2004. The overall average Pb
8 concentration in these soil boxes across all nine locations increased from 49 mg/kg in 2003 to
9 96.5 mg/kg in 2004, an increase of almost 100 percent.
10 Air deposition monitoring data were available for the same 10 locations around the
11 primary Pb smelter for which soil box monitoring data were available (see Attachment B-9).
12 Dry deposition samples were collected monthly at two levels (1 ft and 10 ft) above the ground
13 surface from April 2003 through April 2004. Data collected at each level for these locations are
14 presented in Attachment B-l 1. The annual Pb deposition rates at a height of 1 ft for the nine
15 monitoring locations (excluding the control site) ranged from 0.34 to 22 mg/ft2, and the overall
16 average Pb deposition rate across all nine locations at the height of 1 ft was 4.8 mg/ft2. The
17 annual Pb deposition rates at a height of 10 ft for the nine monitoring locations ranged from 0.26
18 to 33 mg/ft2, and the overall average Pb deposition rate across all nine locations at the height of
19 10 ft was 5.0 mg/ft2. The average annual Pb air deposition rates at each level by location are
20 provided in Attachment B-11.
21 B.2. SECONDARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
22 The secondary Pb smelter case study focused on the impacts of emissions from a smaller
23 point source (compared to the primary Pb smelter) located in Alabama. Fewer site-specific data
24 characterizing media concentrations and human exposure levels were available for this study
25 area than for the primary Pb smelter case study. However, recent air concentration data from the
26 area surrounding the facility and facility characterization data (including emission estimates)
27 were readily available.
3 Clean soil is placed in containers that measure approximately 2 ft by 3 ft, 8 to 12 inches deep and are set
on the ground. Soil box measurements were taken by placing an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) meter directly on the
soil surface in the soil box. Soil boxes were intended to provide a repeatable means of measuring Pb deposition on
soil that would be less likely to be disturbed than soil in residential yards (Staley et al, 2002).
July 2007 B-ll Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
B.2.1. Description of Case Study Location
The secondary Pb smelter case study location is in Troy, Alabama. Troy is a city located
in Pike County, positioned in the south-central portion of the state, and its approximate area is 68
km2. As of 2000, an estimated 17,910 people were living within a 10-km radius of the facility
(2,186 within 2 km; 10,634 between 2 and 5 km; and 5,090 between 5 and 10 km). Of this
population, 1,672 are children ages 7 years and under (187 [11 percent] within 2 km; 896 [54
percent] between 2 and 5 km; and 589 [35 percent] between 5 and 10 km) (U.S. Census Bureau,
2005).
As of 2002, 15 secondary Pb smelters in the United States were operating in 11 states
(EC/R Incorporated, 2006). Population data (total population and population of children 7 years
and under) around these 15 facilities are provided in Exhibit B-7. Of these 15 facilities, the
secondary Pb smelter in Troy, Alabama, had the highest percentage (at 11 percent) of children
ages 7 years and under living within 2 km of the facility. The percentage of children ages 7
years and under living within 2 km of secondary Pb smelters in other parts of the United States
ranged from 0 to 6 percent (see Exhibit B-7).
Exhibit B-7. Population Data around Secondary Pb Smelters in the United States
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Location
Troy, AL
Vernon, CA
City of Industry, CA
Tampa, FL
Muncie, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Baton Rouge, LA
Eagan, MN
Boss, MO
Forest City, MO
Middletown, NY
Lyon Station, PA
Reading, PA
College Grove, TN
Frisco, TX
Population Numbers at Select Distances a
0 to 2 km
Total
2,786
29,609
15,311
6,302
1,352
5,649
2,931
6,034
2,064
22
983
1,059
9,416
335
5,097
Children 0 to 7
787
5,334
1,858
650
152
716
251
929
171
4
0
111
746
36
863
11%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
5%
4%
2%
0%
3%
4%
6%
4%
2 to 5 km
Total
70,634
323,643
141,005
34,361
5,535
41,129
13,427
33,383
14,237
79
33,589
12,569
58,609
1,233
27,691
Children 0 to 7
896
55,079
19,517
4,232
600
4,872
1,715
4,756
1,545
6
4,016
995
7,444
108
4,938
54%
24%
20%
14%
13%
20%
19%
24%
40%
3%
54%
30%
37%
19%
24%
5 to 10 km
Total
5,090
1,122,949
565,507
201,068
51,174
155,030
52,086
132,923
21,261
1,676
33,791
26,684
112,425
4,476
92,476
Children 0 to 7
589
172,709
77,962
24,718
4,074
19,261
7,247
14,486
2,164
159
3,719
2,356
11,834
434
14,620
35%
74%
78%
84%
87%
78%
82%
72%
56%
95%
50%
71%
59%
75%
72%
17
18
1 Data derived from U.S. Census Bureau (2005).
July 2007
B-12
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 B.2.2. Description of Secondary Pb Smelter
2 The location of this facility is bordered by US-231 to the north-northeast and by a
3 railroad line and Henderson Highway along the north-northwestern and western boundaries of
4 the facility. The area located directly west of Henderson Highway is forested. To the south and
5 south-south west are other industries and businesses. Big Creek appears to be the closest major
6 water body, located approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south-southeast from the center of the
7 facility. The City of Troy is located north and east of the facility and north of US-231 (see
8 Exhibit B-8).
9 Secondary Pb smelters produce Pb from scrap and provide the primary means for
10 recycling Pb-acid automotive batteries. Approximately 95 percent of all Pb-acid batteries are
11 recycled at secondary Pb smelters. Secondary Pb smelters perform three basic unit operations:
12 battery breaking, smelting, and refining and alloying. Battery breaking is accomplished by either
13 crushing or cutting battery cases into pieces. The plastic, spent acid, and Pb-bearing materials
14 are then separated. Pb-bearing materials are processed in one of three types of smelting
15 furnaces: blast, reverberatory, or rotary. Molten Pb from these furnaces is further processed in
16 refining kettles and subsequently cast into molds. The waste stream from the furnaces (i.e., slag)
17 is either returned to the primary smelting furnace or treated in a separate furnace dedicated to
18 slag cleaning to recover additional Pb. Three types of emission sources occur at secondary Pb
19 facilities: process sources, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust sources. The types of
20 sources at the secondary Pb smelter analyzed in these assessments include: blast furnace,
21 agglomeration furnace, alloying kettles and heating system, flue dust storage bins, and slag
22 treatment furnace. Stack emissions from the facility and fugitive emissions associated with
23 materials storage and handling and roadway dust have resulted in releases of Pb to the air and
24 soil (EC/R Incorporated, 2006).
July 2007 B-13 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit B-8. Facility Location Map - Secondary Pb Smelter
M
Pike County,
2
3
Photo courtesy of USGS
0 250 500 1,000
I i i i I i i i I
Meters
Site Location -
July 2007
B-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 B.2.3. Human Exposure Measurements
2 No information on children's PbB levels specific to the area around the secondary Pb
3 smelter was identified. However, the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for
4 Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collected PbB surveillance data for children less than 72
5 months of age in Pike County, Alabama, in 2005. Of the 154 children tested by the CDC, there
6 were 19 (approximately 12 percent) confirmed cases of elevated PbB (i.e., PbB above 10 ug/dL).
7 For children less than 72 months of age in the state of Alabama and in the United States as a
8 whole, the confirmed elevated PbBs as a percent of children tested in 2005 was 1.4 percent and
9 1.6 percent, respectively (CDC, 2005). Note, however, that the statistics for children in Pike
10 County do not necessarily represent PbBs for children living in Troy, Alabama, or children living
11 in the areas immediately impacted by emissions from the secondary Pb smelter. In addition, it is
12 not known to what extent older housing (with elevated concentrations of Pb in drinking water
13 and paint) may be contributing to elevated Pb levels in the surveyed population.
14 B.2.4. Emissions
15 As of June 9, 1994, when the U.S. EPA proposed the secondary Pb smelter MACT
16 standard (59 FR 63941), 23 secondary Pb smelters were operating in the United States. As of
17 2002, 15 facilities were operating. Of these 15 facilities, the secondary Pb smelter analyzed in
18 this study is the third highest emitter of Pb (EC/R Incorporated, 2006).
19 The estimates for process emissions for the secondary Pb smelter analyzed in this
20 assessment were calculated from Pb emissions measured during stack tests performed in 2005
21 and 2006 (URS Corporation, 2005a; 2005b; 2006b). Fugitive emissions for four fugitive sources
22 (associated with the smelter building, materials handling, loader traffic, and truck traffic) were
23 estimated based on 1987 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) data (URS Corporation,
24 2006a), which were the most recent available data on fugitive emissions from the facility. The
25 cumulative Pb emissions from this facility, including facility process and fugitive emissions were
26 estimated to be 3.11 tons per year (tons/year).
27 Particle sizes for emissions from point sources at the facility ranged from 0.5 to 10 um,
28 and particle sizes for emissions from area sources at the facility ranged from 1.25 to 22.5 um.
29 Emissions and release parameters, particle size inputs, and other inputs for fate and transport
30 modeling for the facility are provided in Appendix E, Attachments E-l and E-2.
31 The emissions used in this assessment differ slightly from those used in the pilot-scale
32 assessment, which matched estimates for the facility contained in the 2002 National Emissions
33 Inventory (NEI). The 2002 NEI process emissions were estimated based on stack tests
July 2007 B-15 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
performed in December 1997, November 1999, and February 2000 (EC/R Incorporated, 2006),
and fugitive emissions were estimated by comparing the modeled concentrations from the
process emissions to background Pb concentrations and monitored concentrations (EC/R
Incorporated, 2006). The cumulative emissions estimate in the 2002 NEI, and modeled in the
pilot-scale assessment, including facility process and fugitive emissions, was approximately 4.6
tons/year. For this assessment, the use of more recent stack test data has produced a process
emissions estimate that is approximately 30 percent lower.
B.2.5. Summary of Environmental Data
The environmental data sets available for the secondary Pb smelter case study are
summarized in Exhibit B-9.
Exhibit B-9. Summary of Environmental Data Sources for
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Medium
Ambient air
Residential soil
Indoor dust
Deposition
Data Set a
EPA'sAQS
Timeframe
1998 to 2002 b
Locations
2 locations
Comments
Pb-TSP monitors located 400
and 680 meters (m) from the
facility; see Attachments B-12,
B-13.
No data identified.
No data identified.
No data identified.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a In general, site characterization information was lacking for this secondary Pb smelter. Data, with the exception of
limited air monitoring data, were not available based on information from the U.S. EPA Region 4. Information from
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) indicates relevant soil data may be available from
the facility (ADEM, 2006); however, no data have been obtained to date.
b Monitor values from 1998 to 2002 were obtained from U.S. EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database for the
purpose of comparing monitored values to modeled air concentrations (see Appendix E). Note that the comparison
of these monitoring data to modeling results (presented in Appendix E) is limited by the fact that the modeled
emissions are based on a combination of emission estimates from 1987, 2005, and 2006 and thus may not be
completely representative of the emissions captured in these monitoring data.
B.2.5.1. Air Monitoring
As shown in Exhibit B-9, average annual Pb concentrations in the vicinity of the
secondary Pb smelter were available from U.S. EPA's AQS database (USEPA, 2007) for two air
monitors located near the facility (see Attachment B-12). Data from these two air monitoring
sites for 1998 through 2002 (see Attachment B-13) were compared to the modeled air
concentrations. These years of monitoring data were selected to correspond to the years of
July 2007
B-16
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 meteorological data used in the air modeling.4 Over this period, average annual Pb
2 concentrations at the monitor closer to the facility ranged from 0.28 to 0.47 ug/m3, with the
3 lowest average annual concentration in the year 2002. Average annual Pb concentrations at the
4 second monitor ranged from 0.13 to 0.20 ug/m3. While no exceedances of the NAAQS (1.5
5 ug/dL as a maximum quarterly average) occurred during the 1998 to 2002 time period, it is noted
6 that since that time, an exceedance has occurred (during the 4th quarter of 2003) (MDNR,
7 2007b).
8 For comparison purposes, the average annual Pb concentrations for 2005 from AQS
9 monitors located around the secondary Pb smelter case study location were compared to AQS
10 monitor results across the United States. Exhibit B-10 shows the distribution of average annual
11 Pb concentrations in TSP for 208 monitoring sites across the United States (with average annual
12 Pb concentrations per location sorted in ascending order). The 2005 results for the two AQS
13 monitoring sites located in the vicinity of the secondary Pb smelter are indicated using a solid
14 square (). The annual average Pb concentrations for the 208 monitoring sites ranged from
15 0.001 to 1.56 ug/m3. Both of the monitoring sites located near the secondary Pb smelter fall into
16 the top 15 percent of the 208 locations.
4 Note that the emissions data used in this modeling represent stack testing performed in 2005 and 2006 and
fugitives emission estimates from 1987. Given that these emissions data, when used together, are not clearly
representative of any specific time period, the decision was made to use monitoring data corresponding to the years
of meteorological data used in the modeling (i.e., 1998 to 2002).
July 2007 B-l 7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit B-10. Distribution of 2005 Annual Average Values for Pb-TSP at Monitor Sites
across the United States Relative to Monitors near the Secondary Pb Smelter
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Monitors Across the United States (N=208)
B.2.5.2. Soil
No soil measurement data for Pb were identified in the vicinity of the secondary Pb
smelter case study location. For the human exposure and health risk assessments, soil
concentrations were estimated by defining the spatial pattern of soil concentrations around the
facility using air and soil model results and then adjusting the magnitude of the concentrations
based on measured concentrations from a similar facility. See Appendix E for details.
11 B.2.5.3. Indoor Dust
12 No indoor dust data for Pb were available from homes located in the vicinity of the
13 secondary Pb smelter. Indoor dust concentrations were estimated using an empirical model that
14 relates ambient air concentrations to indoor dust concentrations, as discussed in Appendix E.
15 B.2.5.4. Deposition
16 No Pb deposition monitoring data were identified in the vicinity of the secondary Pb
17 smelter case study location. Pb deposition resulting from emissions from the secondary Pb
18 smelter was modeled using U.S. EPA's AERMOD air dispersion model, as discussed in
19 Appendix E.
July 2007
B-18
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2002) Health Consultation; Public Health
3 Implications From Attending or Working at Herculaneum Schools; Herculaneum Lead Smelter Site;
4 Herculaneum, Jefferson County, Missouri. June.
5 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2003) Health Consultation; Blood Lead Results for
6 2002 Calendar Year; Herculaneum Lead Smelter Site; Herculaneum, Jefferson County, Missouri, EPA
7 Facility ID MOD006266373. August.
8 Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). (2006) Conversations With Representative of
9 ADEM Regarding Available Measured Data From Media in and Around the Secondary Pb Smelter in Troy,
10 AL. October 31 and November 1, 2006.
11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2005) CDC Surveillance Data, 1997 to 2005. Available online
12 at: http://0-www.cdc.gov.milll.sjlibrary.org/nceh/lead/surv/stats.htm.
13 EC/R Incorporated. (2006) Secondary Lead Smelter Industry: Residual Risk Assessment (Draft). Research Triangle
14 Park, NC: Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and
15 Standards; May.
16 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (1999) Preliminary Assessment: Herculaneum Lead Smelter
17 Site, Jefferson County, Missouri. Division of Environmental Quality; March 30, 1999.
18 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2005) Analysis of Lead Recontamination and Deposition in
19 Soils Adjacent to the Doe Run Company's Herculaneum Smelter, Herculaneum, Missouri; February 2002
20 Through July 2005. Division of Environmental Quality; November 8, 2005.
21 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2007a) 2007 Revision of the State Implementation Plan for
22 the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment Area, As Adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission.
23 April 26, 2007.
24 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2007b) Doe Run - Herculaneum State Implementation Plan
25 (SIP) Dispersion Modeling Review. Memorandum From Jeffry D. Bennett to John Rustige. February 12,
26 2007. Available online at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/herculaneumsip.htm.
27 Staley, C. S.; Ritter, P. D.; Rood, A. S. (2002) Quality Assurance Project Plan for Lead Deposition at Herculaneum,
28 Missouri. Prepared for U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Technology Support Center, and
29 U.S. Department of Energy; August.
30 State of Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). (2007) Data & Statistical Reports; Childhood
31 Lead Poisoning Prevention; Blood Lead Screening for 1997-2003 and 2005. Available online at:
32 http://www.dhss.mo.gov/ChildhoodLead/Reports.html.
33 URS Corporation. (2005a) Periodic NESHAP-Required Inorganic Lead Source Emissions Testing Program
34 Conducted February 15, 2005 on Stack No. 10.
3 5 URS Corporation. (2005b) Periodic NESHAP-Required Inorganic Lead Source Emissions Testing Program
36 Conducted October 18, 2005 on Stack No. 4.
37 URS Corporation. (2006a) Memorandum From Billy R. Nichols at URS Corporation to Ronald W. Gore at Alabama
3 8 Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Regarding 2005 Annual Emission Estimates for the
39 Secondary Pb Smelter. April 26, 2006.
July 2007 B-19 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 URS Corporation. (2006b) Periodic NESHAP-Required Inorganic Lead Source Emissions Testing Program
2 Conducted February 7 and 8, 2006 on Stack No. 1 and Stack No. 5.
3 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) United States Census 2000: Summary File 1. Public Information Office. Available
4 online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfilel.html.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007) Air Quality System (AQS) Database. Available online at:
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebwarning.htm.
July 2007 B-20 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-l. Air Monitoring Locations around the Primary Pb Smelter
2
Legend
AQS Monitoring Locations
ฉ Monitors Not in AQ S
Public School Locations
Main Stack at Primary Pb Smelter
::::::: Primary Pb Smelter
-^ Railroad
Meters
July 2007
B-21
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-2. Average Annual Pb Concentrations from AQS Monitors
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Monitor ID
290990004
290990005
290990008
290990009
290990010
290990011
290990013
290990015
290990016
Average Monitored Pb Concentrations (|jg/m3)a'b
2001
-
2.10
0.27
0.33
0.13
1.52
0.98
3.79
-
2002
-
0.39
0.068
0.054
0.074
0.51
0.24
1.29
-
2003
-
0.31
0.10
0.086
0.033
0.41
0.20
1.31
-
2004
1.27
0.44
0.097
0.11
0.046
0.56
0.44
1.37
0.30
2005
0.94
0.28
0.10
0.063
0.046
0.31
0.16
1.56
0.20
a Data are for average annual Pb concentrations in total suspended particulate matter (TSP) and were calculated
from the daily U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS) data, including data from State and Local Air
Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and other air monitoring networks (designated as 'others' in the AQS database).
The daily data were extracted from AQS using an AMPS 50 report, with the mean daily statistic selected
and the units selected as reported. Events and nulls were not included in the AMPS 50 report.
"" indicates that data were not available.
July 2007
B-22
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2002
Date
3-Jan-02
7-Jan-02
10-Jan-02
13-Jan-02
16-Jan-02
19-Jan-02
22-Jan-02
25-Jan-02
28-Jan-02
5-Feb-02
8-Feb-02
11-Feb-02
14-Feb-02
18-Feb-02
21-Feb-02
26-Feb-02
1-Mar-02
4-Mar-02
7-Mar-02
11-Mar-02
14-Mar-02
17-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
23-Mar-02
26-Mar-02
29-Mar-02
1-Apr-02
4-Apr-02
7-Apr-02
10-Apr-02
16-Apr-02
18-Apr-02
22-Apr-02
25-Apr-02
28-Apr-02
1-May-02
4-May-02
7-May-02
10-May-02
13-May-02
16-May-02
19-May-02
22-May-02
25-May-02
29-May-02
31-May-02
3-Jun-02
6-Jun-02
9-Jun-02
12-Jun-02
15-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
0.5
0.52
0.51
4.5
0.97
2.2
2.4
0.75
2
1.5
0.97
0.59
0.33
2.3
0.24
0.23 ND
3.8
0.57
1.7
2.3
1.3
0.78
0.24 ND
0.25 ND
0.41
0.76
0.93
0.24 ND
0.61
4.9
2
3
0.41
0.23 ND
0.25 ND
2.2
0.55
2
3.58
0.144
0.932
0.0913
2.33
0.193
1.59
0.397
0.32
0.359
0.326
0.716
0.141
1.1
2003
Date
1-Jan-03
4-Jan-03
7-Jan-03
10-Jan-03
13-Jan-03
16-Jan-03
19-Jan-03
22-Jan-03
25-Jan-03
28-Jan-03
31-Jan-03
3-Feb-03
9-Feb-03
12-Feb-03
15-Feb-03
18-Feb-03
21-Feb-03
24-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
2-Mar-03
5-Mar-03
8-Mar-03
11-Mar-03
14-Mar-03
17-Mar-03
20-Mar-03
23-Mar-03
26-Mar-03
29-Mar-03
1-Apr-03
4-Apr-03
7-Apr-03
1 0-Apr-03
1 3-Apr-03
16-Apr-03
1 9-Apr-03
22-Apr-03
25-Apr-03
28-Apr-03
1-May-03
4-May-03
7-May-03
10-May-03
13-May-03
16-May-03
19-May-03
22-May-03
25-May-03
28-May-03
31-May-03
3-Jun-03
6-Jun-03
0.316
1.26
0.547
0.291
1.03
1.09
0.531
0.095
0.811
2.28
0.118
0.15
1.29
0.901
0.514
0.406
0.527
0.119
0.05 ND
0.095
0.138
1.63
1.99
1.53
2.86
2.07
0.352
0.58
0.05 ND
0.399
0.397
0.238
0.19
1.95
0.376
5.48
0.357
0.092
3.37
0.309
0.715
0.59
0.437
1.4
2.08
0.493
0.108
0.505
0.242
0.165
0.21
0.603
July 2007
B-23
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
13-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
29-Oct-01
1-Nov-01
4-Nov-01
8-Nov-01
11-Nov-01
14-Nov-01
16-Nov-01
19-Nov-01
22-Nov-OI
26-Nov-01
28-Nov-01
1-Dec-OI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.41
0.24
1.7
0.32
0.24 ND
5
1.4
0.69
0.71
3.9
2.8
1
0.45
1.1
2
0.24 ND
0.66
2002
Date
21-Jun-02
24-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
30-Jun-02
3-Jul-02
6-Jul-02
9-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
22-Jul-02
29-Jul-02
4-Aug-02
7-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
16-Aug-02
19-Aug-02
22-Aug-02
25-Aug-02
28-Aug-02
31-Aug-02
3-Sep-02
6-Sep-02
9-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
15-Sep-02
18-Sep-02
21-Sep-02
24-Sep-02
27-Sep-02
30-Sep-02
3-Oct-02
6-Oct-02
9-Oct-02
12-0ct-02
15-0ct-02
18-0ct-02
21-0ct-02
24-Oct-02
27-Oct-02
30-0ct-02
2-Nov-02
S-Nov-02
S-Nov-02
11-Nov-02
14-Nov-02
17-Nov-02
20-NOV-02
23-NOV-02
26-Nov-02
29-Nov-02
1.49
2.17
0.24
0.091
0.861
1.68
0.439
2.92
1.04
1.09
0.771
0.553
0.225
0.511
1.28
0.181
0.994
1.27
0.547
0.064
0.204
0.465
0.439
4.11
1.19
0.473
0.0875
0.739
0.107
0.223
0.183
0.395
1.57
0.21
0.983
0.498
0.256
0.457
4.63
1.89
1.26
0.359
0.053
0.506
0.319
0.129
0.627
0.485
0.765
0.498
0.818
0.518
2003
Date
9-Jun-03
12-Jun-03
15-Jun-03
18-Jun-03
21-Jun-03
24-Jun-03
27-Jun-03
30-Jun-03
6-Jul-03
-
-
-
0.121
0.627
0.063
1.51
0.216
0.433
0.184
0.803
0.06
-
-
-
July 2007
B-24
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100 Summary:
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
4-Dec-01
7-Dec-01
10-Dec-OI
13-Dec-01
17-Dec-01
19-Dec-01
22-Dec-01
26-Dec-01
28-Dec-01
31-Dec-01
2001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
4.6
2.5
2.5
0.25 ND
0.31
0.23 ND
0.24 ND
0.27
1.3
0.27
Max = 5
Avg = 1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
2002
Date
2-Dec-02
5-Dec-02
8-Dec-02
11-Dec-02
14-Dec-02
17-Dec-02
20-Dec-02
23-Dec-02
26-Dec-02
29-Dec-02
2002
3-Jan-02
7-Jan-02
10-Jan-02
13-Jan-02
16-Jan-02
19-Jan-02
22-Jan-02
25-Jan-02
28-Jan-02
31-Jan-02
5-Feb-02
8-Feb-02
11-Feb-02
14-Feb-02
18-Feb-02
21-Feb-02
26-Feb-02
1-Mar-02
7-Mar-02
11-Mar-02
14-Mar-02
17-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
23-Mar-02
26-Mar-02
29-Mar-02
1-Apr-02
4-Apr-02
7-Apr-02
10-Apr-02
16-Apr-02
18-Apr-02
25-Apr-02
28-Apr-02
1-May-02
4-May-02
7-May-02
10-May-02
13-May-02
16-May-02
0.954
0.057
0.112
2.57
0.264
1.89
0.382
0.895
0.086
1.72
Max = 4.9
Avg = 1
0.25 ND
0.25 ND
0.3
17
0.35
0.6
0.55
0.24 ND
0.34
0.24 ND
0.52
0.3
0.23 ND
0.27
0.6
0.24 ND
0.24 ND
0.65
1.6
0.24 ND
1.2
0.65
0.46
0.25 ND
0.24 ND
0.48
0.26 ND
1.8
0.26 ND
0.69
1.8
0.55
0.25 ND
0.27 ND
0.34
0.51
0.54
2.14
0.054
0.28
2003
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Max = 5.5
Avg = 0.79
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
July 2007
B-25
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
13-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
29-Oct-01
1-Nov-01
4-Nov-01
8-Nov-01
11-Nov-01
14-Nov-01
16-Nov-01
19-Nov-01
22-Nov-OI
26-Nov-01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.096
0.075
0.18
0.3 ND
0.23 ND
1.4
0.41
0.23 ND
0.26
2.4
1.5
0.24 ND
0.24 ND
0.38
0.24 ND
2002
Date
19-May-02
22-May-02
25-May-02
29-May-02
31-May-02
3-Jun-02
6-Jun-02
9-Jun-02
12-Jun-02
15-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
21-Jun-02
24-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
30-Jun-02
3-Jul-02
6-Jul-02
9-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
22-Jul-02
26-Jul-02
29-Jul-02
1-Aug-02
4-Aug-02
7-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
16-Aug-02
19-Aug-02
22-Aug-02
25-Aug-02
28-Aug-02
31-Aug-02
3-Sep-02
6-Sep-02
-
0.0617
0.921
0.123
0.562
0.0993
0.677
0.962
0.245
0.085
0.0693
0.261
0.375
0.935
0.0751
0.05 ND
0.225
1.11
1.66
3.58
0.655
0.131
0.092
1.36
0.213
1.29
0.22
9.13
0.656
0.05 ND
6.68
1.69
0.059
0.701
10
0.378
1.22
1.09
-
2003
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
July 2007
B-26
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101 Summary:
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
28-Nov-01
1-Dec-OI
4-Dec-01
7-Dec-01
10-Dec-OI
13-Dec-01
17-Dec-01
19-Dec-01
22-Dec-01
26-Dec-01
28-Dec-01
31-Dec-01
2001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
1.7
0.62
0.25 ND
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.24 ND
0.23 ND
0.23 ND
0.22 ND
0.23 ND
0.24 ND
Max = 2.4
Avg = 0.52
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2002
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2002
03-Jan-02
07-Jan-02
10-Jan-02
13-Jan-02
16-Jan-02
19-Jan-02
22-Jan-02
28-Jan-02
31-Jan-02
05-Feb-02
08-Feb-02
11-Feb-02
14-Feb-02
18-Feb-02
21-Feb-02
26-Feb-02
01-Mar-02
04-Mar-02
07-Mar-02
14-Mar-02
17-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
23-Mar-02
26-Mar-02
29-Mar-02
01-Apr-02
04-Apr-02
07-Apr-02
10-Apr-02
16-Apr-02
18-Apr-02
25-Apr-02
28-Apr-02
01-May-02
04-May-02
07-May-02
10-May-02
13-May-02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Max =17
Avg = 1.1
0.59
0.65
1.4
15
4.4
0.24 ND
25
8.1
0.39
2.7
5
4.4
14
13
0.38
0.25
6.1
4.4
11
17
0.26 ND
0.23 ND
2.4
0.45
0.81
13
0.24 ND
6.4
0.86
11
3.1
1.1
0.25 ND
0.87
0.6
0.98
0.551
0.679
2003
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
01-Jan-03
04-Jan-03
07-Jan-03
10-Jan-03
13-Jan-03
16-Jan-03
19-Jan-03
22-Jan-03
25-Jan-03
28-Jan-03
31-Jan-03
03-Feb-03
06-Feb-03
09-Feb-03
12-Feb-03
15-Feb-03
18-Feb-03
21-Feb-03
24-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
02-Mar-03
05-Mar-OS
08-Mar-OS
11-Mar-03
14-Mar-03
17-Mar-03
20-Mar-03
23-Mar-03
26-Mar-03
29-Mar-03
01-Apr-03
04-Apr-03
07-Apr-03
1 0-Apr-03
1 3-Apr-03
16-Apr-03
1 9-Apr-03
22-Apr-03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.147
0.326
0.63
0.257
0.388
0.322
0.986
0.172
0.684
1.52
2.33
2.69
0.342
0.265
0.46
0.05 ND
0.173
0.281
0.279
0.056
0.181
0.363
1.85
3.25
0.224
1.25
0.349
0.504
0.476
0.107
1.56
4.11
0.184
0.16
0.441
10
4.33
0.215
July 2007
B-27
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.31
16
2.5
2002
Date
16-May-02
19-May-02
22-May-02
25-May-02
29-May-02
31-May-02
03-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
09-Jun-02
12-Jun-02
15-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
21-Jun-02
24-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
30-Jun-02
03-Jul-02
06-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
22-Jul-02
26-Jul-02
29-Jul-02
01-Aug-02
04-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
16-Aug-02
19-Aug-02
22-Aug-02
25-Aug-02
28-Aug-02
31-Aug-02
03-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
09-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
21-Sep-02
24-Sep-02
27-Sep-02
30-Sep-02
03-0ct-02
06-0ct-02
09-0ct-02
12-0ct-02
15-0ct-02
18-0ct-02
21-0ct-02
24-Oct-02
2.19
0.148
3.84
1.72
0.645
1.26
2.27
0.441
1.96
0.962
0.365
2.89
1.12
1.72
1.06
0.273
1.23
0.747
0.739
0.616
0.522
0.967
0.667
6.48
0.913
1.18
0.663
0.434
0.932
2.86
4.93
1.04
3.8
0.135
0.262
0.205
0.411
0.586
0.614
0.318
0.29
0.261
0.314
4.56
1.53
0.611
1.77
0.412
0.17
2.44
0.759
0.215
2003
Date
28-Apr-03
01-May-03
04-May-03
13-May-03
16-May-03
19-May-03
22-May-03
25-May-03
28-May-03
31-May-03
03-Jun-03
06-Jun-03
09-Jun-03
12-Jun-03
15-Jun-03
18-Jun-03
21-Jun-03
24-Jun-03
27-Jun-03
30-Jun-03
03-Jul-03
06-Jul-03
-
-
-
-
0.435
0.926
0.671
1.41
0.319
0.512
0.11
0.05 ND
0.245
0.274
0.188
0.381
1.35
0.418
0.096
0.406
0.475
2.33
0.469
2.29
0.964
1.15
-
-
-
-
July 2007
B-28
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102 Summary:
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
26-Oct-01
29-Oct-01
01-Nov-01
04-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
11-Nov-01
14-Nov-01
16-Nov-01
19-Nov-01
22-Nov-OI
26-Nov-01
28-Nov-01
04-Dec-01
07-Dec-01
10-Dec-OI
13-Dec-01
17-Dec-01
19-Dec-01
22-Dec-01
26-Dec-01
28-Dec-01
31-Dec-01
2001
0.25
14
18
0.48
0.83
0.58
4.2
0.99
0.4
13
65
0.24 ND
7.5
0.85
1.4
0.22 ND
0.23 ND
0.85
5.1
0.49
0.53
0.25
Max = 65
Avg = 6.2
2002
Date
27-Oct-02
30-0ct-02
02-Nov-02
OS-Nov-02
OS-Nov-02
11-Nov-02
14-Nov-02
17-Nov-02
20-Nov-02
23-Nov-02
26-Nov-02
29-Nov-02
02-Dec-02
05-Dec-02
08-Dec-02
11-Dec-02
14-Dec-02
17-Dec-02
20-Dec-02
23-Dec-02
26-Dec-02
29-Dec-02
2002
3-Jan-02
7-Jan-02
1 0-Jan-02
1 3-Jan-02
16-Jan-02
1 9-Jan-02
22-Jan-02
25-Jan-02
28-Jan-02
31-Jan-02
5-Feb-02
8-Feb-02
11-Feb-02
14-Feb-02
18-Feb-02
21-Feb-02
26-Feb-02
1-Mar-02
4-Mar-02
7-Mar-02
11-Mar-02
14-Mar-02
17-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
23-Mar-02
26-Mar-02
29-Mar-02
1-Apr-02
0.152
0.125
0.069
0.099
10.7
0.15
1.07
0.108
0.708
0.287
0.145
0.15
0.776
0.896
0.376
0.919
0.568
2.32
0.224
0.233
0.083
5.24
Max = 25
Avg = 2.4
0.92
0.43
0.73
1.3
1.5
0.25 ND
2.1
0.59
1.9
0.46
1
0.61
0.49
0.38
1.4
0.32
0.24 ND
6.1
0.49
0.94
1.2
1.5
0.25 ND
0.26 ND
0.25 ND
0.3
2.1
0.62
2003
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
10-Jan-03
13-Jan-03
16-Jan-03
19-Jan-03
22-Jan-03
25-Jan-03
28-Jan-03
31-Jan-03
3-Feb-03
6-Feb-03
9-Feb-03
12-Feb-03
15-Feb-03
18-Feb-03
21-Feb-03
24-Feb-03
27-Feb-03
2-Mar-03
5-Mar-03
8-Mar-03
11-Mar-03
14-Mar-03
17-Mar-03
20-Mar-03
23-Mar-03
26-Mar-03
29-Mar-03
1-Apr-03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Max =10
Avg = 1
0.402
0.621
0.23
0.155
0.058
0.326
0.864
0.075
0.069
0.283
0.566
0.65
0.05 ND
1.22
0.104
0.135
0.05 ND
0.085
0.105
0.377
0.993
0.395
2.2
0.655
0.422
0.421
0.056
0.236
July 2007
B-29
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
13-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
0.994
0.56
0.96
0.32 ND
2002
Date
4-Apr-02
7-Apr-02
10-Apr-02
16-Apr-02
18-Apr-02
22-Apr-02
25-Apr-02
28-Apr-02
1-May-02
4-May-02
7-May-02
10-May-02
13-May-02
22-May-02
25-May-02
29-May-02
31-May-02
3-Jun-02
6-Jun-02
9-Jun-02
15-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
21-Jun-02
24-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
30-Jun-02
3-Jul-02
6-Jul-02
9-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
22-Jul-02
26-Jul-02
29-Jul-02
1-Aug-02
4-Aug-02
7-Aug-02
10-Aug-02
13-Aug-02
16-Aug-02
19-Aug-02
22-Aug-02
25-Aug-02
28-Aug-02
31-Aug-02
3-Sep-02
6-Sep-02
-
-
-
-
0.24 ND
1.4
3.8
1.2
1.7
1.1
0.23 ND
0.25 ND
1.8
0.4
0.42
1.43
0.0822
1.53
0.232
0.906
0.449
0.342
0.338
0.35
0.204
0.86
1.11
1.06
0.46
0.097
0.68
0.286
0.342
0.276
0.244
0.878
0.728
0.537
0.422
2.59
0.258
0.159
0.379
0.077
0.46
0.756
0.296
0.057
0.107
0.33
0.291
1.11
-
-
-
-
2003
Date
4-Apr-03
7-Apr-03
1 0-Apr-03
1 3-Apr-03
16-Apr-03
1 9-Apr-03
22-Apr-03
25-Apr-03
1-May-03
7-May-03
10-May-03
13-May-03
16-May-03
19-May-03
22-May-03
25-May-03
28-May-03
31-May-03
3-Jun-03
6-Jun-03
9-Jun-03
12-Jun-03
15-Jun-03
18-Jun-03
21-Jun-03
24-Jun-03
27-Jun-03
30-Jun-03
3-Jul-03
6-Jul-03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.169
0.205
0.113
0.908
0.218
2.15
0.145
0.093
0.242
0.455
0.369
0.679
0.14
0.383
0.078
0.06
0.164
0.166
0.105
1.15
0.126
0.511
0.05 ND
0.907
0.133
0.32
0.098
0.453
0.159
0.051
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
July 2007
B-30
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-3. Air Monitoring Results for Pb from Monitors Not In AQS
Located around the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103 Summary:
Sampling Dates and Results ftjg/m3) a b c
2001
Date
26-Oct-01
29-Oct-01
01-Nov-01
04-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
11-Nov-01
14-Nov-01
16-Nov-01
19-Nov-01
22-Nov-OI
26-Nov-01
28-Nov-01
01-Dec-OI
04-Dec-01
07-Dec-01
10-Dec-01
13-Dec-01
17-Dec-01
19-Dec-01
22-Dec-01
26-Dec-01
2001
0.33
2.5
0.86
0.25
0.87
0.59
3.6
1
0.35
1.1
2.9
0.23 ND
0.85
2.1
1.3
2.3
0.26
0.24 ND
0.39
0.25 ND
0.4
Max = 3.6
Avg = 1
2002
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2002
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Max = 6.1
Avg = 0.8
2003
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Max = 2.2
Avg = 0.39
a Daily data obtained from U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
"" indicates that no sample was collected during that time.
0 A value qualified with an "ND" represents a non-detect. The value presented is the detection limit. For the
purpose of calculating averages, one-half the detection limit was used as the value for non-detects.
July 2007
B-31
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Sampling Date
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
03-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
04-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
920
1500
377
757
1680
2770
1280
2640
670
2820
403
783
803
270
4220
1260
1260
1330
3100
1660
1150
1720
1670
13600
6900
6640
16600
28000
16700
12800
8670
1400
851
1160
1270
2750
1720
2760
4950
1010
1330
1070
22500
1980
5830
2230
1020
833
2350
1110
930
1730
Quadrant 2
853
724
602
1390
1030
2210
809
1530
1360
2080
1330
913
1140
5530
2160
873
1450
1550
9390
5780
853
1790
1800
4870
10700
6500
11800
32100
18600
5640
4140
2120
1530
1090
1260
2580
2030
3370
3690
1800
2010
2260
5110
3020
4370
1670
1220
898
1820
1070
818
2180
Quadrant 3
460
1470
762
1200
685
1070
433
596
13100
1540
350
736
660
1140
1440
1360
636
1460
756
428
927
1420
526
2190
8360
7760
5970
8490
10400
4610
3950
461
1270
751
2530
5200
1620
2190
1040
1270
1220
1160
886
1210
1510
796
652
795
1100
1680
922
24000
Quadrant 4
1060
818
731
563
719
783
731
674
465
1400
748
1240
696
486
1360
612
2190
1630
781
440
269
846
2320
8450
5270
6200
8860
14200
2130
15800
4060
1470
728
1570
1320
1260
515
7510
649
1250
899
976
302
1050
1520
936
366
1050
886
849
910
3600
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
823
1128
618
978
1029
1708
813
1360
3899
1960
708
918
825
1857
2295
1026
1384
1493
3507
2077
800
1444
1579
7278
7808
6775
10808
20698
11958
9713
5205
1363
1095
1143
1595
2948
1471
3958
2582
1333
1365
1367
7200
1815
3308
1408
815
894
1539
1177
895
7878
July 2007
B-32
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
Sampling Date
09-0ct-01
10-0ct-01
10-0ct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
02-Aug-04
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
3150
5740
3670
7240
1180
2210
857
648
559
373
211
870
183
326
234
1040
3050
1510
7490
2400
163
8500
2100
1320
948
541
1320
685
1050
395
1340
424
772
1170
323
475
324
374
333
501
1580
1640
1100
1200
1420
1250
-
9820
2320
691
495
313
Quadrant 2
1230
1590
998
1820
2310
5630
850
330
156
86
160
579
308
157
236
1140
2150
2030
546
2200
273
1640
2010
1020
1070
754
671
858
1770
470
676
555
504
592
381
526
680
511
423
706
1870
3810
2350
1480
614
792
492
2440
3070
4130
860
354
Quadrant 3
710
14600
1360
906
1550
2430
423
310
710
95
389
1090
174
251
201
1150
1890
1390
1870
952
341
3340
1150
1160
1010
826
588
1150
714
202.7
469
474
459
511
357
124
343
307
492
889
1060
900
721
636
731
1810
1300
1630
4230
392
525
539
Quadrant 4
1180
11200
3520
1880
979
1870
112
117
296
212
203
-
184
66
220
826
1800
1100
3830
642
642
1020
1010
1420
962
668
562
773
1020
-
1610
199
581
651
606
612
479
5430
148
873
1220
686
600
599
1280
981
3420
2730
1460
634
460
638
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
1568
8283
2387
2962
1505
3035
561
351
430
192
241
846
212
200
223
1039
2223
1508
3434
1549
355
3625
1568
1230
998
697
785
867
1139
356
1024
413
579
731
417
434
457
1656
349
742
1433
1759
1193
979
1011
1208
1737
4155
2770
1462
585
461
July 2007
B-33
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
Sampling Date
12-0ct-01
12-0ct-01
12-0ct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-02
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
11-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
671
586
703
498
431
279
914
4130
2330
413
1010
756
2090
967
1680
1290
1200
934
1990
1890
1650
1090
2390
1440
1040
1230
4270
1360
612
315
703
694
254
868
245
1230
21100
1120
7650
4400
4690
4690
8380
6020
19900
1880
887
662
2510
436
189
1130
Quadrant 2
547
785
801
813
368
568
864
2980
1160
1180
1700
890
2480
1400
1420
3420
1460
1550
1980
1160
2220
1010
2460
1770
1080
981
909
1060
2060
340
719
731
443
797
204
1330
893
1910
6940
3060
6760
6760
8590
5650
20500
602
636
398
1510
698
330
3180
Quadrant 3
530
595
468
537
670
1020
830
2540
1360
2140
1100
1360
1130
993
1430
1670
1470
1730
1040
1220
1360
1060
1210
1230
1220
1050
917
897
658
630
520
660
136
349
59
982
475
1090
3380
2250
3270
3270
6850
2420
9766
950
2220
538
3510
682
534
1580
Quadrant 4
731
700
760
484
524
1690
1200
857
1430
964
1090
1290
1800
933
1660
4400
807
1830
1280
1430
1300
885
1850
1930
1040
1160
1030
709
687
232
664
393
216
522
48
822
441
957
4920
2010
4850
4850
6870
3580
9020
596
1750
1240
2530
528
409
1070
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
620
667
683
583
498
889
952
2627
1570
1174
1225
1074
1875
1073
1548
2695
1234
1511
1573
1425
1633
1011
1978
1593
1095
1105
1782
1007
1004
379
652
620
262
634
139
1091
5727
1269
5723
2930
4893
4893
7673
4418
14797
1007
1373
710
2515
586
366
1740
July 2007
B-34
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
Sampling Date
08-0ct-01
08-0ct-01
08-0ct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
10-Oct-01
02-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
08-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
12-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
3100
1630
993
129
688
4130
223
1220
500
569
818
498
954
824
648
977
657
890
11200
590
825
658
509
1100
827
1200
2570
814
2130
2970
20700
6490
8080
5160
1040
1800
1530
1150
831
1630
11400
1080
999
660
945
742
1290
959
801
1230
730
371
Quadrant 2
3180
1650
1080
7280
1190
6070
13000
1120
667
506
664
465
1360
581
714
875
728
720
1110
858
957
436
578
1540
962
1040
3400
720
2490
2470
10600
8670
6010
2510
1900
1480
1720
1620
619
4470
11600
1770
1050
3900
814
2060
807
1080
364
59
348
726
Quadrant 3
2240
1940
3700
2880
1670
1220
5320
180
381
650
917
492
1050
529
809
808
593
612
177
393
794
533
484
1320
-
1160
1590
1320
2650
1300
8880
2650
3470
996
1330
1470
594
1730
1360
944
8180
563
753
1600
953
1010
562
1566
637
419
396
964
Quadrant 4
1680
1810
2010
2160
1800
989
2230
640
203
630
1170
744
695
580
838
926
619
607
159
375
854
503
1470
397
-
2790
2190
1220
1810
916
2590
3930
2990
1040
2040
1400
1810
1540
1210
1600
7050
854
772
1060
954
778
244
1220
472
1080
281
394
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
2550
1758
1946
3112
1337
3102
5193
790
438
589
892
550
1015
629
752
897
649
707
3162
554
858
533
760
1089
895
1548
2438
1019
2270
1914
10693
5435
5138
2427
1578
1538
1414
1510
1005
2161
9558
1067
894
1805
917
1148
726
1206
569
697
439
614
July 2007
B-35
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
Sampling Date
15-0ct-01
15-0ct-01
15-0ct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
860
388
128
624
1250
2320
1370
180
300
826
919
886
1110
624
907
890
372
564
231
173
302
12100
1380
2740
65
237
691
510
179
257
435
237
342
466
454
270
294
367
4970
3130
1280
1120
1800
1380
977
1130
319
523
634
377
289
691
Quadrant 2
527
334
490
869
857
2740
3900
392
263
798
560
617
549
886
9421
2160
1110
913
838
330
480
5170
855
977
210
209
228
341
666
229
382
413
448
618
559
383
288
1690
4250
2750
1570
8100
1750
1010
1330
1923
904
782
800
60
155
464
Quadrant 3
892
266
488
316
425
1160
1350
413
144
496
288
128
806
257
699
947
1240
1220
926
250
688
9140
480
1300
169
197
354
159
1080
113
498
330
614
532
726
311
815
391
3700
3180
5100
159
1400
1150
758
425
584
758
903
658
263
408
Quadrant 4
430
210
161
379
1480
2860
1050
413
100
960
771
143
-
544
1110
-
1060
521
244
915
319
4290
519
1850
135
200
197
434
41
151
391
309
281
529
629
433
768
1080
2680
2010
1170
756
1400
936
1500
741
396
766
452
529
868
416
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
677
300
317
547
1003
2270
1918
350
202
770
635
444
822
578
3034
1332
946
805
560
417
447
7675
809
1717
145
211
368
361
492
188
427
322
421
536
592
349
541
882
3900
2768
2280
2534
1588
1119
1141
1055
551
707
697
406
394
495
July 2007
B-36
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
Sampling Date
18-0ct-01
15-0ct-01
15-0ct-01
18-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
05-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
451
814
2970
1670
655
679
748
440
470
1010
928
982
768
874
1160
1160
1240
9530
1640
332
733
774
492
530
562
1040
949
1230
836
1710
1530
1990
945
2050
1270
2670
556
3850
515
1880
1380
3780
13500
3500
1890
710
3670
564
436
858
322
781
Quadrant 2
1010
1040
3080
2290
636
516
1110
514
682
1060
1090
541
867
1110
1150
1130
866
3450
1290
560
455
559
800
804
1320
1360
1240
4410
1540
1490
1170
1820
1250
2990
2660
594
1880
5830
2150
1220
1070
3230
5180
5010
1540
719
645
775
854
446
635
821
Quadrant 3
391
567
396
1440
401
688
311
324
-
489
682
791
-
1340
621
609
1070
537
331
165
524
341
281
793
578
1030
850
2010
778
1160
597
426
560
1970
3930
1520
1090
5610
285
1960
1480
2240
5590
1630
1830
998
1050
352
516
544
527
661
Quadrant 4
440
969
513
1230
545
519
896
346
573
1620
1500
444
649
767
814
245
1260
2060
329
440
529
307
639
440
619
1139
1110
2230
934
1940
471
321
323
9410
1140
1170
1460
3240
228
3230
1880
2430
6500
754
1920
1650
1290
631
2010
719
491
800
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
573
848
1740
1658
559
601
766
406
575
1045
1050
690
761
1023
936
786
1109
3894
898
374
560
495
553
642
770
1142
1037
2470
1022
1575
942
1139
770
4105
2250
1489
1247
4633
795
2073
1453
2920
7693
2724
1795
1019
1664
581
954
642
494
766
July 2007
B-37
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
Sampling Date
18-0ct-01
18-0ct-01
18-0ct-01
18-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
15-Oct-01
19-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
16-Oct-01
18-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
17-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
435
403
682
422
697
674
124
566
865
489
518
829
342
357
553
778
1330
89
1770
1230
815
1670
569
98
603
264
1390
412
669
156
2280
795
2440
1620
2450
1060
887
489
529
1400
434
429
592
1640
1560
2440
1190
313
453
6830
2250
3120
Quadrant 2
249
740
618
402
4780
430
333
732
562
386
950
416
718
530
596
33
1310
286
903
1390
835
534
158
168
744
1670
999
439
110
862
1340
661
2340
1830
1240
3930
847
618
721
353
903
399
986
440
1170
3120
775
372
301
1260
3100
2370
Quadrant 3
726
556
578
690
858
390
1610
406
453
599
548
100
424
343
401
370
707
464
398
624
494
933
1030
299
592
2730
560
570
854
335
1860
1660
1330
826
809
1810
1370
2760
399
956
608
492
955
641
2020
1460
1590
396
2820
3470
2000
3350
Quadrant 4
657
552
788
577
408
509
638
240
670
487
552
194
580
487
581
495
381
230
1350
379
720
1520
884
280
607
1900
878
613
602
189
2820
1020
1210
1390
702
974
625
904
550
784
634
542
1270
749
1170
1700
1810
365
518
4900
2000
2030
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
517
563
667
523
1686
501
676
486
638
490
642
385
516
429
533
419
932
267
1105
906
716
1164
660
211
637
1641
957
509
559
386
2075
1034
1830
1417
1300
1944
932
1193
550
873
645
466
951
868
1480
2180
1341
362
1023
4115
2338
2718
July 2007
B-38
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
Sampling Date
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
23-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
24-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
25-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
2530
1110
1020
2640
534
837
716
2830
2130
5350
1020
970
1400
1120
972
1110
5490
3590
505
32800
2530
863
2950
1480
642
720
1050
511
1640
215
12100
1130
213
197
1780
408
1180
518
806
1180
2020
8630
615
1020
1890
2110
1860
7670
11500
11300
772
1570
Quadrant 2
1550
1570
1100
7230
464
755
617
2550
3110
3330
1690
1420
1570
1370
1510
797
1770
2150
1040
13300
1860
2150
2470
1400
601
1300
749
438
1490
659
8330
2540
211
171
2070
203
1370
386
594
1280
814
7640
1150
1650
2250
2650
2820
14600
7460
5310
1870
340
Quadrant 3
5480
2250
1010
1120
988
1560
768
1060
1390
1090
1290
2260
1630
1350
1480
1110
-
12700
852
24100
3070
2110
1600
1040
533
903
801
641
8220
677
5310
2240
530
-
1290
171
870
831
1150
868
304
7030
430
1920
1770
3260
2930
308
2620
4030
1700
4260
Quadrant 4
3190
1380
1250
2030
1040
1170
888
-
1420
1300
1500
2070
1090
1270
1460
1590
-
7510
420
23200
3400
2440
1610
684
619
1070
1700
882
8520
624
11700
2270
373
-
1750
529
644
381
747
942
353
4840
930
686
3750
3690
1530
1120
5670
3570
1440
2730
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
3188
1578
1095
3255
757
1081
747
2147
2013
2768
1375
1680
1423
1278
1356
1152
3630
6488
704
23350
2715
1891
2158
1151
599
998
1075
618
4968
544
9360
2045
332
184
1723
328
1016
529
824
1068
873
7035
781
1319
2415
2928
2285
5925
6813
6053
1446
2225
July 2007
B-39
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
Sampling Date
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
26-Oct-01
27-Sep-01
07-Nov-OO
08-Nov-OO
19-Jul-02
02-Nov-01
24-Sep-01
11-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
30-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
01-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
705
916
671
539
4690
942
1570
993
462
332
690
478
917
427
2170
1010
2520
904
1800
1400
1977
241
1920
-
1170
1120
450
2550
1880
1490
3710
460
5540
267
1740
538
204
298
894
4480
3020
1850
519
994
2050
421
622
1230
515
539
761
1470
Quadrant 2
645
1100
389
616
7370
247
1320
772
313
1000
366
298
475
420
2120
599
1380
632
5000
1600
1657
292
1170
492
795
1770
281
1920
2130
2260
1520
489
2410
396
835
540
407
466
399
3670
1450
1620
428
1360
1990
458
844
1230
321
703
937
1130
Quadrant 3
578
394
352
576
7580
432
632
1090
539
2290
928
1080
466
468
3600
2870
2850
684
2000
2000
1620
195
1490
1300
618
1020
354
1170
1550
1630
1440
102
-
143
538
365
360
375
625
2000
2350
1450
858
1730
2910
705
3170
1250
520
849
839
1110
Quadrant 4
416
662
438
824
6990
817
501
859
558
1750
1210
1310
1490
546
4110
2170
4000
553
1700
1000
1717
111
1530
3420
764
1100
207
774
1960
1320
2050
294
-
165
441
381
203
214
1090
2440
1160
1640
343
542
2540
1100
1400
1210
293
729
1120
956
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
586
768
463
639
6658
610
1006
929
468
1343
799
792
837
465
3000
1662
2688
693
2625
1500
1743
210
1528
1737
837
1253
323
1604
1880
1675
2180
336
3975
243
889
456
294
338
752
3148
1995
1640
537
1157
2373
671
1509
1230
412
705
914
1167
July 2007
B-40
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
Sampling Date
02-Nov-OI
02-Nov-OI
02-Nov-OI
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
31-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
05-Nov-01
05-Nov-01
05-Nov-01
05-Nov-01
05-Nov-01
05-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
06-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
1070
870
1860
1160
1840
1380
1030
941
1320
1020
179
1370
2200
815
977
393
1680
488
2650
822
1240
803
685
441
910
965
788
721
1360
492
725
346
-
1370
644
747
596
766
1040
480
1060
384
522
619
256
1450
1040
328
765
556
530
695
Quadrant 2
958
1160
2090
4770
2680
1830
1340
446
1300
635
181
410
2820
1460
110
126
1350
657
2580
745
906
562
498
355
587
760
682
330
1140
682
706
368
496
2020
944
515
702
621
846
760
631
600
690
704
180
1190
816
409
356
580
890
815
Quadrant 3
946
1140
2200
2280
1190
2170
1420
531
1060
1060
283
221
4800
186
199
195
1020
554
1300
633
476
502
-
1710
653
584
274
449
1220
605
647
122
462
2270
-
-
1190
626
413
795
532
491
565
587
-
808
541
316
952
517
318
771
Quadrant 4
299
938
2100
1160
1170
794
1660
256
1500
1210
571
311
1880
238
185
672
868
717
1240
901
555
769
-
719
428
421
351
444
1050
367
696
170
662
1180
-
-
854
518
882
1010
862
566
490
623
160
844
647
263
892
261
368
450
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
818
1027
2063
2343
1720
1544
1363
544
1295
981
304
578
2925
675
368
347
1230
604
1943
775
794
659
592
806
645
683
524
486
1193
537
694
252
540
1710
794
631
836
633
795
761
771
510
567
633
199
1073
761
329
741
479
527
683
July 2007
B-41
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
699
703
706
707
708
709
710
711
714
718
723
725
726
728
729
730
731
732
733
Sampling Date
OS-Nov-01
OS-Nov-01
OS-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
31-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
31-Oct-01
07-Nov-OO
17-Oct-01
06-Feb-02
26-Nov-02
26-Nov-02
22-Feb-02
05-Mar-02
05-Mar-02
06-Mar-02
06-Mar-02
04-Mar-02
08-Mar-02
07-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
20-Mar-02
22-Mar-02
22-Mar-02
22-Mar-02
22-Mar-02
04-Oct-01
1 5-Apr-02
22-Mar-02
1 5-Apr-02
08-Aug-02
1 9-Dec-02
15-Aug-03
1 5-Apr-02
15-Aug-03
22-Jul-04
08-Aug-02
1 5-Apr-02
18-Jul-02
08-May-02
30-Jan-02
31-Jan-02
08-Mar-02
08-Mar-02
31-Jan-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
1030
920
380
1030
2590
408
822
1760
588
505
448
1210
1660
2400
525
1633
1197
1747
655
552
541
2247
552
4037
1487
585
466
1009
827
464
148
1627
1147
13600
474
6780
961
653
754
730
1360
853
1363
967
1177
3200
482
329
209
183
462
231
Quadrant 2
244
1410
470
776
1880
283
874
1050
255
651
555
3070
1580
1000
657
1440
1220
1210
287
315
524
1350
634
4443
916
1129
1477
2147
1075
298
205
1753
2900
4870
295
1070
906
1040
469
672
1343
1347
-
536
1920
2583
328
411
433
196
340
191
Quadrant 3
2320
588
690
677
2350
-
831
1080
607
545
422
1380
1980
1400
584
1173
2857
3680
241
641
525
551
650
4647
538
2103
547
805
322
164
358
1370
2562
2190
599
-
-
693
347
773
1183
901
-
590
1893
2253
422
311
236
211
212
190
Quadrant 4
3030
715
753
534
2780
-
895
1500
502
256
580
2090
2340
2600
533
1210
3177
-
594
580
801
615
740
14300
568
3797
587
563
378
203
184
1357
2217
8450
286
-
-
443
332
1036
2577
779
-
999
1327
2630
538
282
295
132
243
165
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
1656
908
573
754
2400
346
856
1348
488
489
501
1938
1890
1850
575
1364
2113
2212
444
522
598
1191
644
6857
877
1904
769
1131
651
282
224
1527
2207
7278
414
3925
934
707
476
803
1616
970
1363
773
1579
2667
443
333
293
181
314
194
July 2007
B-42
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
111
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
Sampling Date
22-Mar-02
31-Jan-02
31-Jan-02
05-Feb-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
10-Jun-02
10-Jun-02
10-Jun-02
10-Jun-02
10-Jun-02
10-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
26-Jul-04
12-Jun-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
31-May-02
03-Jun-02
03-Jun-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
148
128
62
72
110 ND
140 ND
152
150 ND
185
140 ND
165
227
200
130 ND
120 ND
397
523
130 ND
130 ND
150 ND
231
207
283
181
140 ND
150 ND
130 ND
140 ND
146
355
332
167
159
156
469
370
305
264
465
686
120 ND
256
120 ND
192
1120
224
291
238
178
253
458
201
Quadrant 2
133
96
55
53
130 ND
140 ND
130 ND
140 ND
159
130 ND
415
130 ND
267
154
155
142
296
149
175
212
207
378
201
150 ND
219
140 ND
140 ND
250
170 ND
624
124
163
169
163
118
339
232
173
279
576
220
299
221
328
398
232
213
215
142
268
306
201
Quadrant 3
73
235
47
57
154
150 ND
159
130 ND
170 ND
202
220
140 ND
140 ND
120 ND
140 ND
287
194
157
186
140 ND
257
131
224
140 ND
140 ND
150 ND
140 ND
150 ND
130 ND
130 ND
145
133
120 ND
156
163
153
150 ND
168
140
288
160
131
182
133
436
110 ND
100 ND
187
110 ND
110 ND
149
121
Quadrant 4
64
56
49
61
130 ND
181
120 ND
192
140 ND
140 ND
152
172
130 ND
120 ND
352
140 ND
342
141
150 ND
140 ND
193
140 ND
140 ND
140 ND
140 ND
140 ND
120 ND
288
175
140 ND
193
130 ND
197
110 ND
110 ND
216
128
178
132
171
120 ND
107
127
144
393
177
257
214
120 ND
195
144
110 ND
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
105
129
53
61
85
99
109
101
125
102
238
134
151
85
159
224
339
128
125
107
222
197
195
99
107
73
66
171
118
279
199
132
146
133
201
270
185
196
254
430
125
198
148
199
587
172
203
214
109
193
264
145
July 2007
B-43
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
Sampling Date
03-Jun-02
04-Jun-02
04-Jun-02
04-Jun-02
04-Jun-02
04-Jun-02
05-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
20-Jun-02
12-Jun-02
22-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
20-Jun-02
20-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
20-Jun-02
18-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
19-Jun-02
20-Jun-02
20-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
27-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
03-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
250
170
147
140 ND
358
140 ND
130 ND
142
183
205
-
182
213
140 ND
288
150 ND
218
150 ND
170 ND
170 ND
187
204
184
245
140 ND
231
173
257
184
588
197
203
140 ND
202
520
205
252
367
221
221
269
384
144
140
130 ND
304
150 ND
2080
185
264
176
148
Quadrant 2
130 ND
140 ND
166
150 ND
165
150 ND
140 ND
100 ND
144
182
265
158
150 ND
169
300
170
150 ND
150 ND
140 ND
170 ND
150 ND
147 ND
189
217
150 ND
189
183
163 ND
150 ND
270
263
274
170 ND
298
335
333
212
286
249
191
180
451
188
149
130 ND
110 ND
150 ND
5770
247
181
247
223
Quadrant 3
120 ND
130 ND
130 ND
150 ND
289
149
140 ND
226
150 ND
282
161
148
170 ND
170 ND
150 ND
165
180 ND
250
150 ND
212
173
228
346
151
150 ND
140 ND
140
170 ND
272
150 ND
207
170 ND
376
277
132
212
180 ND
192
153
199
308
161
179
130 ND
467
197
1270
155
113
218
161
Quadrant 4
170
150 ND
140 ND
139
316
130 ND
152
338
150 ND
135
150 ND
180 ND
140 ND
203
157 ND
150 ND
150 ND
180 ND
170 ND
130 ND
150 ND
170 ND
148
371
160
170 ND
140 ND
130 ND
193
365
150 ND
199
222
244
156
194
205
194
192
163
150 ND
150 ND
130 ND
140 ND
120 ND
727
150 ND
1490
198
117
170
185
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
136
95
112
90
282
90
89
189
119
201
167
143
127
132
188
99
133
83
123
78
137
134
187
295
114
145
124
136
134
374
153
221
116
280
322
216
220
234
214
182
181
305
140
135
64
388
106
2653
196
169
203
179
July 2007
B-44
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
Sampling Date
03-Jul-02
03-Jul-02
03-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
03-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
03-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
17-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
17-Jul-02
17-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
17-Jul-02
17-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
09-Jul-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
52.7
207
-
172
150
99
198
149
109
340
347
73
78
184
518
343
418
236
330
191
104
223
193
228
154
25
248
96
129
159
274
298
199
287
127
143
254
177
148
326
168
271
265
441
352
200
228
395
257
215
175
268
Quadrant 2
129
118
164
80
110
111
135
35
92
743
62
121
101
140
1210
653
483
164
371
83
107
230
233
261
173
56
277
341
417
277
299
341
298
183
150
232
280
89
330
242
441
218
328
355
238
500
293
214
274
385
293
Quadrant 3
93
169
151
91
86
169
122
35
304
119
195
51
61
121
156
199
305
82
164
207
140
284
167
50
111
85
197
141
120
223
206
143
212
220
219
116
91
311
11
297
181
569
303
120
289
109
230
179
181
295
206
311
Quadrant 4
218
272
134
41
214
211
115
56
583
81
273
36
32
116
252
107
361
161
208
150
96
226
236
81
173
71
251
128
85
165
188
186
130
285
152
118
246
526
111
329
116
443
265
207
243
249
235
188
191
252
308
193
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
123
192
150
96
140
148
143
69
272
321
219
70
68
140
534
326
392
161
268
158
112
241
207
155
153
59
243
177
188
206
242
209
221
273
170
132
206
324
90
321
177
431
263
274
310
199
298
264
211
259
269
266
July 2007
B-45
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
Sampling Date
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
12-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
15-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
16-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
18-Jul-02
03-Jul-02
11-Jul-02
26-Jun-02
07-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
07-Aug-02
06-Aug-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
342
436
303
498
307
156
86
174
194
133
129
185
170
100
177
239
134
133
229
33
116
55
243
296
348
515
513
337
181
363
446
1220
4810
150 ND
199
538
262
318
317
344
292
279
504
279
269
299
357
148
193
119
314
283
Quadrant 2
370
454
230
342
244
192
133
187
211
108
69
201
83
179
207
217
265
206
162
127
184
163
225
276
361
635
369
208
165
361
360
879
3970
120 ND
121
291
156
296
195
266
317
258
314
304
181
210
371
141
268
197
417
362
Quadrant 3
387
359
287
314
147
70
16
186
190
15
235
104
82
248
243
196
234
171
140
128
192
121
141
295
213
175
287
207
391
287
221
1480
140 ND
112
173
37
247
184
223
239
154
205
141
183
209
262
137
171
210
167
148
Quadrant 4
374
244
310
548
122
98
90
155
163
186
164
135
137
289
130
183
190
130
84
194
155
186
227
235
173
281
295
293
214
367
343
621
140 ND
108
235
97
152
264
157
153
205
381
306
145
217
196
179
117
118
236
119
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
368
373
283
426
205
129
81
176
190
111
149
156
118
204
189
209
206
160
154
121
162
131
209
276
274
402
366
261
238
345
343
1050
4390
69
135
309
138
253
240
248
250
224
351
258
195
234
297
151
187
161
284
228
July 2007
B-46
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
Sampling Date
06-Aug-02
26-Jun-02
11-Jun-02
12-Jun-02
05-Jun-02
29-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
29-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
04-Sep-02
04-Sep-02
04-Sep-02
04-Sep-02
04-Sep-02
04-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
03-Sep-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
368
150 ND
210
140 ND
150 ND
280
597
79.6
348
264
295
247
313
278
216
374
333
385
230
186
288
319
225
225
166
197
478
241
409
263
157
337
284
160
433
210
289
319
14
243
142
215
68
234
188
148
110
201
25
207
95
239
Quadrant 2
196
140 ND
257
158
133 ND
325
351
148
223
276
536
391
343
302
225
202
113
310
245
349
315
433
198
210
235
425
416
235
244
184
268
183
330
246
279
285
264
710
109
160
74
138
64
255
271
66
185
182
-
233
149
171
Quadrant 3
148
137
150 ND
720
154
332
299
107
120
167
482
374
244
316
134
282
182
234
106
238
368
206
333
225
240
229
284
104
188
188
262
367
373
203
124
366
136
252
130
266
197
116
155
226
142
42
195
260
135
229
130
234
Quadrant 4
225
140 ND
133
150 ND
140 ND
183
259
166
185
83.5
616
295
376
283
331
160
289
115
219
127
222
313
388
305
240
177
164
210
182
303
243
189
374
138
222
237
212
312
89
187
130
163
118
169
211
25
26
195
223
125
106
202
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
234
88
169
256
91
280
377
125
219
198
482
327
319
295
227
255
229
261
200
225
298
318
286
241
220
257
336
198
256
235
233
269
340
187
265
275
225
398
86
214
136
158
101
221
203
70
129
210
128
199
120
212
July 2007
B-47
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
Sampling Date
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
11-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
12-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
15-Jul-02
06-Sep-02
30-Aug-02
06-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
06-Sep-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
30-Aug-02
06-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
30-Aug-02
06-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
06-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
276
464
99
62
229
311
117
251
167
342
237
203
602
192
104
236
253
84
64
156
256
149
198
137
197
-
170
206
158
355
37
108
24
48
131
212
215
123
10
27
125
504
175
92
170
113
118
314
175
221
783
107
Quadrant 2
215
230
13
88
350
513
187
200
201
168
157
160
309
224
141
193
179
260
123
170
222
133
215
58
203
92
114
160
169
381
41
60
70
115
177
199
7
123
89
122
119
389
285
151
300
106
199
166
166
170
59
264
Quadrant 3
152
213
50
192
145
370
146
121
164
128
74
177
329
262
172
139
287
146
19
111
207
36
98
40
221
219
208
230
165
170
72
155
82
113
126
128
51
114
131
159
136
173
139
175
241
268
192
185
299
65
125
133
Quadrant 4
298
312
184
218
184
231
123
59
108
114
124
55
185
188
272
108
318
119
81
139
95
120
157
122
245
121
175
138
174
186
96
115
137
48
174
163
129
180
137
156
26
282
175
241
228
174
56
335
206
152
45
191
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
235
305
87
140
227
356
143
158
160
188
148
149
356
217
172
169
259
152
72
144
195
110
167
89
217
144
167
184
167
273
62
110
78
81
152
176
101
135
92
116
102
337
194
165
235
165
141
250
212
152
253
174
July 2007
B-48
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-4. Pre-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1074
1075
1076
1079
1080
1081
1082
1084
1086
1088
1090
Sampling Date
11-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
11-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
1 0-Sep-02
10-Sep-02
16-Oct-02
30-Oct-02
30-Oct-02
12-Mar-03
11-Mar-03
19-Jun-03
15-Jul-03
07-Aug-03
08-Nov-01
15-Oct-01
02-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
02-Nov-01
11-Apr-03
02-Nov-01
08-Nov-01
01-Apr-04
22-Jul-04
RESULTS (mg/kg) a bc
Quadrant 1
145
194
64
204
135
169
326
122
221
215
151
225
202
133
114
74
122
86
85
91.4
1033
717
2137
859
1760
982
16300
2110
5260
100
5680
606
935
-
Quadrant 2
33
281
27
239
155
216
267
152
200
217
237
129
170
58
173
37
92
42
92
101.6
1070
542
1230
787
1050
541
2800
6090
10000
133
1580
814
-
Quadrant 3
215
43
153
119
210
172
170
80
136
91
183
200
143
178
101
98
49
117
77
506
162
1203
530
1080
791
11300
606
8750
4460
781
-
Quadrant 4
67
343
107
224
137
304
106
150
224
206
207
247
101
96
140
142
74
77
75.6
1217
810
1500
444
6290
680
6390
1160
715
632
Property Average
(mg/kg) d
82
258
60
205
137
198
267
138
163
198
171
186
205
109
140
88
114
63
93
86
870
474
1447
747
1348
690
9173
2372
7600
117
3220
606
811
632
a Data were obtained from U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
b A value qualified with an "ND" represents a non-detect. The value presented is the detection limit.
For the purpose of calculating the property average, one-half the detection limit was used as the value for non-
detects.
0"" indicates that no sample was collected for that quadrant.
Not provided by U.S. EPA Region 7. Averages were calculated by ICF.
July 2007
B-49
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
141
142
143
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
172
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
191
196
197
200
207
208
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
220
222
225
226
230
231
232
Sampling Date
17-Jun-02
16-Jun-03
16-Jun-03
03-Apr-02
19-May-03
03-Apr-02
21-May-02
16-Apr-02
16-Dec-02
14-Jan-02
15-Jun-04
17-Jan-02
03-Jun-03
10-Dec-02
08-Jul-02
19-Jan-02
27-Jun-02
26-Jun-02
28-Jun-02
12-Jul-02
13-May-02
21-Oct-02
28-Mar-02
22-Jan-02
1 3-Nov-02
27-Nov-02
05-Nov-01
03-Jun-02
20-Nov-01
14-Dec-01
09-Nov-01
07-Feb-02
25-Apr-02
10-Mar-04
07-Dec-01
09-Jan-02
27-Feb-02
11-Jan-02
07-Oct-02
07-Oct-03
23-Jan-02
29-Aug-02
05-Mar-02
22-Aug-03
23-Mar-04
11-Apr-03
16-Sep-03
19-Aug-03
15-Mar-02
02-Jun-04
20-May-02
15-Feb-02
21-Mar-02
25-Jun-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a b
Quadrant 1
944
157
197
880
206
368
193
1370
198
281
280
1550
109
540
778
675
280
398
490
2630
1898
466
549
1217
690
307
334
572
907
1347
560
716
125
-
643
872
155
978
499
794
-
567
564
647
358
627
473
451
139
104
-
-
203
520
Quadrant 2
523
215
265
598
146
349
296
612
225
463
295
1457
288
332
895
288
193
216
1297
2137
2946
189
104
687
1001
153
397
240
401
1273
834
167
208
-
981
825
-
890
714
857
-
684
517
386
661
473
300
475
85
110
-
119
415
840
Quadrant 3
1170
212
207
445
270
201
208
462
-
483
218
764
283
195
876
455
217
188
502
1400
2078
769
391
1018
1021
71
447
285
771
911
659
475
127
500
760
680
311
485
490
693
-
457
1076
487
400
553
294
592
152
286
-
190
429
946
Quadrant 4
587
237
264
493
309
247
290
308
260
279
127
786
378
505
353
539
196
232
534
766
1688
1010
601
633
860
48
254
288
603
697
562
321
123
129
243
847
-
648
1057
672
568
645
496
762
249
271
445
394
166
186
155
-
281
275
Property
Average
(mg/kg) c
806
205
233
604
233
291
247
688
228
377
230
1139
265
393
726
489
222
259
706
1733
2153
609
411
889
893
145
358
346
671
1057
654
420
146
315
657
806
233
750
690
754
568
588
663
571
417
481
378
478
136
172
155
155
332
645
July 2007
B-50
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
233
234
235
237
238
239
240
241
242
246
251
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
272
273
277
279
280
282
283
284
285
287
295
299
300
301
302
303
304
306
308
311
314
316
319
320
321
323
Sampling Date
13-Feb-02
13-Nov-02
06-Aug-03
21-Aug-03
17-Oct-02
04-Mar-02
15-Apr-02
07-May-04
23-Aug-04
12-Aug-04
26-Aug-02
17-Dec-03
16-Sep-03
16-Sep-03
19-Sep-03
17-Oct-01
26-Sep-03
29-Aug-02
16-Oct-03
11-Mar-02
16-Jan-02
15-Oct-01
18-Sep-03
28-Jan-02
02-Oct-03
22-Oct-03
26-Sep-03
07-Oct-03
16-Jan-04
14-Mar-02
01-Apr-04
19-May-03
14-Jul-04
19-Jun-02
21-Jun-02
15-Mar-04
15-Mar-04
15-May-02
18-Jul-02
24-Jul-02
09-Aug-02
18-Jul-02
07-Nov-01
15-Mar-04
08-Apr-04
14-Oct-02
15-Aug-03
10-Aug-04
28-Mar-02
06-May-04
20-Apr-04
04-May-04
01-Apr-02
26-Sep-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a b
Quadrant 1
578
74
440
454
2693
1400
488
342
49
261
678
599
178
922
536
523
907
615
292
246
395
1197
790
1083
1563
1620
1087
1087
248
-
205
116
221
1640
1487
355
355
1990
1900
-
1260
239
232
660
326
1290
1011
568
575
471
927
727
402
1536
Quadrant 2
238
669
532
551
-
690
451
270
58
258
813
652
668
463
1040
660
972
376
1143
244
1110
497
345
939
653
1830
463
1026
444
-
251
203
165
3900
356
474
474
1815
2953
2930
1150
162
270
277
538
492
532
272
430
444
551
811
604
1540
Quadrant 3
357
369
701
589
1095
976
798
-
168
-
793
411
557
446
679
294
976
527
705
721
913
603
1097
694
871
1123
922
940
432
165
-
252
264
1270
597
209
209
1550
1093
850
310
235
64
-
-
192
784
417
-
129
-
-
645
556
Quadrant 4
285
254
485
641
1100
1487
220
-
271
336
246
563
400
543
1663
333
689
656
213
849
822
1243
860
571
747
1280
842
702
450
-
181
321
269
1227
605
296
296
1432
895
195
1033
210
136
214
-
223
444
291
-
536
-
-
1107
334
Property
Average
(mg/kg) c
365
342
540
559
1629
1138
489
306
137
285
633
556
451
594
980
453
886
544
588
515
810
885
773
822
959
1463
829
939
394
165
212
223
230
2009
761
334
334
1697
1710
1325
938
212
176
384
432
549
693
387
503
395
739
769
690
992
July 2007
B-51
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
324
325
326
327
328
330
331
337
339
340
341
344
347
353
354
355
357
358
360
361
363
364
365
371
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
395
396
398
400
403
404
405
406
407
408
410
411
412
413
416
418
419
422
425
426
428
Sampling Date
19-Aug-02
09-Apr-04
07-Jun-02
07-Jun-02
06-Jun-02
24-Jan-02
24-Jan-02
01-Jul-03
08-Feb-02
17-Jan-02
21-Nov-02
01-Apr-02
20-Dec-01
1 8-Oct-02
23-Feb-04
08-Feb-02
30-Apr-04
30-Apr-04
04-May-04
22-Apr-04
30-Jun-04
02-Jul-04
08-Jun-04
09-Oct-02
25-Mar-04
20-Dec-01
20-Feb-04
27-Feb-04
22-Aug-02
07-Mar-02
04-Aug-03
29-Jan-02
08-Nov-02
07-Mar-02
11-Sep-03
18-Feb-02
21-May-04
28-Feb-02
19-Jul-02
29-Jul-03
19-Jul-02
22-Feb-02
03-Jul-02
10-Apr-02
15-Aug-03
13-Aug-03
29-Jan-02
12-Apr-04
17-Jun-02
17-Jun-02
04-May-04
21-Feb-02
18-Jan-02
29-Jul-03
RESULTS (mg/kg) a b
Quadrant 1
111
2757
1340
921
2047
220
416
623
147
823
371
958
-
100
-
-
291
369
240
629
331
393
331
96
-
-
1274
1253
292
304
684
706
401
344
401
-
155
445
1113
356
229
318
339
653
632
417
382
398
186
-
97
287
1180
525
Quadrant 2
539
-
1313
1011
648
195
731
833
259
1277
1530
-
113
210
625
130
393
490
142
233
596
517
684
241
-
60
837
1001
123
324
1167
709
187
435
687
-
210
209
408
885
-
312
164
862
564
442
546
2000
154
263
163
285
1913
148
Quadrant 3
394
-
884
2223
1663
146
724
509
124
944
310
1058
88
152
147
193
369
-
335
568
482
563
173
84
544
-
1267
838
267
239
519
1220
191
550
792
-
-
149
-
589
-
-
320
1490
564
719
267
-
-
-
-
112
987
159
Quadrant 4
317
-
1253
373
756
234
360
467
80
-
565
6177
-
317
411
179
262
576
-
-
-
-
426
60
153
79
1072
-
425
254
530
752
376
449
317
160
174
376
-
341
-
-
308
532
353
456
343
-
-
169
108
146
710
237
Property
Average
(mg/kg) c
340
2757
1198
1132
1279
199
558
608
153
1015
694
2731
101
195
394
167
329
478
239
477
470
491
404
120
349
70
1113
1031
277
280
725
847
289
445
549
160
180
295
761
543
229
315
283
884
528
509
385
1199
170
216
123
208
1198
267
July 2007
B-52
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
430
431
432
433
435
436
440
442
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
454
456
458
468
470
477
484
485
486
491
492
493
495
496
497
498
500
501
503
504
511
512
513
514
517
518
520
526
528
531
532
535
540
542
544
557
558
564
Sampling Date
30-Apr-03
1 0-Dec-02
02-Jun-03
20-Jun-02
10-Jul-02
10-Jul-02
09-Aug-02
16-Feb-04
18-Feb-02
27-Apr-04
29-Aug-02
13-Mar-02
20-Dec-02
27-Apr-04
13-May-02
14-Apr-04
13-Feb-02
18-Aug-04
29-Apr-04
22-Apr-04
29-Jul-04
23-Oct-02
16-Jan-02
22-Jul-04
24-Sep-03
02-Jun-04
30-Apr-04
05-Feb-02
25-Jun-04
04-Jun-03
22-Aug-02
09-Aug-02
18-Feb-04
23-Jan-04
25-Feb-04
13-Jun-02
03-Apr-02
15-Nov-01
15-Nov-01
24-Jan-02
06-May-04
10-Jun-04
23-Feb-04
16-Jul-02
03-Aug-04
11-Jan-02
10-Mar-04
05-May-OS
10-Sep-03
13-Jan-04
08-May-OS
27-Aug-03
15-Feb-02
11-Feb-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a b
Quadrant 1
704
478
118
64
2253
872
880
859
224
568
1372
178
315
162
-
266
274
184
-
264
1550
1070
395
628
734
358
164
72
303
287
148
1042
-
1930
1323
353
863
688
736
209
604
380
224
1007
-
567
481
274
307
762
479
878
53
57
Quadrant 2
469
1527
234
532
592
3163
328
111
321
365
1073
222
616
304
130
209
191
123
-
238
439
733
1110
713
963
-
257
159
304
279
60
686
-
675
797
177
1773
752
824
605
584
493
-
891
-
-
1840
148
502
357
223
789
-
335
Quadrant 3
282
114
220
1423
1807
-
1380
768
488
820
596
-
366
227
176
235
206
212
228
323
-
1210
913
961
779
508
446
129
418
-
429
608
310
1180
-
83
204
111
743
233
471
313
-
1117
130
-
114
283
1018
426
681
467
-
114
Quadrant 4
286
-
-
4100
835
-
1650
608
294
942
884
89
165
258
163
222
63
175
170
-
305
2233
822
688
791
395
231
144
328
204
-
482
-
811
-
174
209
567
245
840
439
602
-
944
-
-
244
118
568
318
-
523
90
55
Property
Average
(mg/kg) c
435
706
191
1530
1372
2018
1060
587
332
674
981
163
366
238
156
233
184
174
199
275
765
1312
810
748
817
420
275
126
338
257
212
705
310
1149
1060
197
762
696
637
472
525
447
224
990
130
567
670
206
599
466
461
664
72
140
July 2007
B-53
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
573
574
575
576
577
57Q
580
581
584
585
588
593
596
597
600
601
604
605
606
608
609
612
613
614
615
617
622
625
626
627
628
629
632
635
636
637
642
644
655
657
658
660
663
664
668
670
672
674
676
677
678
681
684
688
Sampling Date
30-Oct-01
09-Oct-01
21-Sep-01
26-Sep-01
30-Sep-02
02-Oct-01
17-Oct-02
12-Mar-02
23-Feb-04
03-Dec-OS
11-Feb-02
11-Feb-02
20-Feb-04
1 5-Apr-03
09-Aug-02
22-Jul-02
1 3-Oct-03
03-Aug-04
03-Aug-04
06-Mar-02
24-Jun-04
07-Mar-02
15-Aug-02
04-Aug-03
08-Sep-03
17-Oct-02
11-Feb-02
21-Mar-02
29-Jan-02
28-Jan-02
07-Aug-03
28-Mar-02
06-Apr-04
21-May-03
01-Jul-02
19-Dec-02
20-Jun-03
29-Jul-03
08-Jun-04
06-May-04
16-Aug-04
05-Sep-03
11-Mar-02
15-Apr-04
15-Aug-03
12-Apr-02
12-Dec-02
01-Oct-01
1 9-Dec-02
28-Jun-02
28-Jun-02
26-Apr-04
17-Jul-03
14-May-03
RESULTS (mg/kg) a b
Quadrant 1
273
614
1670
1160
1523
1180
2693
731
436
371
202
-
796
1257
264
1333
809
378
-
847
435
304
432
1753
641
654
553
182
220
989
536
506
100
182
168
245
395
338
623
151
70
126
-
431
716
388
623
627
589
922
1247
343
63
458
Quadrant 2
236
1057
1947
654
1187
937
-
403
1027
669
159
123
235
854
866
445
380
-
333
372
402
324
476
432
802
1247
878
434
217
511
288
351
-
341
-
277
881
399
473
-
220
165
102
420
753
492
779
854
277
605
897
214
388
703
Quadrant 3
214
1363
186
512
469
343
1095
90
153
632
-
-
-
618
-
848
719
-
-
764
827
239
130
904
268
535
-
425
172
192
238
248
91
-
92
1497
739
152
975
279
243
297
244
325
606
519
289
1413
273
1253
1025
381
209
560
Quadrant 4
202
507
905
619
594
382
1100
192
-
574
-
-
-
893
-
2010
680
-
-
882
-
254
661
427
548
781
-
651
221
2177
440
219
155
-
154
320
425
272
769
228
-
149
218
305
409
372
375
-
771
2840
-
377
193
618
Property
Average
(mg/kg) c
231
885
1177
736
943
711
1629
354
539
562
181
123
516
906
565
1159
647
378
333
716
555
280
425
879
565
804
716
423
208
967
376
331
115
262
138
585
610
290
710
219
178
184
188
370
621
443
517
965
478
1405
1056
329
213
585
July 2007
B-54
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-5. Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
692
693
699
711
714
718
725
726
729
795
820
821
832
847
853
889
996
1074
1075
1076
1079
1080
1081
1083
1084
1087
1088
1090
Sampling Date
1 3-Oct-03
08-Oct-02
13-May-02
02-Oct-02
08-Sep-03
03-Aug-04
09-Aug-04
1 5-Oct-02
14-Mar-02
11-Jul-02
06-May-04
23-Dec-02
16-Jan-03
09-Jan-03
13-May-04
09-Jan-03
10-Jan-03
22-Aug-03
15-Aug-03
15-Aug-03
30-May-02
26-Sep-02
22-May-02
11-Jul-03
26-Jul-02
05-Apr-04
19-Apr-04
03-Aug-04
RESULTS (mg/kg) a b
Quadrant 1
1147
1004
1898
566
1010
628
669
402
192
1273
135
180
-
-
84
-
-
317
575
433
81
-
361
102
856
1723
380
-
Quadrant 2
930
802
2800
533
307
-
810
300
237
626
186
-
-
-
146
419
91
307
607
576
95
514
109
685
2150
843
197
-
Quadrant 3
-
1683
2055
427
740
-
779
429
-
1207
-
-
77
-
-
-
-
635
489
723
-
-
741
309
462
667
263
--
Quadrant 4
-
1513
1688
301
363
-
782
496
131
1293
-
-
101
76
-
-
-
650
476
-
-
-
768
194
-
863
295
463
Property
Average
(mg/kg) c
1039
1251
2110
457
605
628
760
407
187
1100
161
180
89
76
115
419
91
477
537
577
88
514
495
323
1156
1024
284
463
Data were obtained from U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
"--" indicates that no sample was collected for that quadrant.
Not provided by U. S. EPA Region 7. Averages were calculated by
ICF.
July 2007
B-55
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
184
184
184
184
184
579
579
579
579
579
579
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
Sampling Date
16-Apr-02
21-May-02
24-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
16-Apr-02
21-May-02
21-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
22-Aug-02
23-Sep-02
11-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
16-Apr-02
22-May-02
24-Jun-02
22-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
15-Jan-03
12-Mar-03
20-Jun-03
22-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
02-May-06
17-Apr-02
21-May-02
24-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
22-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
09-Dec-02
21-Jan-03
14-Mar-03
06-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
16-Apr-02
22-May-02
24-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
26-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
17-Mar-03
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
62
54
92
48
86
109
95
92
93
80
69
67 ND
56
58 ND
51 ND
54 ND
56
62
64
60
50
53 ND
53
142
74
49.7
53 ND
67
96.8
43 ND
127
83.6
81
59
47 ND
48 ND
53 ND
45 ND
45 ND
45 ND
49
51 ND
72
37 ND
59 ND
74
53 ND
45 ND
54
54
49 ND
48 ND
44 ND
63
74
Quadrant 2
69
67
69
48 ND
60
125
101
92
87
157
92
84
60 ND
62 ND
50 ND
64
54
58
52 ND
63
49
53 ND
48
59
127
52.8
92
75.2
100.3
69.8
146
106.1
83
83
53 ND
60
63
46 ND
38 ND
58
54 ND
50 ND
46 ND
43
58 ND
56 ND
66
47 ND
54 ND
47 ND
47
53
50 ND
69
58
Quadrant 3
58 ND
61
67
58
47 ND
105
75
137
67
83
67
65 ND
75
60 ND
54
58
66
50
64
41
53
61
57
49 ND
70
37.5
85.9
50.8
38.2
51.4
85
79
67
67
49 ND
44 ND
60
41 ND
38
45 ND
57 ND
53 ND
45
47
61
82
59
54 ND
55
68
80
65
56
67
80
Quadrant 4
57 ND
49 ND
48 ND
49 ND
50
79
55
109
61
100
66
63 ND
56 ND
64
50 ND
49 ND
57
47 ND
59
55
53
55
57
70
61
43.5
83.6
67.6
60
58.8
86
85
139
101
51 ND
45 ND
51 ND
41 ND
55
42 ND
60
51
50 ND
53
55 ND
69
397
48
62 ND
51
66
65
99
111
126
July 2007
B-56
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
626
Sampling Date
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
22-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
29-Mar-05
08-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
02-May-06
11-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
17-Apr-02
21-May-02
24-Jun-02
22-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
17-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
30-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
17-Apr-02
22-May-02
24-Jun-02
22-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
15-Jan-03
12-Mar-03
20-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
11-Feb-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
63
117
66
67.4
77.1
134.7
107.1
97
214
187
161
73
97
96
100
74
183
89
164
130
281
78
76
104
81
120
132
145.4
201.3
283
143
186
148
63 ND
54 ND
50 ND
164
73
51
85
53
63
62
48
64
57.6
63.8
56.1
192.3
179.7
127
73
101
47
65 ND
Quadrant 2
62
96
55
91.9
78.8
116
128.9
161
97
172
261
62 ND
74
51
60
95
61
62
61
81
127
103
133
122
131
188
152.7
261.7
63.7
235
252
182
205
65 ND
58
50 ND
80
53
65
50
44 ND
56 ND
94
67
60
61.5
64.6
92.5
123.3
131
103
130
111
87
64 ND
Quadrant 3
101
105
119
199
153
141.6
163.3
107
146
258
201
63 ND
66 ND
64 ND
54
65
75
60
155
208
302
179
69
130
184
363
124
332.8
130.1
145
209
145
156
67 ND
56 ND
51
52 ND
58
43
53 ND
44 ND
59
38 ND
83
68
41.9
56
55.9
90.9
92.1
67
128
57 ND
65
56 ND
Quadrant 4
106
91
124
91.7
163
324
223
155
156
302
300
69 ND
65
48 ND
48 ND
172
51 ND
55
53
123
172
82
67
66
105
108
76.7
124
69.2
112
91
130
181
57 ND
54 ND
53
41 ND
49 ND
46
46 ND
41 ND
58 ND
47
60
77
35
67.6
50.6
67.9
72.1
99
75
65
46 ND
71
July 2007
B-57
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
626
626
626
626
626
626
626
626
626
626
626
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
454
454
454
454
454
454
454
454
454
454
239
239
239
239
239
239
239
239
444
444
444
444
444
444
444
Sampling Date
14-Mar-02
16-Apr-02
20-May-02
24-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
30-0ct-02
10-Dec-02
15-Jan-03
17-Mar-03
20-May-02
21-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
22-Aug-02
23-Sep-02
01-Nov-02
12-Dec-02
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
22-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
29-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
01-May-06
17-Apr-02
20-May-02
24-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
22-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
09-Dec-02
13-Jan-03
14-Mar-03
20-May-02
25-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
26-Aug-02
23-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
17-Mar-03
16-Apr-02
21-May-02
25-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
55 ND
60
52 ND
74
47
45 ND
45 ND
43 ND
43 ND
52
60
61
77
56
54
53
65
78
66
112
131
87
56.6
131
88.5
87.2
99
147
98
109
52 ND
48 ND
95
50 ND
46
45 ND
56
53 ND
47
43
89 ND
284
52
208
254
159
160
104
58 ND
44 ND
118
61
56
133 ND
50 ND
Quadrant 2
58 ND
58 ND
65
48 ND
41 ND
45 ND
45 ND
50 ND
50
48 ND
53 ND
49 ND
323
141
75
57
63
77
122
61
95
122
69.7
93.6
201.7
117
94
178
157
185
53 ND
44 ND
42 ND
40 ND
49 ND
46 ND
52 ND
42 ND
53
34 ND
63
51
50
87
64
55
104
93
65
50 ND
56
51
49 ND
130 ND
54 ND
Quadrant 3
98
69 ND
51
49 ND
43
48
59
40 ND
50
50
58 ND
90
103
127
116
113
101
84
88
156
242
100
187
175
696.3
406.3
210
461
412
271
51 ND
50 ND
49 ND
48 ND
45 ND
46 ND
43 ND
52 ND
59
39
54 ND
44 ND
42 ND
45 ND
48
56
70
59
55 ND
49
47 ND
62
47
137 ND
52 ND
Quadrant 4
69
56 ND
47 ND
51 ND
40 ND
41 ND
49
48 ND
49 ND
53
45 ND
116
66
117
116
88
88
76
121
115
145
147
77 ND
150
235.7
153
119
215
214
229
50 ND
46 ND
49 ND
57
46 ND
48 ND
52 ND
49 ND
54
38 ND
71
48
43 ND
89
50
63 ND
63
52
60 ND
50 ND
45 ND
69
98
119 ND
95
July 2007
B-58
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
444
444
444
444
444
444
444
444
444
444
444
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
263
263
263
263
263
581
581
581
581
581
581
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
Sampling Date
12-Dec-02
20-Jan-03
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
22-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
31-May-02
25-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
12-Dec-02
15-Jan-03
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
16-Sep-02
01-Nov-02
09-Dec-02
17-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
16-Sep-02
01-Nov-02
09-Dec-02
25-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
16-Sep-02
30-0ct-02
10-Dec-02
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
01-May-06
11-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
15-Apr-02
21-May-02
21-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
22-Aug-02
23-Sep-02
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
47 ND
57
76
3187
60
513
256
128
160.3
203.7
123
99
109
62
95
140
137
183
201
205
175
74
63
73
65
58
67
55 ND
54
78
65
80
90
99
78 ND
79 ND
128
84
79.4
110
107.3 ND
93.7
103.4 ND
106
242
125
124
52
71
63
122
79
54
60
81
Quadrant 2
52
48
47
43 ND
46
57.2
62
51.4 ND
237.7
280.5
123
92
63
136
98
138
191
231
166
104
118
44 ND
49 ND
46
50 ND
57
69
69
55
113
132
122
61 ND
78 ND
76 ND
80 ND
100 ND
76 ND
121.5
139.5
147
177
179
163
232
224
177
54
70
60
76
76
50
54
103
Quadrant 3
58
79
57
84
51
54
74.5
57.4
196.7
96
109
-
83
99
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
58
45
81
68
134
55 ND
65
134
109
171
91 ND
80 ND
81 ND
77
98 ND
122
62.5
85.4
91.5 ND
91.3
97
80 ND
138
115
120
62
79
71
69
73
57
65
66
Quadrant 4
54
63
62
131
83
107
55.4
81
209
259.3
186
88
85
77
90
127 ND
178
177
133
175
134
93
79
44 ND
63
60
63
44 ND
67
107
103
119
114 ND
81 ND
84 ND
145
98 ND
129
165.5
117.5
131.5
196.5
193.5
184
266
275
157
87
75
74
57
99
54
46 ND
59
July 2007
B-59
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
Sampling Date
01-Nov-02
12-Dec-02
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
29-Mar-05
06-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
17-Apr-02
21-May-02
25-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
12-Dec-02
15-Jan-03
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
22-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
02-May-06
06-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
16-Apr-02
22-May-02
21-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
22-Aug-02
23-Sep-02
23-Oct-02
09-Dec-02
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
22-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
29-Mar-05
14-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
81
61
61
98
133
75
89
101.6
107.5
162.3
90
71
68
64
74
140
69
55
78
104
111
63
100
68
91
64.8
83.7
85.7
127.8
85.9
121
192
147
97
53 ND
177 ND
59
54 ND
69
65
46 ND
70
51
50
65
50
110
87
63.6
61.7
111.3
126
120
100
69
Quadrant 2
77
58
60
56
151
68
73
123
222
128.7
143
67
62
63
77
76
44 ND
63
79
54
62
71
68
53
45
56.6
53 ND
69.3
112.4
99.8
120
169
141
71
58 ND
160 ND
67
52 ND
54
52
75
59
54 ND
51 ND
49
46
106
51.6
69.2
70.2 ND
104
83.3
123
100
90
Quadrant 3
88
179
63
120
72
76
92
107.4
126
78.9
127
55
74
69
76
55
53
74
75
75
76
60
85
81
94
85.7
71.9
78.5
101
80.9
76.7
145
105
92
67 ND
230 ND
59
53 ND
52 ND
52
53
52 ND
55
46 ND
48
44
40
45.1
63.3
80.9
179
75.1
65 ND
75
84
Quadrant 4
64
120
57
74
85
68
68 ND
70.7
136
79.3
97
120
69 ND
69
68
63
65
65
59
62
60
79
94
57
101
78
78.9
76.5
91.3
85.8
89
163
137
127
82
150 ND
93
95
50 ND
45 ND
68
51
56 ND
56
47
74
107
68
157.7
70.2
169
100.4
133
115
107
July 2007
B-60
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
207
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
347
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
Sampling Date
01-May-06
15-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
16-Apr-02
20-May-02
25-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
26-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
17-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
30-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
01-May-06
13-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
17-Apr-02
22-May-02
25-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
23-Aug-02
25-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
12-Dec-02
15-Jan-03
23-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
08-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
06-Feb-02
14-Mar-02
17-Apr-02
22-May-02
25-Jun-02
23-Jul-02
26-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
98
61 ND
160
53 ND
107
98
55
60
67
86
74
121
150
245
224
175
138
268
163
239
298
154
250
116
78
59
45 ND
53 ND
60
70
73
60 ND
56
50 ND
152
206.7
674
139.7
241
233
201
51
135
60 ND
58
60
67
79
71
99
148
114
130
128
116
Quadrant 2
166
62 ND
58 ND
59 ND
58
56
62
57
71
90
84
164
88
210
128.5
100
76.1
404.3
358.3
426
376
271
382
72 ND
67
81
57
98
140
102
114
50
88
97
244
103.7
244.7
205.3
189
360
306
86
80
81
158
88
127
154
106
131
234
260
281
290
315
Quadrant 3
83
68
59
57 ND
57
63
66
56
69
126
125
152
179
212
181.5
311
170.3
338
331.7
207
235
357
264
67 ND
69
62 ND
50 ND
55
56
50
75
69
59
61
121
94.7
169.7
137.7
136
136
301
46 ND
78
61 ND
61
52
51
59
70
59
82
95
110
150
191
Quadrant 4
137
59
64 ND
56 ND
56
55
54
121
138
61
113
140
137
132
295
216
233
423.3
290.3
177
341
447
515
73 ND
79
59 ND
54
53
54
42
66
54
70
67
134
110.7
170.7
151.6
150
193
231
64 ND
61 ND
65
73
57
53
61
57
69
92
85
182
88
94.6
July 2007
B-61
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
512
512
512
512
512
512
512
398
398
398
398
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
328
328
328
328
328
328
328
328
328
328
684
684
684
684
684
684
684
684
684
575
575
575
575
575
575
575
575
575
224
224
Sampling Date
22-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
30-Mar-05
08-Jul-OS
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
08-0ct-02
31-0ct-02
09-Dec-02
13-Jan-03
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
17-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
22-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
30-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
30-Oct-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
22-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
29-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
18-May-06
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
22-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
08-Jul-OS
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
30-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
04-0ct-05
02-May-06
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
112
249.3
102.4
196
184
147
275
-
-
-
-
193
117
120
141
163
96
164
237.3
219
195
177
140
196
220
51.7
173
144
95.7
212.3
173.3
196
255
236
213
90.3
73.6
126.4
88.9
144.2
182
101
91
129
257
451
462
495
837.8
551
1507
390
488
44 ND
52 ND
Quadrant 2
211.7
328.7
284
295
247
259
351
-
-
-
-
82
64
60
78
65
72.9
80
112
141.7
141
89
167
218
281
68.8
123
169
137.3
131.5
399
136
144
181
248
53
60.7
59.4 ND
121.3
227
171
118
126
140
285
530
518
458.7
854.5
638
528
266
258
43 ND
68
Quadrant 3
84.8
202
75
188
111
170
189
-
-
-
-
58
53
99
77
87
74.5
92
101.5
68.2
68.69
90
98
127
113
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41
77.5
75.6
126
147
151
116
107
169
181
280
208
325
367.7
395
557
304
258
49 ND
54 ND
Quadrant 4
79.4
235
202.8
167
180
111
187
51 ND
38 ND
58
58
73
60
73
57 ND
131
76.2
89.9
106
114.3
162
136
113
205
95
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.8
59.9
72.4
104.8
171.3
142
132
109
168
250
217
264
485
299.3
296
437
512
240
55 ND
54 ND
July 2007
B-62
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-6. Recontamination Soil Sampling Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
224
224
402
402
402
402
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1078
1079
1079
1079
1079
1079
1079
1079
1079
1079
Sampling Date
03-Oct-05
02-May-06
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
01-May-06
31-Jan-02
14-Mar-02
17-Apr-02
21-May-02
25-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
26-Aug-02
24-Sep-02
07-NOV-02
10-Dec-02
14-Mar-03
23-Jun-03
23-Sep-03
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
21-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
01-May-06
22-Dec-03
22-Mar-04
22-Jun-04
23-Sep-04
16-Dec-04
28-Mar-05
07-Jul-05
03-Oct-05
02-May-06
RESULTS (mg/kg) a ฐ c
Quadrant 1
42 ND
39
76.5
57 ND
62
50 ND
405
173 ND
138
107
106
250
102
94
80
100
154
206
164
106
184
263.8
845.6
130.5
151
209
287
277
67
111.7
231.3
362
275
338
345
622
370
Quadrant 2
48 ND
37 ND
48
61 ND
52 ND
48
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
121
105.6
227.7
329.7
338.3
230
164
590
1276
Quadrant 3
50
44 ND
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quadrant 4
422
94
50
60 ND
47 ND
41 ND
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
a Data were obtained from U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
u A value qualified with a "ND" represents a non-detect. The value presented is the detection limit. For the
purpose of calculating the property average by year, one-half the detection limit was used as the value for non-
detects.
0"" indicates that no sample was collected for that quadrant.
July 2007
B-63
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-7. Average Soil Pre-Excavation, Post-Excavation, and Recontamination Pb
Results for 31 Residential Locations within One Mile of the Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
151
176
181
184
197
207
212
224
239
240
257
263
328
340
347
398
402
444
454
493
512
531
575
576
579
581
626
674
684
1078
1079
Pre-Excavation
(mg/kg) a
918
1471
1367
3308
3035
1039
355
579
4155
2770
1073
1425
5138
917
614
394
1740
1795
667
466
2013
618
1500
1528
837
604
1850
6857
-
9173
Post-Excavation
(mg/kg) a
377
889
671
420
806
750
568
-
1138
489
453
885
1279
1015
101
160
332
184
126
696
567
1177
736
711
354
208
965
213
-
88
Averages (mg/kg) b'c
2002
47.3
62.1
87.5
51.1
93.8
52.2
93.1
-
81.3
50.1
73.1
54.1
59.2
69.2
34.2
49.4
28.9
32.5
80
44.6
70.2
91.5
60
37.1
120.8
146.9
--
2003
59.8
62.5
90.1
-
106.9
64.9
119.4
-
77
86.2
82.3
59.6
104.1
90.2
172.4
58
244.2
41.4
40.8
159.4
56.2
243.3
74.8
-
39.6
156.8
55.8
157.5
94
2004
65.3
191.3
130.8
-
162
96.9
180.4
-
119.4
108.2
-
182.8
141.3
249.8
-
149
-
180.2
91
440.8
84.7
-
-
106.6
356
247.7
2005
97.3
223.1
146.3
-
176.1
95.7
200.3
63.4
175.8
114.3
-
191.3
171
294
-
41.7
135.3
-
187.9
92.3
531.8
133.8
105.1
-
128.8
215.7
381.5
2006
77.5
177.3
-
172.5
121
198.5
43.4
144.5
-
230.5
230.8
352.8
-
31.2
-
-
250.5
55.5
311
96.8
123
-
151.5
277
823
a All available pre-excavation and post-excavation results by quadrant are provided in Attachments B-4 and B-5,
respectively.
0 Soil samples from up to four quadrants were collected on each date. The results for the quadrants were first averaged
(using one-half the detection limit as the value for non-detects) before determining the final overall average by year for
each location.
0 During the process of summarizing post-excavation and recontamination Pb results for the 31 locations, it was noted
that, in general, post-excavation sampling results (collected during 2001 and 2002) were higher than the Pb results for
recontamination samples collected subsequently in 2002 or 2003. This observation is due to the fact that post-excavation
samples were collected prior to backfilling the excavated areas with clean soil.
July 2007
B-64
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-8. Indoor Dust/Wipe Sample Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
184
184
184
184
579
579
579
579
579
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
493
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
340
197
197
197
531
Round No.
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #12
Recon #13
Recon #14
Recon #15
Recon #16
Recon #17
Recon #18
Recon #19
Recon #20
Recon #21
Recon #22
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #07
Recon #1 1
Recon #12
Recon #13
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #01
Date
16-Apr-02
29-May-02
26-Jun-02
24-Jul-02
16-Apr-02
31-May-02
28-Jun-02
2-Aug-02
26-Aug-02
16-Apr-02
28-May-02
28-Jun-02
22-Jul-02
28-Aug-02
30-Sep-02
23-Oct-02
4-Dec-02
10-Jan-03
26-Feb-03
1-Apr-03
16-Jul-03
15-Oct-03
7-Jan-04
14-Apr-04
8-Jul-04
8-Oct-04
10-Jan-05
19-Apr-05
5-Jul-05
7-Oct-05
24-Apr-06
17-Apr-02
24-May-02
16-Jul-02
20-Sep-02
24-Oct-02
3-Dec-02
27-Jan-03
25-Feb-03
24-Mar-03
17-Apr-02
30-May-02
26-Jun-02
30-Jul-02
6-Sep-02
14-Nov-02
3-Apr-03
30-Jun-03
17-Oct-03
22-Apr-02
4-Jun-02
18-Jul-02
22-Apr-02
Carpet Dust a b
Pb Loading
(mg/ft2)
43
28.4
25.7
46.6
0.54
0.402
0.986
0.548
0.216
2.1
2.09
0.448
0.468
0.322
0.696
2.17
0.619
0.471
0.437
0.623
0.487
0.567
0.605
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
0.258
2.38
0.616
1.01
0.523
2.25
0.631
1.07
0.66
2.15
0.826
0.497
0.512
0.334
0.806
0.998
0.824
4.7
11.3
6.26
1.6
Pb
Concentration
(mg/kg)
3300
4350
3364
3874
370
383
539
728
826
1000
918
786
895
559
655
710
642
675
612
644
435
394
477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
600
695
664
426
629
681
845
313
613
2200
3711
2191
2551
1510
900
1032
1665
1377
1900
2603
1783
950
Wi
Window Sill
Pb Loading
(Mg/ft2)
1385
881
630
1257
413
293
173
201
225
165
75
38
27
49
36
36
14
13
23
26
40
17
6.7
60
9.4
55
7.5
28
17
23
21
353
75
67
32
45
17
31
16
28
352
508
638
185
60
141
576
912
156
264
109
105
101
De
Other Wipe
Pb Loading
(Mg/ft2)
120
47
54
69
17
12
16
9
6.2
66
22
14
12
13
11
4.4
7.7
6.9
5.3
8.5
4.6
3.3
3.8
5.1
3.4
3.1
2.9
11
5.2
6.6
7.6
19
15
18
12
12
11
10
6.1
11
14
24
19
22
6.8
7.3
16
8.5
10
35
48
25
18
July 2007
B-65
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-8. Indoor Dust/Wipe Sample Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
531
626
626
626
626
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
454
454
454
454
454
454
454
239
Round No.
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #07
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #12
Recon #14
Recon #15
Recon #16
Recon #17
Recon #19
Recon #20
Recon #21
Recon #22
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #04
Recon #07
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #12
Recon #14
Recon #15
Recon #17
Recon #19
Recon #20
Recon #22
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #01
Date
30-May-02
27-Jun-02
25-Jul-02
28-Aug-02
24-Oct-02
26-Feb-03
9-Apr-03
23-Jul-03
7-Jan-04
9-Apr-04
3-Aug-04
8-Nov-04
22-Mar-05
5-Jul-05
5-Oct-05
25-Apr-06
23-Apr-02
30-May-02
26-Jul-02
25-Oct-03
30-Apr-02
28-May-02
26-Jul-02
4-Sep-02
2-Oct-02
8-Nov-02
18-Dec-02
31-Jan-03
25-Feb-03
8-Apr-03
9-Jul-03
7-Jan-04
15-Apr-04
10-Nov-04
29-Mar-05
6-Jul-05
25-Apr-06
30-Apr-02
3-Jun-02
18-Jul-02
28-Oct-02
4-Dec-02
3-Feb-03
26-Feb-03
30-Apr-02
Carpet Dust a b
Pb Loading
(mg/ft2)
1.6
1.3
3.19
1.67
1.44
1.46
1.7
2
1.85
2.24
0.811
1.02
2.25
0.56
0.106
0.168
0.53
0.393
0.616
0.349
0.46
0.327
0.332
0.578
0.324
0.316
0.332
0.451
0.524
0.439
0.395
0.283
0.334
0.229
0.137
0.338
0.0305
0.22
1.75
0.22
0.235
0.299
0.0142
0.319
26
Pb
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1778
1461
2477
2409
860
336
579
428
639
1208
761
400
647
137
122
233
290
457
410
317
610
557
659
734
531
650
490
586
671
512
477
455
457
589
321
422
660
450
1502
517
526
550
247
224
3000
Wi
Window Sill
Pb Loading
(Mg/ft2)
35
10
10
11
16
23
52
15
46
35
21
51
15
6.9
53
41
110
82
129
71
62
22
62
21
9
6.3
6.2
12
10
24
6.9
14
16
11
9
6
22
35
33
17
31
28
9
16
405
De
Other Wipe
Pb Loading
(Mg/ft2)
15
7.6
6.1
7.8
7.2
21
14
11
11
14
8.2
9.2
10
8.4
11
6.7
44
6.1
5.5
4.4
10
14
3.3
3.2
2.6
2.2
3.2
3.6
4.4
4.4
4
2.3
4.6
6
11
9.1
8.5
9.3
8.5
9.2
6.8
5.9
5.7
12
July 2007
B-66
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-8. Indoor Dust/Wipe Sample Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
239
239
239
239
444
444
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
674
263
263
263
263
263
263
263
581
581
581
581
581
581
581
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
398
398
398
398
Round No.
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #01
Recon #02
Recon #02
Recon #03
Recon #04
Recon #05
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #12
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #20
Recon #21
Recon #22
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Recon #10
Recon #1 1
Recon #12
Recon #13
Recon #14
Recon #15
Recon #16
Recon #17
Recon #18
Recon #19
Recon #20
Recon #21
Recon #22
Recon #06
Recon #07
Recon #08
Recon #09
Date
28-May-02
1-Jul-02
2-Aug-02
27-Aug-02
6-May-02
7-Jun-02
31-May-02
25-Jun-02
25-Jul-02
27-Aug-02
22-Oct-02
3-Dec-02
3-Jan-03
21-Feb-03
15-Apr-03
17-Sep-02
24-Oct-02
2-Dec-02
7-Jan-03
24-Feb-03
24-Mar-03
30-Jun-03
27-Sep-02
31-Oct-02
11-Dec-02
8-Jan-03
25-Jul-05
3-Oct-05
25-Apr-06
26-Sep-02
23-Oct-02
4-Dec-02
3-Jan-03
20-Feb-03
20-Mar-03
3-Jul-03
1-Oct-03
7-Jan-04
7-Apr-04
16-Jul-04
18-Oct-04
10-Jan-05
19-Apr-05
7-Jul-05
5-Oct-05
5-May-06
7-Oct-02
28-Oct-02
3-Dec-02
7-Jan-03
Carpet Dust a b
Pb Loading
(mg/ft2)
22.6
25
31
11.8
9.3
6.6
4.62
2.15
3
2.06
2.88
1.54
2.28
2.28
2.09
0.378
0.673
0.649
0.514
0.182
0.635
1.39
0.489
1.19
1.05
1.51
0.0201
0.0483
0.108
4.48
5.04
3.99
3.58
13.8
8.22
2.93
1.7
1.12
1.45
0.95
3.03
1.06
1.08
0.68
0.585
0.843
0.49
0.342
0.95
0.499
Pb
Concentration
(mg/kg)
2124
1944
2862
1682
2300
2588
1669
1394
1482
1459
1273
1056
1088
742
927
1336
1786
1619
1196
745
1119
980
369
566
426
376
131
143
271
1795
1633
1700
1591
2877
1813
1075
873
929
1064
805
1170
735
834
816
766
1040
354
244
322
470
Wi
Window Sill
Pb Loading
(Mg/ft2)
251
292
85
56
905
1134
40
33
25
15
11
20
16
11
18
176
31
34
104
23
57
95
124
99
34
24
32
41
155
505
199
159
96
68
62
409
188
133
108
171
455
72
84
599
89
502
19
17
10
5.6
De
Other Wipe
Pb Loading
(Mg/ft2)
18
10
11
8.2
72
41
102
29
24
12
31
31
10
5.4
11
4
6.4
5.1
4.4
4
9.5
6.9
43
6.3
6.5
7.5
5.3
8.4
7
26
19
21
18
15
20
15
19
11
14
13
8.3
11
20
28
18
24
5.2
5.5
3.7
2.8
a Data were obtained from U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
"" indicates that no measurement was taken on that
date.
July 2007
B-67
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Attachment B-9. Soil and Air Deposition Monitoring Locations
around the Primary Pb Smelter
Legend
A Soil ard Air Deposition Monitoring Locations
Public School Locations
0 Main Stack at Primary Pb S
:::::: Primary Pb Smelter Ares
Meters
July 2007
B-68
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-10. Soil Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
181
207
240
Sampling Date
6-Mar-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
18-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
6-Mar-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
6-Mar-03
16-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
1 8-Nov-03
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
RESULTS (mg/kg)a'b'ฐ
Round 1
40 ND
58 ND
36 ND
116
79.1
80.3
57 ND
70.3
90.5
165
34.9
186
81.9
95.8
142
130
50.8
48 ND
50 ND
35 ND
56 ND
53 ND
59 ND
35 ND
33.4
34 ND
54.4
38 ND
64.3
43.4
43.8
59.3
52 ND
36.2
30 ND
49 ND
42 ND
35 ND
62 ND
54 ND
50 ND
33 ND
46.5
48.7
63.2
51.1
47 ND
52.7
43 ND
67 ND
46.7
Round 2
39 ND
119
42 ND
58 ND
55 ND
82.3
89.1
51.3
90.2
81.4
80.9
159
115
213
37 ND
51 ND
70.4
31 ND
50 ND
48 ND
35 ND
39 ND
48 ND
51 ND
39.9
59.4
26 ND
31 ND
30
55
48.6
135
64.5
137
38 ND
46 ND
48 ND
65 ND
74 ND
64 ND
45 ND
44.3
45.8
58.9
57.7
91
75.5
49 ND
62
46 ND
36 ND
Round 3
38 ND
54 ND
47 ND
52 ND
67.1
54 ND
78.1
98.9
140
107
105
87.8
136
177
36 ND
139
119
44 ND
51 ND
35 ND
31 ND
46 ND
56 ND
39 ND
30
46.2
37.3
32 ND
35
42.1
46.1
27 ND
37 ND
34.1
37 ND
43 ND
53 ND
56 ND
59 ND
63 ND
47 ND
47.4
37.9
30 ND
45 ND
69.9
53.2
64.4
94.9
84.1
37.4
Round 4
63 ND
51 ND
97.8
111
132
52.9
105
36 ND
-
-
-
-
July 2007
B-69
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-10. Soil Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
286
444
531
Sampling Date
14-Feb-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
6-Mar-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
6-Mar-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
RESULTS (mg/kg)a'b'ฐ
Round 1
25 ND
60.2
32 ND
51 ND
32 ND
80.4
28 ND
38.4
64.8
198
83.9
161
58.9
275
155
330
66.5
31 ND
90 ND
32 ND
69 ND
81 ND
70
53
47.4
73.6
79.4
58.8
69.3
84.3
68.4
107
160
119
22 ND
34 ND
20 ND
33 ND
28 ND
49 ND
22 ND
19 ND
19 ND
24 ND
28 ND
19 ND
23 ND
28 ND
41.4
24 ND
25 ND
Round 2
26 ND
65.5
27 ND
27 ND
40 ND
47 ND
30 ND
28.4
105
119
90.1
106
30 ND
190
152
402
278
32 ND
47 ND
24 ND
50 ND
71 ND
65 ND
50 ND
29 ND
65.2
62.4
38 ND
83.8
46.1
131
89.4
71.5
50 ND
23 ND
46 ND
22 ND
34 ND
31 ND
57 ND
22 ND
19 ND
19 ND
27 ND
28 ND
20 ND
23 ND
31.8
24 ND
29 ND
26 ND
Round 3
21 ND
39 ND
29 ND
48 ND
30 ND
65.7
36 ND
92.4
52.9
129
103
117
39.1
216
217
302
59.3
34 ND
56 ND
53.5
48 ND
39 ND
49 ND
56.1
29 ND
59.2
41.9
36 ND
63.9
96.2
147
60.4
55 ND
102
22 ND
35 ND
28 ND
29 ND
26 ND
44 ND
34 ND
21 ND
20 ND
26 ND
31 ND
20 ND
52.2
29.7
24 ND
23 ND
23 ND
Round 4
-
-
43 ND
-
-
-
-
-
289
-
-
-
-
-
July 2007
B-70
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-10. Soil Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
576
1071
1072
(Control)
Sampling Date
6-Mar-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
7-Jan-03
14-Feb-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
15-0ct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
7-Mar-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
18-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
RESULTS (mg/kg)a'b'ฐ
Round 1
36 ND
71 ND
43 ND
43 ND
38 ND
53 ND
38 ND
24 ND
38.8
60.4
42 ND
41
36 ND
68.4
62.6
49 ND
54.4
23 ND
32 ND
135
47
115
205
336
288
330
309
265
188
404
278
602
210
279
166
24 ND
30 ND
22 ND
22 ND
33 ND
32 ND
26 ND
17 ND
17 ND
20 ND
24 ND
20
13 ND
28 ND
21 ND
30 ND
20 ND
Round 2
40 ND
42 ND
35 ND
55 ND
46 ND
51 ND
50 ND
41 ND
32.9
34 ND
50 ND
30 ND
74.6
63.3
53.6
42 ND
35.9
22 ND
35 ND
119
37.4
73.9
153
622
301
143
218
206
317
271
306
515
229
285
143
21 ND
36 ND
22 ND
26 ND
33 ND
25 ND
28 ND
16 ND
15 ND
13 ND
17 ND
17
19 ND
36 ND
20 ND
30 ND
21 ND
Round 3
42 ND
46 ND
40 ND
47 ND
50 ND
44 ND
40 ND
35 ND
29 ND
35.1
45 ND
49.5
42 ND
36 ND
35.7
64.9
28 ND
26 ND
28 ND
102
37.8
133
144
259
294
219
281
176
188
311
434
464
360
499
143
21 ND
39 ND
20 ND
30 ND
33 ND
26 ND
28 ND
17 ND
19 ND
18 ND
24 ND
20
22 ND
23 ND
19 ND
31 ND
21 ND
Round 4
-
-
228
189
291
279
-
-
-
-
-
July 2007
B-71
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-10. Soil Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
1073
Sampling Date
7-Jan-03
14-Feb-03
11-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
11-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
1 5-Oct-03
18-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
24-May-04
24-Jun-04
27-Aug-04
RESULTS (mg/kg)a'b'ฐ
Round 1
25 ND
30 ND
64.1
29 ND
46.1
93.9
165
97.6
54.5
74.8
87
131
172
36.9
207
95.8
162
205
Round 2
20 ND
24 ND
63 ND
26 ND
41.1
46.4
108
85.7
68.1
82.3
55.2
144
125
30 ND
103
93
114
34.5
Round 3
28 ND
25 ND
103
28 ND
57.8
95.2
190
125
75.8
109
146
107
104
187.7
301
189
257
136
Round 4
77.2
-
50.8
80.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
a Data were obtained from U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
"" indicates that no sample was during that time.
0 A value qualified with an "ND" represents a non-detect. The value presented is the detection limit. For the purpose
of calculating averages, one-half the detection limit was used as the value for non-detects.
July 2007
B-72
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-ll. Air Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
181
Sampling Date
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
15-Oct-03
17-Nov-03
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
207
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
1 5-Sep-03
15-0ct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
240
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
15-Oct-03
17-Nov-03
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
286
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
1 5-Sep-03
15-0ct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
RESULTS (mg/ft2)a'b
Height = 1 ft
0.774
10.928
3.657
3.826
2.669
13.584
7.877
5.903
15.137
7.203
8.152
6.943
7.852
7.3
3.343
3.684
0.516
2.118
1.006
2.306
1.203
1.497
2.552
2.739
1.093
5.124
4.194
2.4
3.924
3.727
1.131
1.666
1.333
2.418
1.62
1.64
3.769
3.627
1.975
4.521
3.363
2.7
1 1 .904
10.046
2.579
4.09
1.047
3.86
2.488
5.848
1 1 .737
8.328
4.011
9.145
20.312
7.3
Height = 10 ft
10.318
6.041
5.266
3.861
3.543
15.058
6.202
5.32
1 1 .899
5.162
4.927
10.346
6.829
7.3
4.432
2.699
0.459
1.986
1.054
2.591
1.494
2.698
3.163
3.025
2.699
6.831
4.202
2.9
4.128
4.01
1.068
2.045
1.337
2.164
1.676
2.322
4.657
3.698
1.603
5.57
4.105
3.0
12.295
1 1 .758
2.57
4.249
2.624
2.916
2.808
5.581
14.01
3.179
5.487
20.996
33.171
9.4
July 2007
B-73
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-ll. Air Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
444
Sampling Date
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
15-Oct-03
17-Nov-03
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
531
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
1 5-Sep-03
15-0ct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
576
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
15-Sep-03
15-Oct-03
17-Nov-03
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
1071
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
1 2-Aug-03
1 5-Sep-03
15-0ct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Jan-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
RESULTS (mg/ft2)a'b
Height = 1 ft
3.937
5.204
1.122
2.712
0.803
1.765
2.547
2.376
3.757
2.878
0.452
4.835
7
3.0
2.645
1.035
0.452
0.917
0.341
0.887
0.514
0.877
1.713
1.735
0.822
3.525
3.323
1.4
1.991
1.827
0.716
1.396
0.596
0.972
0.671
1.183
2.02
2.209
0.596
3.777
3.923
1.7
1 4.764
1 9.453
4.673
5.802
6.804
16.903
5.247
5.925
16.435
12.265
7.927
22.039
10.718
11
Height = 10 ft
4.234
3.422
0.798
2.333
0.887
3.073
1.371
3.008
4.646
5.938
1.842
7.211
8.862
3.7
1.523
1.193
0.263
0.835
0.484
0.606
0.527
0.542
1.644
2.191
1.073
1.922
2.063
1.1
1.994
1.519
0.514
1.417
0.742
1.406
0.966
1.275
1.99
1.786
1.556
3.707
4.399
1.8
17.635
7.265
4.611
4.397
6.784
31 .997
8.909
4.734
13.384
10.1
8.057
13.635
12.532
11
July 2007
B-74
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-ll. Air Deposition Monitoring Results for Pb - Primary Pb Smelter
Full-Scale
Analysis ID
1072
(Control)
Sampling Date
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
1 2-Aug-03
1 5-Sep-03
15-Oct-03
17-Nov-03
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
1073
7-Apr-03
7-May-03
6-Jun-03
11-Jul-03
12-Aug-03
1 5-Sep-03
15-0ct-03
17-Nov-OS
17-Dec-03
19-Jan-04
19-Feb-04
19-Mar-04
21-Apr-04
Annual Averages:
RESULTS (mg/ft2)a'b
Height = 1 ft
0.588
0.774
0.268
0.363
0.3
0.236
0.203
0.28
0.805
0.676
0.33
0.718
2.382
0.61
7.798
6.195
2.296
3.844
1.722
7.751
4.969
5.051
7.816
4.733
3.601
6.899
8.554
5.5
Height = 10 ft
12.125
0.601
0.292
0.317
0.456
0.241
0.238
0.426
0.7
0.313
0.282
0.642
1.771
1.4
8.346
6.507
1.677
6.033
1.983
4.782
4.071
3.52
8.113
5.148
4.754
7.082
5.393
5.2
1 Data were obtained U.S. EPA Region 7 (2006).
3"" indicates that no sample was taken during that time
July 2007
B-75
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-12. Air Monitoring Locations around the Secondary Pb Smelter
AQS Monitoring Locations
Public School Locations
Main Stacks at Secondary Pb Smetter
Secondary Pb Smetter
Road
Railroad
VOiter Bodies
0 290 500 1,000
2
July 2007
B-76
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment B-13. Average Annual Pb Concentrations from AQS Monitors
Located around the Secondary Pb Smelter
Monitor ID
11090003
11090006
Facility
(meters)
290 to 480
570 to 750
Average Annual Pb Concentrations from AirData ((Jg/m3) a
1998
0.47
0.16
1999
0.47
0.18
2000
0.38
0.19
2001
0.44
0.20
2002
0.28
0.14
a Data are for average annual Pb concentrations in total suspended particulate matter (TSP)
and were calculated from the U.S. EPA's AQS monthly composite data and weighted by the
number of days in a month. The data were extracted from AQS using an AMP350 report, with
the units selected as reported. Events and nulls were not included in the AMP350 report.
July 2007
B-77
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix C: Media Concentrations for the General Urban Case Study
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents C-i
List of Exhibits C-ii
C. MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE GENERAL URBAN CASE STUDY C-l
C.I. AIR C-l
C.I.I. Ambient Air Concentrations C-l
C.I.2. Inhalation Exposure Concentrations C-5
C.2. SOIL C-6
C.3. INDOORDUST C-20
REFERENCES C-22
July 2007 C-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit C-l. Air Quality Scenarios included in the General Urban Case Study C-2
Exhibit C-2. Ambient Air Ratios of Monthly or Quarterly Average Concentrations to
Annual Average Concentration C-3
Exhibit C-3. Estimated Annual Average Ambient Air Concentrations by Air Quality
Scenario C-3
Exhibit C-4. Estimated Annual Average Inhalation Exposure Air Concentrations
for the Air Quality Scenarios C-6
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements C-9
Exhibit C-6. Pb Concentrations Measured in Urban Soils in the United States C-19
Exhibit C-7. Estimated Annual Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations from the Hybrid
Mechanistic-Empirical Model for the Air Quality Scenarios C-20
Exhibit C-8. Estimated Annual Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations from the Air-Only
Regression-Based Model for the Air Quality Scenarios C-21
July 2007 C-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 C. MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE GENERAL URBAN CASE
2 STUDY
3 This appendix presents the methodology used to calculate the concentration of lead (Pb)
4 in various media for the general urban case study, along with the resulting media concentrations.
5 Section C. 1 describes the estimation of ambient air and inhalation exposure concentrations;
6 Section C.2 examines soil concentrations; and Section C.3 covers indoor dust concentrations.
7 C.I. AIR
8 C.I.I. Ambient Air Concentrations
9 The air quality scenarios included in the general urban case study are summarized in
10 Exhibit C-l. Two current conditions scenarios are included. The first is based on the 95th
11 percentile monitoring site in urban areas of larger than one million residents, with regard to
12 maximum quarterly average Pb-total suspended particulate matter (TSP) concentration for the
13 time period 2003 to 2005 (using data from the U.S. EPA Air Quality System [AQS] database
14 (USEPA, 2007).l It was derived by first calculating the maximum quarterly average
15 concentration of Pb in TSP for the time period 2003 to 2005 for each monitoring site that met
16 completeness criteria and that is located in an urban area with more than one million residents.
17 The value shown in Exhibit C-l for this first scenario is the 95th percentile of the distribution of
18 those maximum quarterly average values. The value for the second current conditions scenario
19 is the arithmetic mean of those maximum quarterly average values. The third value is for the
20 current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) scenario for Pb, and the last four
21 values are for the alternative NAAQS scenarios included in this assessment.
1 These statistics and their derivation are described in Appendix A.
July 2007 C-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-l. Air Quality Scenarios included in the General Urban Case Study
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
Air Quality Scenario
Current conditions (95th
percentile)
Current conditions
(mean)
Current NAAQS
Alternative NAAQS 1
Alternative NAAQS 2
Alternative NAAQS 3
Alternative NAAQS 4
Level
(Mg/m3)
0.87
0.14
1.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.05
Averaging
Time
Calendar
Quarter
(maximum)
Calendar
Quarter
(maximum)
Calendar
Quarter
(maximum)
Calendar
Quarter
(maximum)
Monthly
(maximum)
Monthly
(maximum)
Monthly
(maximum)
Notes a
This value is the 95th percentile of the maximum quarterly
average concentration of Pb in TSP (for period 2003 to
2005) among monitor locations in urban areas having more
than one million residents.
This value is the mean of the maximum quarterly average
concentrations of Pb in TSP (for period 2003 to 2005)
among monitor locations in urban areas having more than
one million residents.
-
-
-
-
-
a The data used to derive the current conditions concentrations are Pb-TSP monitoring data in the U.S.
EPA AQS database for 2003 to 2005, which met certain adequacy criteria. This is further described in
Appendix A.
Ratios relating these maximum quarterly or monthly average concentrations to annual
average concentrations were used to estimate the annual average ambient air concentrations used
in this assessment. The ratios were developed using the same data set as that described above for
developing the current conditions scenarios. The ratios and their basis and application for this
assessment are provided in Exhibit C-2 below.
July 2007
C-2
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit C-2. Ambient Air Ratios of Monthly or Quarterly Average Concentrations to
Annual Average Concentration
Ratio Description
Value
(unitless)
Notes'
95 percentile ratio of maximum
quarterly to annual average Pb-
TSP concentrations
7.6
1) For each monitoring site in urban areas of more than one
million residents, the maximum quarterly average and the
annual average Pb-TSP concentrations, and the ratios of the
former to the latter, were derived. This value is the 95th
percentile of the distribution of the ratios.
2) This ratio was used to derive the annual average concentration
for the current conditions (95th percentile) scenario.
Mean ratio of maximum
quarterly to annual average Pb-
TSP concentrations
2.5
1) For each monitoring site in urban areas of more than one
million residents, the maximum quarterly average and the
annual average Pb-TSP concentrations, and the ratios of the
former to the latter, were derived. This value is the arithmetic
mean of these ratios.
2) This ratio was used to derive the annual average concentration
for the current and alternative NAAQS scenarios for which the
averaging time is calendar quarter.
Mean ratio of maximum monthly
to annual average Pb-TSP
concentrations
4.0
1) For each monitoring site in urban areas of more than one
million residents, the maximum monthly average and the
annual average Pb-TSP concentrations, and the ratios of the
former to the latter, were derived. This value is the arithmetic
mean of these ratios.
2) This ratio was used to derive the annual average concentration
for the alternative NAAQS scenarios for which the averaging
time is monthly.
3
4
5
6
a Data derived from U.S. EPA (2007).
The ratios were applied to the concentrations in Exhibit C-l to estimate the seven annual
average ambient air concentrations (i.e., one for each air quality scenario) (see Exhibit C-3).
Exhibit C-3. Estimated Annual Average Ambient Air Concentrations
by Air Quality Scenario
Air Quality Scenario
Current conditions (95th percentile)
Current conditions (mean)
Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m3, maximum quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3, maximum quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3, maximum monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3, maximum monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3, maximum monthly average)
Annual Average
Pb Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.11
0.056
0.60
0.080
0.13
0.050
0.013
July 2007
C-3
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The following provides a more detailed description (than that provided in Exhibit C-2) of
2 the derivation of the annual average Pb-TSP concentrations used for the seven air quality
3 scenarios included in the general urban case study.
4 The annual average concentration for the current conditions (95th percentile) scenario was
5 estimated using the calculation shown below.
f\
U - 95th- A - -'.
1 where:
8 CCysth-A = Annual average concentration for the current conditions
9 (95th percentile) scenario (micrograms [jig]
10 per cubic meter [m3])
1 1 CCvsth -Q = Maximum quarterly average concentration for the current
12 conditions (95th percentile) scenario (|ig/m3) (from Exhibit C-l)
13 R95th-Q-.A = 95th percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average
14 concentrations (unitless) (from Exhibit C-2)
15
16 A similar calculation was used to estimate the annual average concentration for the
17 current conditions (mean) scenario, which is shown below.
1 8
10 Mean-A ~ Mean-Q ean-'.
19 where:
20 CCuecm-A = Annual average concentration for the current conditions (mean)
21 scenario (|ig/m3)
22 CCMean-Q = Maximum quarterly average concentration for the current
23 conditions (mean) scenario (|ig/m3) (from Exhibit C-l)
24 RMean-Q:A = Mean ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average
25 concentrations (unitless) (from Exhibit C-2)
26
27 The annual average concentrations for the current NAAQS scenario and the alternative
28 NAAQS scenario for which the averaging time is calendar quarter were estimated by replacing
29 CCMean-Q in the above equation with the maximum quarterly average levels for each scenario
30 (i.e., 1.5 and 0.2 |ig/m3, respectively).
July 2007 C-4 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Lastly, the annual average concentrations for the alternative NAAQS scenarios for which
2 the averaging time is monthly were estimated using the calculation below.
3 ALTA=ALTM+RMA
4 where:
5 ALT A = Annual average concentration for alternative NAAQS
6 scenarios (for which averaging time is monthly)
7 (Hg/m3)
8 ALTu = Maximum monthly average concentration for alternative
9 NAAQS scenarios (for which averaging time is monthly),
10 (Hg/m3) (from Exhibit C-l)
11 RM.-A = Mean ratio of maximum monthly to annual average (unitless)
12 (from Exhibit C-2)
13
14 C.1.2. Inhalation Exposure Concentrations
15 Inhalation exposure concentrations of Pb were estimated for the population of interest
16 (young children) from the annual ambient air concentrations using age group- and location-
17 specific relationships for Pb developed from modeling performed for U.S. EPA's 1999 National -
18 scale Air Toxics Assessment (USEPA, 2006), one of the U.S. EPA's National Air Toxics
19 Assessment (NATA) activities. These relationships account for air concentration differences
20 indoors and outdoors, as well as for mobility or time spent in various locations (e.g., outdoors at
21 home, inside at home) for the population of interest.
22 The NATA national-scale assessment produced air concentrations of Pb (and other
23 hazardous air pollutants) for each U.S. Census tract using the Assessment System for Population
24 Exposure Nationwide (ASPEN) model, and corresponding exposure concentrations of Pb for
25 each of five age groups at each U.S. Census tract using the Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure
26 Model (HAPEM). The median ratio of ambient Pb concentration to Pb exposure concentration
27 from the NATA national-scale assessment for the 0- to 4-year-old age group across all the U.S.
28 Census tracts was identified as the best estimate of the relationship between ambient and
29 inhalation exposure concentrations for use in this risk assessment. Data for 0- to 4-year-olds
30 were used because this group is the closest age group for which outputs are available when
31 compared to the age group of interest for this assessment. The result of applying this ratio,
32 which was 0.43, to the annual ambient air concentration is shown in Exhibit C-4.
July 2007 C-5 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit C-4. Estimated Annual Average Inhalation Exposure Air Concentrations
for the Air Quality Scenarios
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Air Quality Scenario
Current conditions (95th percentile)
Current conditions (mean)
Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Annual Average
Inhalation Exposure
Concentration
(ug/m3)
0.049
0.024
0.26
0.034
0.054
0.021
5.4E-03
Use of ratios for the 0 to 4 age group across the United States, rather than ratios for 0 to 7
year-olds in only urban areas, contributes some uncertainty to the estimate of children's
inhalation exposure concentrations. The use of the arithmetic mean of the ambient-to-inhalation
exposure concentration ratios also creates some uncertainty in that it does not capture the inter-
individual and inter-location variability in this relationship. In addition, there is some
uncertainty in the magnitude of the air concentrations generated using the ASPEN model for the
NATA assessment. In a comparison to monitoring data across the country, the ASPEN-modeled
air concentrations generally underestimated monitored concentrations (USEPA, 2006; Section on
Comparison to Monitored Values). However, the relationship between ambient air
concentrations and exposure concentrations (i.e., the comparison used here) is not expected to be
affected by underestimated ambient air concentrations from the NATA assessment. Also, some
of the exposure modeling inputs used in the NATA simulations were not specific to Pb and thus
may introduce additional uncertainties. For example, the penetration factor, which is used to
estimate the fraction of the pollutant in outdoor air that reaches indoor air, that was used for Pb
in the NATA assessment is based on a study that examined the penetration of hexavalent
chromium particles, which are generally more reactive than Pb particles (Long et al., 2004).
C.2. SOIL
In order to determine the soil Pb concentration used for the general urban case study, a
survey of the literature regarding Pb concentrations in urban surface soils was undertaken.
Information regarding the studies identified during that survey is presented in Exhibit C-5, and
the range of soil Pb concentrations presented in these papers is shown in Exhibit C-6. Out of
these studies, it was determined that an interim version of the National Study of Lead and
Allergens in Housing (NSLAH) as cited in (USEPA, 2000) provided the most recent, nationally
representative data for a generalized urban area. When compared to the regional- and state-
Jufy2007
C-6
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 focused studies presented in Exhibit C-5, the NSLAH goal of producing nationally representative
2 information provided an advantage in the effort to develop a concentration for a generalized area.
3 Relative to Succop et al. (2001), which is one of the two other national studies identified
4 in the literature, NSLAH presents data that are more accurately representative across public and
5 private housing compared to the Succop et al. (2001) data that focus solely on public housing.
6 NSLAH also has several advantages over the other national survey, the National Survey of Lead-
7 Based Paint in Housing (NSLBPH), which is presented in USEPA (2000). As a larger and more
8 recent survey, NSLAH is better able to capture current conditions across the country, and it
9 utilizes the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard E1727-95 core
10 sampling protocol, a standard procedure for residential Pb sampling (USEPA, 2000). The
11 NSLAH summary statistics also do not censor non-detect values as is done in NSLBPH, which
12 can positively skew soil Pb concentrations. Time and resource limitations dictated the use of
13 readily accessible data from the interim NSLAH rather than data from the final version of the
14 report.
15 The interim NSLAH surveyed 706 homes located in all 50 states and the District of
16 Columbia with construction dates ranging from pre-1940 to 1998. While the surveyed homes are
17 distributed throughout the United States, they are located across both urban and non-urban areas.
18 Soil samples taken to a depth of one-half inch (in) were collected from five sites on each
19 dwelling property between 1998 and 1999. A single soil sample was taken near the house main
20 entrance, while one drip-line sample was taken from the wall containing the main entry and
21 another was taken from a randomly chosen second wall. Similarly, one mid-yard sample was
22 taken from the wall containing the main entry and another was taken from a randomly chosen
23 second wall. The dripline samples were a composite of three core samples, while the mid-yard
24 samples were a composite of up to four core samples. The interim2 NSLAH yard-wide
25 arithmetic mean soil Pb concentration, which is 198 jig of Pb per gram (g) of soil, was chosen as
26 the soil Pb concentration for the general urban case study. Although NSLAH does provide data
27 that are specific to child play areas in a yard, which may better represent exposures for children
28 because they may spend significantly more time in these particular portions of the yard, the yard-
29 wide average soil concentrations were used because the play area samples were collected from
30 only half the total sites in the study. The arithmetic average of the yard-wide average soil
31 concentrations was used because it represents the expected value of the exposure concentration
2 The term "interim" is used here to indicate that the data comes from a version of NSLAH that predates the
final version of the report.
July 2007 C-7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 of a child who randomly "samples" from the underlying distribution of exposures. The average
2 accounts for weights that were assigned to the samples from the various houses based on
3 selection probabilities with the purpose of producing data that are nationally representative.
4 There is some uncertainty associated with the use of a single average soil Pb concentration in
5 that it does not capture inter-city and inter-house variability, which can be significant due to
6 different historical and current land uses, housing vintages, renovation activities, and other more
7 minor factors.
July 2007 C-8 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Adgate et al., 1998
Jersey City, New Jersey
Ten homes
Samples collected October 1994 to January
1995
Soil collected from yards of 10 homes
screened for participation in the Childhood
Lead Exposure Assessment and Reduction
Study (CLEARS)
Samples collected in bare, unvegetated
areas of the subject child's primary outdoor
activity area
All samples were surface soil (top 5
centimeters [cm])
Geometric mean (GM): 540 parts per million
(ppm)
Range: 70 to 2080 ppm
n = 10
Study examined relationship between
indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust
Used ratios of Pb isotopes to trace
sources
Outdoor soil and dust determined to
act as essentially a single source for
indoor dust
Outdoor sources found to contribute
about as much as indoor sources to
indoor dust
Bornschein et al.,
1987
Inner-city neighborhood in Cincinnati, Ohio
Five square mile area for sampling
Exterior surface dust scrapings were taken
from asphalt, concrete, or brick near the
dwelling, or hard-packed soil devoid of
vegetation
Eighty houses total (20th century public, 19th
century rehabilitated, 19th century
satisfactory, and 19th century deteriorated)
All (n=80): mean 1360.32 ppm; range 76 to
54,519 ppm
Public (n=20): GM 247.88 ppm; range 7 to
812 ppm
Rehabilitated (n=29): GM 1654.49 ppm;
range 253 to 11889 ppm
Satisfactory (n=9): GM 7361.54 ppm; range
1500 to 54,519 ppm
Deteriorated (n=22): GM 2791.19 ppm; range
108 to 25,180 ppm
Concentrations were strongly
influenced by the housing type, with
the lowest concentrations outside
public housing units
Seventy-five percent of residences
occupied by 18-month-old children
had external soil dust concentrations
>1,000 ppm
Chirenje et al., 2004
Gainesville, Florida, relatively undeveloped,
low population/traffic density, and Miami,
Florida, developed, high population/traffic
density
Locations were sampled according to land
use characterization as residential,
commercial, public parks, or public buildings.
Sampling depths: 0 to 20 cm from surface in
Gainesville; 0 to 10 cm in Miami
Miami:
. Combined: median 98 ppm; GM 92.9 ppm;
arithmetic mean 152 ppm; range 2.13 to 1091
ppm; 55 percent of samples were 51 to 200
ppm
. Residential median 121 ppm (n=60)
. Commercial median 146 ppm (n=60)
. Public parks median 82 ppm (n=60)
. Public buildings median 84 ppm (n=60)
Gainesville:
Combined median 15 ppm; GM 16.4 ppm; 87
percent of samples <50 ppm
Residential median 20.4 ppm (n=39)
Commercial median 19.2 ppm (n=41)
Public parks median 7.23 ppm (n=38)
Public buildings median 17.4 ppm (n=44)
In Miami, analyses showed
concentrations of samples from 0 to
10 cm were not significantly different
from those collected from 10 to 20 cm
Concluded lower Pb in Gainesville
was due to lower inputs (low industrial
activity, less traffic) but also increased
Pb mobility/low retention (lower pH,
organic carbon content, and clay
content versus Miami soils)
Pb patterns with land use were
slightly different between Gainesville
and Miami.
Residential and commercial areas
generally had higher levels of Pb
July 2007
C-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Elheluetal., 1995
Washington, District of Columbia
Duplicate soil samples were collected
randomly from 239 unpaved front yards of
homes (typically row houses)
Sites sampled in each of 8 political wards (30
each, except for one)
Samples were taken at a depth of 15 cm
from sites that are 1 meter (m) from each of
the surveyed dwellings
Surveyed homes were an average of 4.5
meters (m) from the road
Medians for eight wards ranged from 53.7
ppm to 471.4 ppm
Seven wards had medians > 129 ppm
Four wards had medians > 221 ppm
Two wards had medians > 440 ppm
Range: 10.2 to 6015 ppm
Authors suggested that Pb
concentrations may be highest in
areas adjacent to buildings and
suggested that paint was the main
source of Pb
Gasana and
Charmorro, 2002
One hundred and twenty homes in Miami,
Florida (Little Haiti and Liberty City)
Samples were taken from soil as well as
floors, windows, wells, tap water, and air
The presence of Pb paint was also
investigated
Investigations were tailored to areas most
utilized by children less than 6 years old
n = 121
Mean: 275 ppm
Median: 153 ppm
Range: 25 to 1612 ppm
The playgrounds around the house
had the highest concentration of Pb
Johnson and
Bretsch, 2002
Syracuse, New York
Samples of soil were collected at 194
locations within a 600 m by 600 m grid laid
out over the City of Syracuse (residential
areas, and a city-wide mix of house lots,
parks and playgrounds, and street side
locations emphasized)
At most sites, two kinds of samples were
acquired: (1) a bulk sample of 0.5 to 1
kilogram (kg) from a single location,
integrated over a 0 to 10 cm depth; and (2) a
composite 0 to 1 cm surface core sample
obtained from within a 1 square meter area
Average: 80 ppm
95 percent of the soil samples collected had
values in the range of 20 to 800 ppm
Found no significant differences in Pb
concentration between 0 to 1 cm and
0 to 10 cm depth
No other Pb soil concentration
summary statistics were reported
Kassa et al., 2000
Toledo, Ohio
Sampled from January 1995 to August 1998
One-half inch (in) coring device was used to
collect soil samples around homes and in
play areas adjacent to the home
All pre-1950 housing (n=145 houses)
Sampling depth not specified
Range: 400 to more than 5,000 ppm
77 houses had exterior soil levels over 5,000
ppm
41 houses had soil levels surrounding the
house between 2,000 to 5,000 ppm
63 surrounding play areas had
concentrations from 400 to 2,000 ppm
No other Pb soil summary statistics
were reported
July 2007
C-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Khandler and
Friedman, 2000
New York City, New York
Thirty-five soil samples were collected from
10 different parks; collected from relatively
undisturbed sites 30 to 1000 feet (ft) from
highways to park roads
All parks: range 26 to 1,040 ppm
Central Park: mean 150.96 ppm; range 26 to
225 ppm
Clove Lake Park: mean 149 ppm; range
120.42 to 177 ppm
Conference House Park: mean 311.68 ppm;
range 147 to 583 ppm
Forest Park: mean 502 ppm; range 125 to
1040 ppm
Kissena Park: mean 166.54 ppm; range
161.82 to 175 ppm
Owl's Head Park: mean 240.55 ppm; range
177.41 to 303.70 ppm
Prospect Park: mean 190.97 ppm; maximum
321.01 ppm.
Riverside Park and Fort Washington Park:
mean 272.45 ppm; range 49 to 444 ppm
There was a greater concentration of
Pb in all parks compared to a
renovated lawn
Soils with higher concentrations of
metals were found nearer to a
highway
Lejano and Ericson,
2005
Pacoima, California (large amount of
highways present)
Study occurred over a 5-month period in
2002
Two hundred and ten soil samples were
collected, from the side of the highways,
schools and parks (and >100 m away as a
control).
Mean Pb levels:
. Random: 111.0 ppm
. Schools: 66.7 ppm
. Parks: 51.6 ppm
. San Fernando Road: 171.3 ppm
. Whiteman Airport: 111.6 ppm (without
outlier); 232.5 ppm (with outlier)
. Interstate 5: 118.6 ppm
. Interstate 118: 102.1 ppm
. Interstate 210: 43.3 ppm
The total and bio-available Pb was
found to be markedly higher in areas
close to major highways
The study concluded that there is an
unexpected persistence of Pb
deposited by vehicular emissions over
a long period of time
Liberti and Pichtel,
1997
City of Muncie in Center Township, Delaware
County, Indiana
One hundred and fifty samples; 3 samples
from each of 25 quadrants at 2 soil depths
Sampling depth: 0 to 5 cm and 10 to 25 cm
from surface
Depth of 0 to 5 cm:
. Mean ฑ S.D. 203.8 ฑ 35.9 ppm; range 81.1 to
466.3 ppm
Depth of 10 to 25 cm:
. Mean ฑ S.D 172.2 ฑ 28.9 ppm; range 53.9 to
344.8 ppm
Pb concentrations were significantly
higher in the surface soil as compared
to the subsurface soil
Highest concentrations were near the
city center and along roadways
The majority of Pb was found in
residual forms and considered
relatively immobile
July 2007
C-ll
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Mielke, 1994
New Orleans, Louisiana
Soil samples were collected from the surface
2.5 cm within inner-city, mid-city, and
suburban residential communities
Samples collected within 1 m from street,
within 1 m of house-sides (foundations), and
from open spaces (e.g., vacant land or parks
far from streets)
n = 3,704 (sampled from 283 U.S. Census
tracts in the city)
Inner-city
. Foundation: median 840 ppm; range 8 to
69,000 ppm (n=201)
. Streetside: median 342 ppm; range 4 to
9,450 ppm (n=723)
. Open space: median 212 ppm; range 10 to
10,600 (n=74)
Mid-city
. Foundation: median 110 ppm; range 1 to
24,400 ppm (n=220)
. Streetside: median 110 ppm; range 1 to
6,340 ppm (n=765)
. Open space: median 40 ppm; range 2 to
3,960 (n=80)
Pb peaked in street side soil of the
inner-city and steeply declined to the
suburban areas of the city
Bare soils immediately adjacent to
residential structures in the inner-city
had the highest Pb levels, followed by
soils along street sides
The lowest Pb levels were found in
open areas and in suburban areas
Sheets et al., 2001
Springfield, Missouri
Nine sampling locations, including three near
heavy-traffic streets and two more than 30 m
from residential street
At each site, samples were collected in 1999
at depths of 1, 8, and 15 cm and at three
distances (1, 2, and 3 m) from air sample
stations; same-depth samples were
averaged at each site
Excess vegetation was removed before
samples were collected
Site average 107 ฑ 8 ppm; range 18 ppm to 302
ppm
Average concentrations for the 9 sites:
. Depth 1 cm: 99.5ฑ73 ppm
. Depth 8 cm: 104ฑ79 ppm
. Depth 15 cm: 116ฑ89ppm
Lowest site concentrations:
. Depth 1 cm: 18.0ฑ0.8 ppm
. Depth 8 cm: 19.3ฑ13ppm
. Depth 15 cm: 20.8ฑ4.4 ppm
Highest site concentrations:
. Depth 1 cm: 228ฑ17 ppm
. Depth 8 cm: 255ฑ5.8 ppm
. Depth 15 cm: 302ฑ6.9 ppm
Soil Pb was consistently greater with
increasing soil depth
Sampling locations may have been
vegetated
Authors noted that soil Pb in this city
are relatively low, even at high traffic
sites
Shinn et al., 2000
Chicago, Illinois
Sampled bar soil in four-block urban
residential area and measured Pb (n=62)
Properties were located on either side of two
North/South residential streets within the
study area
Developed surface plots of Pb levels via
kriging; analyzed patterns by reviewing
historical data for potential sources
Sampling depth not specified
Pre-1930 housing in area
Overall mean 2,180 ppm; median 1,775 ppm;
range 175 to 7,935 ppm
Eastern street median 2289 ppm; range 253
to 7,935 ppm
Western street median 1,263 ppm; range 175
to 4,158 ppm
Pb distribution in soil indicates non-
random distribution of Pb sources
Pb surface soil patterns linked to
existing and previous potential
sources within study area as well as
nearby street with high traffic volume
Five sampling sites had Pb levels
>5,000 ppm
July 2007
C-12
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Succop et al., 2001
Sampling was conducted in 67 public
housing developments nationwide (a total of
482 dwelling units and associated areas
were individually sampled)
Data includes 1,222 soil samples
Soil samples collected from locations near
building foundation, elsewhere in the yard, or
near walkways
Near the building foundations: median 194
ppm
Near walkways: median 177 ppm
In yards: median 145 ppm
The maximum concentration, 3,900 ppm, was
found in a foundation sample
For 28 housing development assessments, at
least 1 sample greater than or equal to 400
ppm
No other data for soils were reported
Sutherland and
Tolosa, 2001
Manoa basin, Oahu, Hawaii
Sampled two transects at low speed
roadways (near park and school) out to 50 m
from road
First sample (0 m) from road deposited
sediment which was curbside area at edge
of road
For each site, Pb was analyzed in topsoil (0
to 2.5 cm) and subsoil (7.5 to 10 cm)
Five supplemental soil samples collected
from grass-covered recreational field >100 m
from roadway; 10 "control" locations sampled
from relatively undisturbed areas
Park transect: max of 375 ppm (5 m from
road); road deposited sediment 285 ppm
School transect: max of 200 ppm in road
deposited sediment; all soil samples 25 to 50
ppm, out to 50 m
Measurements for both transects drop to <50
ppm within 5 to 10 m
Median local background soil concentrations:
surface samples 13ฑ1; subsurface 14ฑ3 ppm
Authors suggested that preliminary
study data show that remobilization of
metals in soils close to roads can
prolong contamination of urban road
systems
Sutherland et al.,
2000
Samples collected 78 roadside (within 2 m)
and 10 background locations within the
Manoa watershed, Oahu, Hawaii
For each site, Pb was analyzed in topsoil (0
to 2.5 cm) and subsoil (7.5 to 10 cm)
Total Pb in roadside samples: median 56ฑ30
ppm; range 10 ppm to 4870 ppm
10thpercentile: i9ppm
25th percentile: 34 ppm
75th percentile: 120 ppm
90th percentile: 179 ppm
Total Pb in background samples: median
14ฑ2 ppm
Same sampling locations and scheme
as in Teichman et al. (1993)
Appears that reported concentrations
are based on samples at both depths.
Sutherland et al. (2000) showed the
concentrations are similar at the two
depths.
Enrichment ratios were calculated
based on the degree of
anthropogenic influence on Pb levels;
Pb was the most significantly
enhanced metal.
Enrichment ratio for roadside Pb was
four to five times higher than in
background soils
July 2007
C-13
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Sutherland, 2000
Samples collected 78 roadside and 10
background locations within the Manoa
watershed, Oahu, Hawaii
For each site, Pb was analyzed in topsoil (0
to 2.5 cm) and subsoil (7.5 to 10 cm)
All sites had some grass cover.
Reported total Pb and HCI extractable (i.e.,
labile) Pb
Total Pb in roadside topsoil samples: median
58ฑ27 ppm; range 14 to 4,870 ppm
Total Pb in background topsoil samples:
median: 13 ฑ 1 ppm; range: 10 to 22 ppm
Roadside labile Pb was four to five
times higher than in background soil
Subsoil concentrations were similar to
topsoil concentrations at both
roadside and background sites
Tiechman et al.,
1993
Alameda County, California
Soils were collected from the yards of homes
adjacent the freeway, within a 1-mile radius
Sampling occurred at least 20 m away from
the homes to control for Pb from paint
Nineteen subsurface samples were taken
Surface samples: average 567.7 ppm; range
195.3 ppm to 2,026.6 ppm
Subsurface samples: average 618.3 ppm;
range 369.8 to 1,045.7 ppm
Ninety percent of the soils collected
from subsurface contained Pb
exceeding the surface samples
Soil downwind from the freeway
contained Pb levels that exceed those
found on the upwind side by 93
percent
Tong, 1990
Cincinnati, Ohio, roadside dusts and soils
Sixty sites (n=60) were sampled from either
0 to 5 cm in depth or 15 to 20 cm from the
surface
Housing in the study area were grouped into
those built before 1950 and those built after
1960
Samples were taken from the edge of the
curb closest to the roadway and 30 m from
the roadway
Street dusts and soils:
. 0 to 5 cm: arithmetic mean 1,004.1 ฑ 1,007.8
ppm
. 15 to 20 cm: arithmetic mean 1301.0 ฑ
1313.6 ppm
Housing age before 1950:
. 0 to 5 cm: arithmetic mean 1,256.2 ฑ 1,254.3
ppm
. 15 to 20 cm: arithmetic mean 1,602.4 ฑ
1,563.8 ppm
Housing age after 1960
. 0 to 5 cm: arithmetic mean 752.0 ฑ 557.4
ppm
. 15 to 20 cm: arithmetic mean 999.7 ฑ 744.7
ppm
Ranges not reported
July 2007
C-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Turer and Maynard,
2003
Corpus Christi, Texas
Two sample sites in Texas were chosen
along the highway: one in the city center with
mostly automotive traffic, and the second
near oil refineries with truck traffic
Twenty-two samples were taken along a
transect perpendicular to the highway in
Corpus Christi
City center: range 20 (3 miles from the road
at 32.5 cm deep) to 820 ppm (3 meters from
the road at the 0 to 10 cm depth)
Industrial area: range 15 to 650 ppm (at 5 to
15 cm depth)
Concluded that Pb has a very low
mobility rate, due to the amount of
insoluble organic matter
About 40 percent of Pb coming from
vehicle exhaust remained in the soil
at site 1 and about 28.4 percent
remained in the soil at site 2
Turer etal., 2001
Cincinnati, Ohio; Interstate 75 (I-75) through
city; 58 samples
Sampling conducted adjacent to highways
on median between lanes (within -50 m of
road)
Sampling depth: 0 to 1 cm; also sampled 1
to 5 cm
Range for 0 to 1 cm samples: 166 to 942
ppm; range for 1 to 5 cm samples: 59 to
1,073 ppm
Some samples taken at depth of 10 to 15 cm
contained total Pb between 1,000 to 2,000
ppm
Performed mass balance analysis to
determine fate of Pb (total emitted
historically in exhaust versus Pb
currently in soil); results suggest 60
percent of Pb has been lost from
study area (roadsides)
Removal via wind-blown dust was
proposed as most likely remobilization
mechanism; surface runoff may be
lesser removal mechanism
USEPA, 1993; 1996
Cincinnati, Ohio
Sampled three neighborhoods: (A)
Pendleton; (B) Findlay, Back, Dandridge;
and (C) Glencoe, Mohawk
Compared soil Pb concentrations before and
after a total neighborhood Pb abatement
project (Area C was abated after this study)
Sampled 1989 to 1992
Sampling depth: Surface, 0 to 2 cm, 13 to 15
cm
n = 8,127 soil samples
Pre-abatement surface scrapings
. GM (95 percentile)
. Area A: 189 (1,996) ppm (n=242)
. AreaB: 101 (776) ppm (n=273)
. AreaC: 154 (1,653) ppm (n=311)
0 to 2 cm soil samples:
. Area A: 200 (2,659) ppm (n=195)
. AreaB: 103 (780) ppm (n=230)
. AreaC: 140 (1,200) ppm (n=224)
13 to 15 cm soil samples:
. Area A: 215 (1,612) ppm (n=185)
. AreaB: 162.4 (383) ppm (n=230)
. AreaC: 114 (848) ppm (n=217)
Data analysis by U.S. EPA (2000):
. Building: GM 233.9 ppm; range 7.1 to 630
ppm
. Bare areas: GM 220.9 ppm; range 5.4 to
4552 ppm
. Play area: GM 94.6 ppm; range 20.0 ppm to
192 ppm
No measurable reduction in PbB was
found except in cases where other
sources were also removed or abated
Study indicated that Pb in soil was not
a significant source of Pb relative to
other sources
July 2007
C-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
USEPA, 1993; 1996
Baltimore, Maryland
Pre-1950 housing
Lower Park Heights and Walbrook Junction
(control area) neighborhoods were the
sampling sites
Sixty-three properties were studied
Using a 15-cm soil coring device, nine
composite samples were taken from the top
2 cm and 9 from the bottom 2 cm of the soil
Sampled 1988 to 1989
Samples were taken pre and post soil
abatement from the foundation, mid-yard,
and boundary line
Sampling depth: 0 to 2 cm and 13 to 15 cm
from surface
Pre-abatement soil levels (n=57):
. TriMean: 503.6 ฑ 268.2 ppm (TriMean=
(Lower Quartile + 2*median +Upper
Quartile)/4))
. Range: 100 to 1,450 ppm
Control (n=147)
. Mean 501.3 ฑ 312.1 ppm
Reported in U.S. EPA (2000):
Dripline top 2 cm: GM 635.9 ppm; range 96 to
4,400 ppm
Mid-yard top 2 cm: GM 287.0 ppm; range 31 to
3,500 ppm
Remote top 2 cm: GM 337.0 ppm; range 77.2 to
1850 ppm
No measurable reduction in PbB was
found except in cases where other
sources were also removed or abated
Study indicated Pb in soil was not a
significant source of Pb relative to
other sources
USEPA, 1993; 1996
Boston, Massachusetts
Sampled 1989 to 1991
Preliminary sampling to determine eligibility
consisted of measurements from 150
contaminated properties throughout the city
Eligible properties had at least two samples
> 1,500 ppm at the time of preliminary
testing
37 houses were found eligible
Three to four composite soil samples taken
within 2 m of the houses
Sampling depth: 0 to 2 cm from surface
Study Group Results (SPI):
Pre-abatement (n=35):
Median: 2,413 ppm
Arithmetic mean: 2,625 ppm
Children's PbB levels were reduced in
areas where soil Pb concentrations
were high (> 1,000 ppm) and soil Pb
abatement and Pb paint exposure
was controlled by paint stabilization
July 2007
C-16
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
USEPA, 2000;
Westat Inc., 1995;
1996
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in
Housing surveyed randomly selected 381
housing units (284 private and 97 public
houses) in 30 counties across the United
States
Three core soil samples were taken from
each dwelling unit: one near the main
entrance, one along the drip line (soil next to
the housing until), and one at a remote
location away from the building, but still on
property
Sampling 1989 to 1990
Housing construction years included pre-
1940 to 1979
Sampling depth: 10 cm
Data from Westat Inc. (1996):
Private housing
. All locations (n=762): mean 324 ppm ;
median 54 ppm; 1 to 22,974 ppm
. Entrance (n=260): arithmetic mean 327 ppm;
GM 85 ppm; median 64.8 ppm; range 2.84 to
6829
. Dripline (n=249): arithmetic mean 448 ppm;
GM 74 ppm; median 56.2 ppm; range 1.16 to
22,974 ppm
. Remote (n=253): arithmetic mean 204 ppm;
GM 46; median 46.7 ppm; range 1.45 to 6951
ppm
Analysis by U.S. EPA (2000)
Yard-wide average: arithmetic mean 235
ppm; GM 61.9 ppm; median 49.2 ppm; range
4.63 to 7030 ppm
Study found that the strongest
statistical predictor of soil Pb in
private and public housing was the
housing units' construction year
Additional significant predictors were
U.S. Census region, interaction
between building age and U.S.
Census region, presence of Pb based
paint, and average daily traffic flow
Degree of urbanization and condition
of Pb paint were not significant
predictors for private housing
In the U.S. EPA (2000)analysis, only
households with values > 0 were
used to calculate the GM
Yard-wide average was the average
of (1) the average of the mid-yard
sample results and (2) the average of
results for the dripline and entryway
samples
July 2007
C-17
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-5. Selected Data - Pb in Urban Surface Soil and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
USEPA, 2000;
Westat Inc., 2002
National Survey of Lead and Allergens in
Housing surveyed 831 homes in all 50 states
(preliminary data evaluated by U.S. EPA
(2000)included 706 houses in all 50 states)
375 of the homes also had children's play
area bare soil tested
Sampled 1998 to 1999
A single soil sample was taken near the
house main entrance, one drip-line sample
was taken from the wall containing the main
entry and another was taken from a
randomly chosen second wall, and one mid-
yard sample was taken from the wall
containing the main entry and another from a
random second wall. The dripline samples
were a composite of three core samples,
while the mid-yard samples were a
composite of up to four samples.
Housing construction years were pre-1940 to
1998
Sampling depth: top 0.5 in
Results for five sampling sites at all 831 homes:
. Main Entry (n=707): arithmetic mean 234.8
ppm; GM 43.3 ppm; median 40.2 ppm
. Wall 1 Dripline (n=704): arithmetic mean
242.9 ppm; GM 44.5 ppm; median 38.8 ppm
. Wall 2 Dripline (n=704): arithmetic mean
404.1 ppm; GM 49.0 ppm; median 40.3 ppm
. Wall 1 Mid-yard (n=723): arithmetic mean
87.3 ppm; GM 28.1 ppm; median 27.0 ppm
. Wall 2 Mid-yard (n=728): arithmetic mean
123.4 ppm; GM 29.9 ppm; median 29.1 ppm
Results for housing where children's play area
bare soil was sampled:
. 51 percent > 20 ppm
. 30 percent > 59 ppm
. 5 percent > 400 ppm
. 2 percent > 2,000 ppm
Analysis of interim data by U.S. EPA (2000):
Yard-wide average with no adjustment to
non-detects: arithmetic mean 200 ppm; GM
53.0 ppm; median 41.4 ppm; range Oto 9270
Only households with values > 0 were
used to calculate the GM
Yard-wide average was the average
of (1) the average of the mid-yard
sample results and (2) the average of
results for the dripline and entryway
samples
Yard-wide average for houses built
prior to 1940 had the highest means
(arithmetic mean 646 ppm; GM 297
ppm based on interim data and no
adjustment for non-detects)
The highest means and values were
generally found in the Northeast, and
the lowest in the West
July 2007
C-18
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit C-6. Pb Concentrations Measured in Urban Soils in the United States
3500
max: 9,270 6,015 4,870 7,030
5,000
4,552
3,500
54,519 7,935
E
Q.
Q.
0 2500
W 2000
1000
500
1
' / ^
*
Study (Author, Year)
2
O
4
5
6
7
a This chart is intended to convey general levels of total Pb measured in urban soils for which means or medians were reported. For each study, the
vertical line represents the approximate range of total Pb reported in upper surface soil samples, -ph e square mark or box represents the mean total
Pb for all samples in that study; the geometric (preferred) or arithmetic mean was reported in the study. jn some cases, only the mean or median
concentrations for selected study locations or sample categories were reported; these cases are represented by a box. R efer to cited publications for
details on individual studies.
July 2007
C-19
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
C.3. INDOOR DUST
For the general urban case study, both the hybrid model and the air-only regression-based
model (described in Appendix G) are used to generate separate indoor dust Pb concentration
estimates. In addition, the fraction of Pb originating from recent air and other sources (i.e.,
contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources including historical air)
is estimated in both cases.
For the hybrid model, the fraction of Pb mass from recent air-derived sources is
calculated by dividing the hybrid model air-dust Pb loading by the total Pb loading; this fraction
is then applied to the total Pb concentration to derive the indoor dust (recent air) portion of the
indoor dust Pb concentration. The indoor dust (other) portion is the remainder of the indoor dust
Pb concentration. The indoor dust (recent air), indoor dust (other), and indoor dust (total)
estimates for the hybrid model are provided in Exhibit C-7 below.
Exhibit C-7. Estimated Annual Indoor Dust Pb
Mechanistic-Empirical Model for the
Concentrations from the Hybrid
Air Quality Scenarios
Air Quality Scenario
Current conditions (95th percentile)
Current conditions (mean)
Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Indoor Dust Pb
Sources
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Dust Pb
Concentration
(M9/g)
180
17
198
122
24
146
418
8
426
149
21
169
189
17
206
114
25
140
47
41
88
15
July 2007
C-20
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 For the air-only regression-based model, the indoor dust (other) portion of the indoor dust
2 Pb concentration estimate is the intercept (60 |ig/g) and the indoor dust (recent air) portion is the
3 slope of the function multiplied by the ambient air concentration. The indoor dust (recent air),
4 indoor dust (other), and indoor dust (total) estimates for the air-only regression-based model are
5 provided in Exhibit C-8 below.
6 Exhibit C-8. Estimated Annual Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations from the Air-Only
7 Regression-Based Model for the Air Quality Scenarios
Air Quality Scenario
Current conditions (95th percentile)
Current conditions (mean)
Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Indoor Dust Pb
Sources
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Recent air
Other
Total
Dust Pb
Concentration
(ug/g)
97
60
157
47
60
107
506
60
566
68
60
128
106
60
166
42
60
102
11
60
71
July 2007
C-21
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Adgate, J. L.; Rhoads, G. G.; Lioy, P. J. (1998) The Use of Isotope Ratios to Apportion Sources of Lead in Jersey
3 City, NJ, House Dust Wipe Samples. Sci. Total Environ. 221(2-3): 171-180.
4 Bornschein, R. L.; Succop, P. A.; Krafft, K. M; Clark, C. S.; Peace, B.; Hammond, P. B. (1987) Exterior Surface
5 Dust Lead, Interior House Dust Lead and Childhood Lead Exposure in an Urban Environment. Vol. 20:
6 322-332. Columbia, MO: Trace Substances in Environmental Health. Proceedings of University of
7 Missouri's 20th Annual Conference. Conference in Trace Metals in Environmental Health.
8 Chirenje, T.; Ma, L. Q.; Reeves, M.; Szulczewski, M. (2004) Lead Distribution in Near-Surface Soils of Two
9 Florida Cities: Gainesville and Miami. Geoderma. 119(2): 113-120.
10 Elhelu, M. A.; Caldwell, D. T.; Hirpassa, W. D. (1995) Lead in Inner-City Soil and Its Possible Contribution to
11 Children's Blood Lead. Arch. Environ. Health. 50(2): 165-169.
12 Gasana, J.and Chamorro, A. (2002) Environmental Lead Contamination in Miami Inner-City Area. J. Expo. Anal.
13 Environ. Epidemiol. 12(4): 265-272.
14 Johnson, D. L. and Bretsch,. J. K. (2002) Soil Lead and Children's Blood Lead Levels in Syracuse, NY, USA.
15 Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 24: 375-385.
16 Kassa, H.; Bisesi, M. S.; Khuder, S. A.; Park, P. C. (2000) Assessment of a Lead Management Program for Inner-
17 City Children. Environmental Health. 15-19.
18 Khandker, E. H.and Friedman, G. M. (2000) Geochemical Study of Trace Metals in Soils of New York City Parks.
19 Nothern Geology and Environmental Sciences. 22: 50-88.
20 Lejano, R. P.and Ericson, J. E. (2005) Tragedy of the Temporal Commons: Soil-Bound Lead and the Anachronicity
21 of Risk. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 48(2): 301-320.
22 Liberti, M.and Pichtel, J. (1997) Spatial Distribution of Trace Metals in Delaware County, Indiana, Surface Soils.
23 Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 106: 233-245.
24 Long, T.; Johnson, T.; Laurenson, J.; Rosenbaum, A. (2004) Development of Penetration and Proximity
25 Microenvironment Factor Distributions for the HAPEM5 in Support of the 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
26 Assessment (NATA). Memorandum prepared for Ted Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
27 Standards (OAQPS); April 5.
28 Mielke, H. W. (1994) Lead in New Orleans Soils: New Images of an Urban Environment. Environmental
29 Geochemistry and Health. 16: 123-128.
30 Sheets, R. W.; Kryger, J. R.; Biagioni, R. N.; Probst, S.; Boyer, R.; Barke, K. (2001) Relationship Between Soil
31 Lead and Airborne Lead Concentrations at Springfield, Missouri, USA. Science of Total Environment. 271:
32 79-85.
33 Shinn, N. J.; Bing-Canar, J.; Cailas, M.; Peneff, N.; Binns, H. J. (2000) Determination of Spatial Continuity of Soil
34 Lead Levels in an Urban Residential Neighborhood. Environmental Research. 82(Section A): 46-52.
35 Succop, P.; Clark, S.; Tseng, C.-Y.; Bornschein, R.; Chen, M. (2001) Evaluation of Public Housing Lead Risk
36 Assessment Data. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 23: 1-15.
37 Sutherland, R. A. (2000) Depth Variation in Copper, Lead, and Zinc Concentrations and Mass Enrichment Ratios in
38 Soils of an Urban Watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 29: 1414-1422.
July 2007 C-22 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Sutherland, R. A.and Tolosa, C. A. (2001) Variation in Total and Extractable Elements With Distance From Roads
2 in an Urban Watershed, Honolulu, Hawaii. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 127(4): 315-338.
3 Sutherland, R. A.; Tolosa, C. A.; Tack, F. M. G.; Verloo, M. G. (2000) Characterization of Selected Element
4 Concentrations and Enrichment Ratios in Background and Anthropogenically Impacted Roadside Areas.
5 Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 38: 428-438.
6 Teichman, J.; Coltrin, D.; Prouty, K.; Bir, W. A. (1993) A Survey of Lead Contamination in Soil Along Interstate
7 880, Alameda County, CA. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 54(9): 557-559.
8 Tiechman, J.; Coltrin, D.; Prouty, K.; Bir, W. A. (1993) A Survey of Lead Contamination in Soil Along Interstate
9 880, Alameda County, CA. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 54(9): 557-559.
10 Tong, S. T. (1990) Roadside Dusts and Soils Contamination in Cincinnati, Ohio. Environmental Management.
11 14(1): 107-114.
12 Turer, D.; Maynard, J. B.; Sansalone, J. J. (2001) Heavy Metal Contamination in Soils of Urban Highways:
13 Comparison Between Runoff and Soil Concentrations at Cincinnati, Ohio. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
14 132:293-314.
15 Turer, D. G.and Maynard, J. B. (2003) Heavy Metal Contamination in Highway Soils. Comparison of Corpus
16 Christi, Texas and Cincinnati, Ohio Shows Organic Matter Is Key to Mobility. Clean Technologies and
17 Environmental Policy. 4(4): 235-245.
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1993a) Urban Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project. Vol.
19 IV. Cincinnati Report. EPA/600/AP-93/00 Id. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development; July.
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1993b) Urban Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project.
21 Volume II. Part 2. Boston Report. EPA/600/AP-93/00 Ib. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Research
22 and Development; July.
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1993c) Urban Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project.
24 Volume III. Part 1. Baltimore Report. EPA/600/AP-93/001c. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of
25 Research and Development; July. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/lead/pubs/es_con.htm.
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1996) Urban Soil Lead Abatement Demonstration Project.
27 Volume 1: EPA Integrated Report. EPA/600/P-93/00 laF. Washington, DC: Office of Research and
28 Development; April.
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000) Hazard Standard Risk Analysis Supplement - TSCA
30 Section 403: Risk Analysis to Support Standards to Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil: Supplemental Report.
31 EPA 747-R-00-004. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/403risksupp.htm.
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006a) 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Available
33 online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/nsata99.html.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006b) 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Available
35 online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/nsata99.html.
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007) Air Quality System (AQS) Database. Available online at:
3 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebwarning.htm.
38 Westat Inc. (1995) Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint inHousing, Base Report. US Environmental
39 Protection Agency (USEPA) and HUD; June.
July 2007 C-23 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Westat Inc. (1996) Distributions of Soil Lead in the Nation's Housing Stock. EPA 747-R-96-003. Washington, D.C.
2 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; May.
3 Westat Inc. (2002) National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing. Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Final
4 Report. Revision 7.1. Washington, D.C.: Office of Health Homes and Lead Hazard Control, U.S.
5 Department of Housing and Urban Development.
July 2007 C-24 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix D: Media Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents D-i
List of Exhibits D-ii
List of Attachments D-iii
D. MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE
STUDY D-l
D.I. SPATIAL TEMPLATE D-2
D.2. AIR D-6
D.2.1. Air Dispersion Modeling D-6
D.2.2. Air Concentrations D-7
D.2.3. Inhalation Exposure Concentrations D-ll
D.2.4. Air Modeling Performance Evaluation D-12
D.3. OUTDOOR SURFACE SOIL D-13
D.4. INDOORDUST D-16
REFERENCES D-19
July 2007 D-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit D-l. Ratios of the Maximum-to-Mean Block-level Annual Average Air Concentrations
in each Block Group D-4
Exhibit D-2. Spatial Template for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study (Including U.S. Census
Blocks and Block Groups with Children under the Age of Seven) D-5
Exhibit D-3. Annual Average Air Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-8
Exhibit D-4. Wind Rose of Meteorological Data used for Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
(Direction from which Wind is Blowing) D-9
Exhibit D-5. Annual Average Air Concentration Isopleths for the Current NAAQS Scenario for
the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-10
Exhibit D-6. Ratios of Inhalation Exposure Concentrations to Ambient Air Concentrations from
the NATA National-scale Air Toxics Assessment D-ll
Exhibit D-7. Annual Average Inhalation Exposure Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-12
Exhibit D-8. Average Pre-excavation Soil Measurements and Best-fit Trend Line D-15
Exhibit D-9. Modeled Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter Case
Study D-17
Exhibit D-10. Annual Average Indoor Pb Dust Exposure Concentrations for the Primary Pb
Smelter Case Study D-18
July 2007 D-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment D-l. Emission Parameters for Point Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-21
Attachment D-2. Emission Parameters for Volume Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-22
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-23
Attachment D-4. Hourly Emissions Factors by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-32
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-36
Attachment D-6. Building Downwash Parameters for the Primary Pb Smelter
Case Study D-44
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Attainment
Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-47
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 |ig/m3 max-
monthly) Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-60
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 |ig/m3 max-
monthly) Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-74
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 |ig/m3 max
monthly) Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-88
Attachment D-l 1. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 |ig/m3 max-
quarterly) Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study D-l02
July 2007 D-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
1 D. MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE PRIMARY PB SMELTER
2 CASE STUDY
3 This appendix discusses methods, results, limitations, and uncertainties associated with
4 the estimation of environmental media concentrations for the primary lead (Pb) smelter case
5 study included in the human exposure and health risk assessments. These media concentrations
6 were estimated using a combination of modeling approaches and monitoring data. Estimates
7 presented in this appendix are specified with regard to number of decimal places, which results
8 in various numbers of implied significant figures. This is not intended to convey greater
9 precision for some estimates than others; it is simply an expedient and initial result of the
10 software used for the calculation. Greater attention is given to significant figures in the
11 presentation of estimates in the main body of the report.
12 For this analysis, five air quality scenarios were evaluated, including attainment of the
13 current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and four possible alternative
14 standards, as described below:
15 Attainment of air concentration of 1.5 microgram per cubic meter (|ig/m3), based on a
16 maximum calendar quarter average (i.e., current NAAQS scenario);
17 Attainment of air concentration of 0.2 |ig/m3, based on a maximum calendar quarter
18 averaging period;
19 Attainment of air concentration of 0.5 |ig/m3, based on a maximum monthly averaging
20 period;
21 Attainment of air concentration of 0.2 |ig/m3, based on a maximum monthly averaging
22 period; and
23 Attainment of air concentration of 0.05 |ig/m3, based on a maximum monthly averaging
24 period.
25
26 This analysis focused on three primary environmental media and their exposure
27 concentrations: ambient air, indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust. Estimated inhalation and indoor
28 dust exposure concentrations differed for the five air quality scenarios because they both were
29 based, at least in part, on the estimated ambient air concentrations, which varied across scenarios.
30 The outdoor soil/dust exposure concentrations estimated for the current NAAQS scenario were
31 also used for the alternative NAAQS scenarios (i.e., it was assumed that reductions in ambient
32 air concentrations associated with the alternative NAAQS scenarios did not have a significant
July 2007 D-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 impact on soil concentrations).1 The approaches used and estimated exposure concentrations for
2 air, outdoor soil, and indoor dust are described in the remainder of this appendix.
3 D.I. SPATIAL TEMPLATE
4 The outer boundary of the study area for the primary Pb smelter case study was set to
5 approximately 10 kilometers (km), which was expected to capture the population experiencing
6 the most significant impacts of the facility's emissions, while recognizing limitations of the
7 modeling tools, demands of associated ("downstream") analyses, and available time and
8 resources.2
9 The 29 U.S. Census block groups that are predominantly within 10 km of the facility
10 were selected to define the spatial extent of the study area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Because
11 of the irregular shape of block groups, not all of the block groups that overlap with the 10-km
12 radius around the facility were included, and some that were included have portions falling
13 outside this 10-km radius. Block groups falling along the 10-km radius were generally included
14 if most of their area fell within the radius. All U.S. Census block centroids within these 29 block
15 groups were included as receptors in the air dispersion model runs (i.e., air model results were
16 output for each U.S. Census block centroid). There are 1,321 U.S. Census blocks within these
17 block groups. Of these U.S. Census blocks, 14 were located either within facility boundaries or
18 adjacent to the facility in the Mississippi River.3 These 14 U.S. Census blocks were removed
19 from the assessment. A total of 1,307 U.S. Census block centroids were included as receptors in
20 the air dispersion model simulations, including blocks within the study area with zero
21 population. The U.S. Census blocks with no children under age seven were included in the
1 Derivation of outdoor soil/dust estimates for the current NAAQS scenario is further discussed in
Section D. 3.
2 Previous analyses of modeled air concentrations of Pb from the primary Pb smelter performed using the
pilot assessment scenario indicated a potential contribution from the smelter to air concentrations at distances of
more than 50 km (ICF, 2006). Within 10 km, however, air Pb concentrations estimated in the pilot assessment were
reduced by 0.43 percent for U.S. Census blocks and block groups with at least one child under the age of seven
years from the highest concentrations predicted outside the primary Pb smelter property. Although this assessment
utilized a different set of emissions data than the pilot assessment, the overall trends in air Pb concentrations are
expected to be similar. See Appendix M for a discussion of sources of uncertainty associated with this assessment.
3 All territory in the United States is delineated into U.S. Census blocks (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
Therefore, large water bodies like the Mississippi River often contain U.S. Census blocks, although there is no
population associated with these blocks.
July 2007 D-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 modeling simulations to aid in understanding the patterns of air concentrations in the study area.
2 These locations, however, were not included in the exposure assessment and are not included in
3 exhibits summarizing modeling results (with the exception of isopleths diagrams), because the
4 exposure assessment focuses on the effects of Pb in children under age seven. The elevation of
5 each block centroid was generated using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital elevation model
6 files (U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, 1993) and the AERMAP
7 preprocessor model (USEPA, 2004).
8 For purposes of efficiency (i.e., to provide sufficient spatial resolution to capture
9 significant concentration gradients, while minimizing the number of computations required for
10 estimating other media concentrations, blood Pb (PbB) levels, and associated risks), the spatial
11 template for primary Pb smelter case study is a combination of block-level results in areas of
12 larger air Pb concentration gradients and block group-level results in areas of more gradual
13 changes in air Pb concentrations. The spatial template used here was developed in the pilot
14 assessment. In the pilot assessment, the annual average concentration in each block group was
15 calculated by spatially weighting estimates derived at the block level from the pilot analysis
16 modeling scenario. The area of each block was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2005).
17 The decision of whether to include the block or block group in the spatial template was made by
18 considering the range of block-level concentrations within a block group (see Exhibit D-l). If
19 the ratio of the maximum block-level air concentration in the block group to the mean annual
20 average air concentration in the block group was greater than 2.0, the individual U.S. Census
21 blocks in the block group were included. Otherwise, the full block group was included. This
22 method generally resulted in assessment at the block level near the facility. Some U.S. Census
23 blocks located far from the facility that fall within very large block groups were also evaluated
24 individually. A total of 22 U.S. Census block groups and 115 U.S. Census blocks (all with at
25 least one child under seven years of age) comprise the spatial template for the primary Pb smelter
26 case study (see Exhibit D-2).
July 2007 D-3 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
Exhibit D-l. Ratios of the Maximum-to-Mean Block-level Annual Average
Air Concentrations in each Block Group
Mississippi River
Wbin Stack at Primary Pb Smelter
:::::::::: Primary Pb SmetterA-ea
Block Group. Ma*.to Wean Annual Aig.Ar Cone. Ratio < 2
Block Group, Max.to Mean Annual Aig. Ar Gone. Ratio > 2
Ratio ofmaximum-to-mean block-few] annual average air
concentration in each block group from the pilot analysis
0 1.250 2.500 5.000
I I I I I I I I I
4
July 2007
D-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
Exhibit D-2. Spatial Template for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study (Including U.S.
Census Blocks and Block Groups with Children under the Age of Seven)
Legend
* IVbin Stack at Primary Pb Smelter
^^^ Facility Boundaries
I 1 Blocks and Block Group; uirth
| | zero children < 1 ^ears of age
i........1 Blocks with children
I::::::: :l <: 7 years of age
rI Block Groups with children
2,500 5,000
i i I
10,000 Meters
I
4
July 2007
D-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 D.2. AIR
2 The air concentrations of Pb resulting from emissions at the primary Pb smelter facility
3 were estimated using the ISC-PRIME air dispersion model (USEPA, 1995; Schulman et al.,
4 1997), as described in Section D.2.1. The outputs from this modeling were processed to estimate
5 air concentrations for each air quality scenario as described in Section D.2.2. These air
6 concentrations were used to estimate inhalation exposure concentrations (as described in Section
7 D.2.3) and as inputs to the calculation of indoor dust concentrations (as described in Section
8 D.4). Model performance analysis is described in Section D.2.4.
9 D.2.1. Air Dispersion Modeling
10 Air dispersion modeling for this case study (for the current NAAQS scenario) relied on
11 the model and the emissions and source parameters used in developing the 2007 proposed
12 revision to the State Implementation Plan for the primary Pb smelter (Missouri Department of
13 Natural Resources (MDNR), 2007; 2007). The air dispersion model ISC-PRIME was used for
14 the air quality modeling. The meteorological data used for the model simulations included 24
15 consecutive months (April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1999) of on-site data.4 These meteorological
16 data were also used for the analysis of model performance submitted with the proposed revision
17 to the SIP (MDNR, 2007). Emissions, release parameters, particle size parameters, and building
18 downwash inputs were all provided by U.S. EPA Region 7 in the form of an input runstream file
19 (USEPA, 2007). All of the inputs used in this modeling are presented in Attachments D-l
20 through D-6. Monthly average air concentrations were output from the dispersion model at each
21 receptor (i.e., block or block group, as described in Section D.I) and Pb-TSP monitor location
22 (see Appendix B). Use of these air concentrations in the current NAAQS scenario, and
23 derivation of air concentrations for the alternative NAAQS scenarios is described in Section
24 D.2.2.
4 Although air quality modeling guidance generally suggests that five consecutive years of meteorological
data be used for modeling annual average air concentrations, in the primary Pb smelter case study, 24 consecutive
months of on-site meteorological data were used for modeling Pb concentrations at receptor locations. The use of
on-site meteorological data, even with coverage of less than five years, was considered preferable to the use of
meteorological data from the nearest National Weather Service station, which is located in St Louis, Missouri
approximately 31 miles (50 km) from the facility, because they are much more likely to capture local meteorological
conditions. Note, however, that the use of two years of meteorological data limits the ability of this assessment to
fully capture year-to-year variability in meteorological conditions.
July 2007 D-6 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 D.2.2. Air Concentrations
2 The monthly air concentration model results calculated at the centroid of each U.S.
3 Census block group, block, and monitor receptor point for the 137 U.S. Census blocks or block
4 groups with at least one child under seven years of age, generated as described in Section D.2.1,
5 were averaged over both years of the modeling period to generate one set of representative
6 annual average air concentrations for the current NAAQS scenario.
7 To confirm that the estimated air concentrations for this scenario were at or below the
8 current NAAQS standard, the concentrations were also averaged quarterly and compared to the
9 current NAAQS (1.5 |ig/m3, max quarterly average). None of the modeled quarterly averaged
10 Pb air concentrations exceeded the current NAAQS; therefore, annual averages for the current
11 NAAQS scenario were calculated directly from the model results (see Exhibit D-3).
12 Monthly and quarterly averages were also compared to four alternative NAAQS
13 scenarios including: maximum monthly average alternative scenarios of 0.5 |ig/m3, 0.2 |ig/m3,
14 and 0.05 |ig/m3; and one maximum quarterly alternative scenario of 0.2 |ig/m3. For these
15 alternative scenarios there were several modeled U.S. Census blocks which did not meet the
16 alternative NAAQS, in which case a ratio was developed from the maximum monthly or
17 quarterly averaged value and the alternative NAAQS. This roll-back factor was then applied to
18 scale down the concentrations at each of the 1,307 receptors and a new combined annual average
19 was calculated from the scaled data set (i.e., a proportional rollback of all modeled locations was
20 implemented). These 1,307 receptors were narrowed down to the 137 U.S. Census blocks and
21 block groups included in the exposure assessment by (1) spatially weighting and averaging
22 results for all blocks within each block group selected (see Section D.I) and (2) removing all
23 blocks with no children under the age of seven.
24 The air concentration estimates modeled for the 137 U.S. Census blocks and block
25 groups with at least one child under seven years of age are presented in Attachments D-7 through
26 D-l 1 for all scenarios. Exhibit D-3 presents the distribution of annual average Pb concentrations
27 associated with the five NAAQS scenarios. A wind rose created from 24 consecutive months
28 (April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1999) of on-site meteorological data at the primary Pb smelter shows
29 that the predominant direction in which the wind is blowing from is the west and south (see
30 Exhibit D-4). Exhibit D-5 shows the isopleths of the block-level modeled air concentration
31 results for all 1,307 U.S. Census blocks modeled using the air dispersion model.
July 2007 D-7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit D-3. Annual Average Air Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Statistic b
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Average Annual Pb Air Concentration (Mg/m3) a
Current
NAAQS
Scenario
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.01
5.8E-03
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 [jg/m3.
Max Quarterly
0.2
0.09
0.01
2.8E-03
1.3E-03
2
0.5 [jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.3
0.2
0.03
5.6E-03
2.5E-03
3
0.2 [jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.1
0.07
0.01
2.2E-03
1.0E-03
4
0.05 (jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.03
0.02
3.0E-03
5.6E-04
2.5E-04
2
3
4
5
6
aThe 137 U.S. Census blocks and block groups with at least one child under the age of seven were used to
create this summary.
b The statistic (e.g., 95th percentile, median) may not be at the same location for each of the data results
presented here.
July 2007
D-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit D-4. Wind Rose of Meteorological Data used for Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
(Direction from which Wind is Blowing)
NORTH"
15%
12%-
9% -
WIND SPEED
(mis)
:-;-- i
^| ;.ฃ - ?.-
I I 2-1- 3.6
IB " - ;-
Calms:O.DO%
1 Note: Wind rose from 24 consecutive months (April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1999) of on-site meteorological
2 data at the primary Pb smelter (17,520 hours of data).
3
July 2007
D-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
Exhibit D-5. Annual Average Air Concentration Isopleths for the Current NAAQS
Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
o
Legend
Main Stack at Primary Pb Smelter
Primary Pb Smelter Area
Modeled Air Concentration (ug/m3)
0.005 0.04 -l *- 0.25
001 007 0.5
0 02 ~ 013 0.9
N
A
2,500
I
5,000
I
Meters
July 2007
D-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
D.2.3. Inhalation Exposure Concentrations
Inhalation exposure concentrations of Pb were estimated for the population of interest
(young children) from the estimated ambient air concentrations using age group- and location-
specific relationships for Pb developed from modeling the U.S. EPA 1999 National-scale Air
Toxics Assessment (USEPA, 2006), one of the U.S. EP A's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) activities. These relationships account for air concentration differences indoors and
outdoors, as well as for mobility or time spent in different locations (e.g., outdoors at home,
inside at home, etc.) for the population of interest.
The U.S. EPA 1999 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment produced air concentrations of
Pb (and other hazardous air pollutants [HAPs]) for each U.S. Census tract (using the Assessment
System for Population Exposure Nationwide model [ASPEN]), and corresponding exposure
concentrations of Pb for each of five age-groups at each U.S. Census tract (using the Hazardous
Air Pollutant Exposure Model [HAPEM]). The relationships (or ratios) between ambient air Pb
concentration and Pb inhalation exposure concentration from the U.S. EPA's 1999 National-
scale Air Toxics Assessment for the 0 to 4 age group (the closest age group for which outputs are
available to the age group of interest for this assessment) ranged from 0.37 to 0.42 for the U.S.
Census tracts within the study area for the primary Pb smelter case study. The ratios are
presented in Exhibit D-6. It was assumed that these U.S. Census tract specific ratios provided a
reasonable approximation of the ratios for the U.S. Census blocks and block groups contained
within each tract. The resulting distribution of annual average inhalation exposure
concentrations associated with the five air quality scenarios is presented in Exhibit D-7.
Exhibit D-6. Ratios of Inhalation Exposure Concentrations to Ambient Air
Concentrations from the NATA National-scale Air Toxics Assessment
24
U.S. Census Tract ID
17133600200
17133600300
29099700104
29099700601
29099700603
29099700605
29099700700
29099700800
29099700900
29099701000
Inhalation Exposure Concentration:
Ambient Air Concentration
0.40
0.39
0.40
0.42
0.40
0.38
0.41
0.40
0.37
0.39
July 2007
D-ll
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Use of ratios for the 0 to 4 age group (rather than for 0 to 7) contributes some uncertainty
in the estimate of children's inhalation exposure concentrations. In addition, there is some
uncertainty in the magnitude of the air concentrations generated using the ASPEN model for the
U.S. EPA's 1999 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (USEPA, 2006). In a comparison to
monitoring data across the country, the ASPEN-modeled air concentrations generally
underestimated monitored concentrations (USEPA, 2006; Section on Comparison to Monitored
Values). However, the relationship between ambient air concentrations and inhalation exposure
concentrations (i.e., the comparison used here) is not expected to be affected by underestimated
ambient air concentrations from the U.S. EPA's 1999 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (see
Exhibit D-7. In addition, some of the exposure modeling inputs used in the NATA simulations
were not specific to Pb and thus may introduce additional uncertainties. For example, the
penetration factor, which is used to estimate the fraction of the pollutant in outdoor air that
reaches indoor air, used for Pb in the NATA assessment is based on a study that examined the
penetration of hexavalent chromium particles, which are generally more reactive than Pb
particles (Long et al., 2004).
Exhibit D-7. Annual Average Inhalation Exposure Concentrations
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Statistic b
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Annual Average Pb Inhalation Exposure Concentration (ug/m3) a
Current
NAAQS
Scenario
0.3
0.2
0.03
5.0E-03
2.3E-03
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 [jg/m3.
Max Quarterly
0.1
0.04
5.9E-03
1.1E-03
5.0E-04
2
0.5 [jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.1
0.08
0.01
2.2E-03
1.0E-03
3
0.2 [jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.1
0.03
4.8E-03
8.8E-04
4.1E-04
4
0.05 (jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.01
7.8E-03
1.2E-03
2.2E-04
1.0E-04
a The 137 U.S. Census blocks and block groups with at least one child under the age of seven were used to
create this summary.
b The statistic (e.g., 95th percentile, median) may not be at the same location for each of the data results
presented here.
D.2.4. Air Modeling Performance Evaluation
The results from the air Pb modeling performed for the primary Pb smelter case study in
this assessment were not compared directly to available monitoring data because they represent
facility conditions (e.g., emissions) that do not currently exist (as discussed in Appendix B).
Instead, this performance evaluation relied on an "actual value" analysis conducted by the
July 2007
D-12
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 primary Pb smelter case study facility and reviewed by the State of Missouri, which used the
2 2007 proposed SIP modeling configuration, but replaced the hypothetical facility conditions with
3 "actual values." This actual value modeling conducted by the primary Pb smelter case study
4 facility included three separate evaluations comparing model predictions to measured Pb
5 concentrations at five monitor sites in the primary Pb smelter case study area. These
6 comparisons included:
7 Day-to-day evaluation of modeling output compared to monitor values. The review of
8 the model performance evaluation conducted by the State of Missouri concluded that all
9 sites demonstrated a pattern of overall accuracy for directional prediction (i.e., high
10 modeled days were high monitored days and low modeled days were low monitored
11 days), suggesting that the model was performing well in relating wind direction to Pb
12 transport (MDNR, 2007).
13 Source contribution analysis. Significant sources of Pb for each monitor (e.g., in-plant
14 roads and yard dust, blast furnace) were identified using chemical mass balance (CMB)
15 of monitor filter residue. The results of this analysis were compared with relative
16 contributions predicted by the dispersion model for individual modeled sources. The
17 review of the model performance evaluation concluded that there was generally good
18 agreement between the CMB results and the air dispersion results in terms of major
19 sources contributing Pb at each monitor (MDNR, 2007).
20 Comparison of overall average modeled results with monitored Pb levels. This
21 performance evaluation involved comparing modeled results (for 247 days simulated for
22 2005) at six monitor locations with actual measured Pb values for that same period at
23 those locations. Results of this evaluation suggested a slight over-prediction bias (<10
24 percent) for those sites likely to have the greatest impacts from the primary Pb smelter
25 facility (MDNR, 2007).
26
27 This evaluation of model performance for the actual value modeling scenario increases
28 confidence in estimates developed for the current NAAQS scenario using the 2007 proposed SIP
29 revision modeling configuration.
30 D.3. OUTDOOR SURFACE SOIL
31 Outdoor surface soil concentrations were estimated from the soil sample measurements in
32 the area for each spatial unit (i.e., U.S. Census blocks and block groups) with at least one child
33 under seven years of age in the study area. The extent and types of soil data sets available for the
34 calculations are described in Appendix B. The two data sets used here are the "pre-excavation"
35 and "recontamination" data sets.
36 Many of the yards within 1.5 km of the primary Pb smelter facility have been excavated
37 and filled with clean soil in the last 10 years. The U.S. EPA has taken soil samples from 31 of
July 2007 D-13 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 these sites on multiple occasions since 2002. These measurements are called "recontamination"
2 samples. The U.S. EPA database also contains soil samples for more than 900 locations labeled
3 as "pre-excavation." These samples were taken from November 2000 to August 2004 and were
4 the basis for decisions on soil replacement in those locations.5 The sample depth for both data
5 sets is less than an inch (in) (USEPA, 2001). Depending on the location of the modeled block or
6 block group in the study area (within or outside of the soil cleanup area), the soil concentrations
7 for this assessment were calculated using either the recontamination or pre-excavation data set.
8 All U.S. Census blocks within the soil cleanup area (approximately 1.5 km) were
9 identified from the Gradient Corporation report (Gradient Corporation, 2004). For these U.S.
10 Census blocks with at least one child under the age of seven, soil concentrations were estimated
11 from the recontamination soil samples taken in 2005. For U.S. Census blocks for which there
12 were one or more soil measurements available, the block soil concentration was set to the
13 average (arithmetic mean) of those measurements. For U.S. Census blocks for which there were
14 no measurements, but for which there were nearby measurements (i.e., across the street), the soil
15 concentration was set to the average of the nearby measurements. For other U.S. Census blocks,
16 the average of all of the recontamination soil measurements within 500 meters (m) was
17 calculated and set as the value for the block.
18 Outside of the soil cleanup area, soil concentrations were estimated using a regression
19 equation of the pre-excavation soil concentrations. The distance of each pre-excavation soil
20 sample to the main stack was measured using a geographical information system (GIS). The
21 measurements were grouped according to distance from the main stack (used as a reference point
22 for distance from the facility and its associated sources), with separate groups for each 500-m
23 increment. The arithmetic mean for each group was calculated, resulting in five arithmetic mean
24 average values for soil concentration, and these values were plotted versus distance from the
25 facility. A regression power equation (R2 of 0.92) was calculated from the samples (see Exhibit
26 D-8). Note that pre-excavation soil samples taken within 1.5 km of the facility were included to
27 develop the regression equation; however, the equation was not used to estimate soil
28 concentrations at U.S. Census blocks within the 1.5-km soil clean-up area (as indicated in
29 Exhibit D-8). The distance of each U.S. Census block and block group centroid from the main
30 stack was measured in GIS. Soil concentrations for the U.S. Census blocks and block groups
5Based on these sample results a number of yards in locations within 1.5 km of the facility have been filled
with clean soil.
July 2007 D-14 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 outside the soil cleanup area were then calculated using the regression equations based on
2 distance from the stack.
3 Exhibit D-8. Average Pre-excavation Soil Measurements and Best-fit Trend Line
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Line indicating distance beyond
which regression equation was used
to estimate soil concentrations
500 --
500
1000 1500
Distance from main stack (m)
2000
2500
All calculated soil concentrations used in the five scenarios for the 137 U.S. Census
blocks and block groups with at least one child under seven years of age are summarized in
Attachments D-7 through D-l 1 with an indication of which method was used to calculate the
values. Note that due to the soil cleanup within 1.5 km of the stack, the soil Pb concentration
estimates (consistent with soil measurements) near the facility are in some cases lower than those
in the more distant locations. It is recognized that the estimated Pb concentrations within the
remediation zone (i.e., within 1.5 km of the facility) likely underestimate the current
contributions of the primary Pb smelter to outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations as a result of
continued recontamination of outdoor soil/dust near the facility. While this is source of
uncertainty in the risk results (e.g., underestimating contribution from the outdoor soil/dust
pathway close to the primary Pb smelter case study facility), the impact of this limitation on
results is reduced by the selection of different indoor dust Pb prediction models for the two
different parts of the study area. That is, in the locations within the soil cleanup area, the indoor
dust Pb prediction model does not rely on soil Pb concentrations, while in locations outside of
July 2007
D-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 the soil cleanup area the indoor dust Pb prediction model does take soil Pb concentrations into
2 account (see Section D.4 and Appendix G for more details).
3 D.4. INDOOR DUST
4 For estimating indoor dust concentrations for residences in the primary Pb smelter case
5 study, two dust prediction models were used.
6 For locations within 1.5 km of the facility: a site-specific regression model that predicts
7 indoor dust Pb concentration as a function of air concentration (referred to as H6 model
8 in Attachments D-7 through D-l 1) is used.
9 For locations more than 1.5 km away from the facility, a regression model (based on data
10 from communities near various Pb point sources) that predicts Pb dust concentrations
11 given soil and air concentrations (referred to as the air+soil regression-based model) is
12 used(USEPA, 1989).
13
14 For a more detailed explanation of these indoor Pb dust concentration prediction models see
15 Appendix G.
16 Exhibit D-9 presents a summary of the Pb indoor dust concentrations generated in the
17 primary Pb smelter case study for the five different air quality scenarios. Exhibit D-9 also shows
18 the number of children residing in areas associated with different estimates of Pb indoor dust
19 concentration. All estimated indoor dust Pb concentrations for residences with at least one child
20 under seven years of age in the primary Pb smelter case study are presented in Attachments D-7
21 through D-l 1.
July 2007 D-16 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit D-9. Modeled Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Indoor Dust Pb
Concentration
(M9/9)
30
50
100
500
1,000
3,000
5,000
Number of U.S. Census Blocks/ Block Groups with Indoor Dust
Pb Concentrations
Greater than Value in First Column a
Current
NAAQS
Scenario
137
129
81
25
24
4
0
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 |jg/m3.
Max
Quarterly
137
111
56
13
4
0
0
2
0.5 |jg/m3.
Max
Monthly
137
122
63
24
11
0
0
3
0.2 |jg/m3.
Max
Monthly
137
108
56
11
0
0
0
4
0.05 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
137
102
52
0
0
0
0
Number of Children Living in Area with Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations Greater than Value in First Column b
Current
NAAQS
Scenario
3,880
3,845
1,646
103
98
8
0
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 ug/m3.
Max
Quarterly
3,880
3,481
884
41
8
0
0
2
0.5 |jg/m3.
Max
Monthly
3,880
3,661
965
98
39
0
0
3
0.2 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
3,880
2,731
884
39
0
0
0
4
0.05 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
3,880
2,672
876
0
0
0
0
3
4
5
a The 137 U.S. Census blocks and block groups with children ages 0 to 7 in the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005) were used to develop this
summary. Note that U.S. Census blocks without children were excluded.
b Number of children ages 0 to 7 from the 2000 U.S. Census were used in this analysis (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
July 2007
D-17
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Pb indoor dust concentrations estimated for the five scenarios for this primary Pb
smelter case study fall within the range presented by the U.S. EPA (1989) but they are not in the
high-end of the range. Studies summarized in U.S. EPA (1989) contained measurements of
house dust ranging from 10 to 35,000 parts per million (ppm). A high value of 100,000 ppm was
measured in one home within 2 km of a Pb smelting facility (USEPA, 1989). In this case study,
the maximum dust concentration of Pb predicted at a receptor location is 5,300 ppm at 300 m
from the main stack of the primary Pb smelter. Exhibit D-10 presents a summary of the annual
average indoor Pb dust exposure concentrations generated in the primary Pb smelter case study
for the five different NAAQS scenarios.
In a study of Pb concentrations in household dust near a facility that has operated as a
secondary Pb smelter since 1972 and as a primary smelter for the previous 200 years in the
Czech Republic, Rieuwerts et al. (1999) measured indoor dust Pb concentrations in houses in a
neighborhood adjacent to the facility (the neighborhood ranges from approximately 0 to 500 m
away from the facility according to a figure). Measured Pb concentrations in household dust
from 14 homes ranged from 861 to 5,890 ppm, with a geometric mean (GM) of 1,668 ppm.
Indoor Pb dust concentrations predicted for this case study are similar, ranging from 1,500 to
5,300 ppm out to 500 m from the facility, with a GM of 3,100 ppm. (MDNR, 2007)
Exhibit D-10. Annual Average Indoor Pb Dust Exposure Concentrations for the Primary
Pb Smelter Case Study
Statistic b
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Annual Average Indoor Dust Pb Exposure Concentrations (jig/g) a
Current
NAAQS
Scenario
3522.9
2318.2
121.7
49.8
41.3
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 ug/m3,
Max Quarterly
1145.1
753.5
83.3
43.3
38.3
2
0.5 ug/m3,
Max Monthly
1925.9
1270.7
94.9
45.2
39.2
3
0.2 ug/m3,
Max Monthly
980.8
645.4
81.7
43.0
38.2
4
0.05 ug/rn3,
Max Monthly
382.8
247.0
76.1
41.9
37.7
a The 137 U.S. Census blocks and block groups with at least one child under the age of seven were used to
create this summary.
b The statistic (e.g., 95th percentile, median) may not be at the same location for each of the data results
presented here.
July 2007
D-18
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Gradient Corporation. (2004) RAGS Part D Interim Deliverables Report for Community Risk Assessment;
3 Herculaneum, Missouri (Draft). Prepared for the Don Run Company; October.
4 ICF International. (2006) Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments and Ecological Risk Assessment for
5 Selected Areas, Pilot Phase. External Review Draft Technical Report. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of
6 Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). December.
7 Long, T.; Johnson, T.; Laurenson, I; Rosenbaum, A. (2004) Development of Penetration and Proximity
8 Microenvironment Factor Distributions for the HAPEM5 in Support of the 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
9 Assessment (NATA). Memorandum prepared for Ted Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
10 Standards (OAQPS); April 5.
11 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2007a) 2007 Revision of the State Implementation Plan for
12 the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment Area, As Adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission.
13 April 26.
14 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2007b) 2007 Revision of the State Implementation Plan for
15 the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment Area, Public Hearing; March 20, 2007. Emission Source Description
16 on Table 2: 27 of 43. Division of Environmental Quality. Available online at:
17 http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/2007revision.pdf.
18 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2007c) Doe Run - Herculaneum State Implementation Plan
19 (SIP) Dispersion Modeling Review. Memorandum From Jeffry D. Bennett to John Rustige. February 12.
20 Available online at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/herculaneumsip.htm.
21 Rieuwerts, J. S.; Farago, M.; Cikrt, M.; and Bencko, V. (1999) Heavy Metal Concentrations in and Around
22 Households Near a Secondary Lead Smelter. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 58: 317-335.
23 Schulman, L. L.; Stimaitis, D. G.; Scire, J. S. (1997) Addendum to ISC3 User's Guide: The Prime Plume Rise and
24 Building Downwash Model. Earth Tech Document A287. A-99-05, II-A-12. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power
25 Research Institute; November. Available online at:
26 http://www.epa.gov/scramOO l/7thconf/iscprime/useguide.pdf.
27 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) United States Census 2000: Summary File 1. Public Information Office. Available
28 online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfilel.html.
29 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey. (1993) USGIS DIGITAL ELEVATION MODELS (OEMs)
30 : User's Guide 5. Reston, Virginia.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1989) Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
32 Lead: Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation. EPA-450/2-89-011. Research Triangle Park, NC:
3 3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; June.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995) User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3)
3 5 Dispersion Models, Volume 1- User Instructions. Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Quality Planning and
36 Standards (OAQPS). Available online at:
37 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/userg/regmod/isc3vl.pdf#search=%22%22user's%20guide%20for%20the%
3 8 20industrial%20source%20complex%22%22.
39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2001) Quality Assurance Project Plan for a Site Characterization
40 at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter. Herculaneum, Missouri, CERCLIS ID No.: MOD 006266373. Prepared
41 for U.S. EPA, Region 7, Superfund Division by U.S. EPA Region 7 Superfund Technical Assessment and
42 Response Team 2; September.
July 2007 D-19 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004) User's Guide for the AERMOD Terrain Preprocessor
2 (AERMAP). EPA-454/B-03-003. RTF, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions,
3 Monitoring, and Analysis Division.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006) 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Available
5 online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/nsata99.html.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007) Email From Richard Daye, U.S. EPA Region 7, to
7 Zachary Pekar, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Re: MDNR - Re: Fw: Modeling input/output
8 files? April 26.
July 2007 D-20 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-l. Emission Parameters for Point Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
30001
40004
40005
50007
50008
50011
50012
50013
50014
50015
50016
50017
50018
60001
60002
60003
60004
60005
60006
60007
60008
Emission Point Description
Main stack - GEP stack height (167.67 is actual
stack ht)
Dross kettle heat stack
Dross kettle heat stack
New baghouse No. 8 stack (part of 2000 SIP)
New baghouse No. 9 stack (part of 2000 SIP)
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Strip mill heat stack
Strip mill heat stack
Strip mill baghouse
Low alpha baghouse
Strip mill vent
Strip mill vent
Strip mill vent
Strip mill vent
Hourly Emissions
or Emissions
Factor?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
UTMx
(m)
729534
729588
729587
729596
729596
729579
729579
729579
729579
729579
729579
729579
729579
729434
729475
729456
729477
729440
729450
729460
729470
UTMy
(m)
4237767
4237885
4237895
4237797
4237792
4237787
4237796
4237805
4237813
4237822
4237831
4237840
4237849
4237560
4237560
4237562
4237483
4237549
4237549
4237549
4237549
Elevation
(m)
131.98
130.76
130.76
131.06
131.06
131.06
131.06
131.06
131.06
130.76
130.76
130.76
130.76
129.24
130.76
130.76
128.02
129.24
129.24
130.76
130.76
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point
Point Emission Releases
Annual
Average
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Pb
4.17
8.58E-04
8.58E-04
4.31 E-02
0.297
1 .65E-03
1 .65E-03
1 .65E-03
1 .65E-03
1 .65E-03
1.65E-03
1 .65E-03
1 .65E-03
1.13E-04
1.13E-04
5.93E-06
1 .80E-03
1.17E-03
1.17E-03
1.17E-03
1.17E-03
Stack
Height (m)
100.75
21.3
21.3
30.48
30.48
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
21.3
21.3
7.6
6.1
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
Stack Gas Exit
Temperature
(K)
346.67
391.5
391.5
285.56
276.11
989.3
989.3
989.3
989.3
989.3
989.3
989.3
989.3
699.8
699.8
297
327.6
297
297
297
297
Stack Gas
Exit
Velocity
(mis)
5.81
0.69
0.69
7.13
34.57
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
2.73
2.73
7.7
17.5
5
5
5
5
Stack
Diameter
(m)
10.31
0.76
0.76
2.59
3.05
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.56
0.56
1.08
0.25
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
July 2007
D-21
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-2. Emission Parameters for Volume Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
10001A1
10001A2
10001B1
10001B2
20001 A
20001 B
20002
20003
20004
20004B
20004C
20005A
20005B
20005C
20005D
20005E
20005F
20006
20007
30002
30011
30012
30013
40006
50006
70001
70007
70009
Emission Point Description
New dump concentrate hopper (Part of 2000 SIP)
New dump concentrate storage (Part of 2000 SIP)
Load concentrate rail car
Dump concentrate and secondary unloader (new
location)
Load sinter railcar/dump sinter
Load sinter railcar/dump sinter
Sinter unloading (NE corner of sinter building)
Sinter loading/unloading (truck/rail) (at sinter
building)
Fume Loading
New Railcar fume unloading (Part of 2002 SIP-wet
vs dry loading)
New Railcar fume unloading (Part of 2002 SIP-wet
vs dry loading)
Sinter mix room
Sinter mix room
Sinter mix room
Sinter mix room
Sinter mix room
Sinter mix room
Sinter building fugitives
#3 Baghouse roof vents
Blast furnace
#5 Baghouse roof vent
#5 Baghouse roof vent
#5 Baghouse roof vent
New dross plant fugitives (part of 2000 SIP)
New refinery plant fugitives (part of 2000 SIP
w/install BH# 8&9)
Fugitive dross handling
Fugitive slag handling
Fugitive secondaries handling
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
yes - Hourly Factors
yes - Hourly Factors
yes - Hourly Factors
yes - Hourly Factors
No
No
No
No
No
yes - Hourly Factors
yes - Hourly Factors
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes - Hourly Emissions have
been averaged
Yes - Hourly Emissions have
been averaged
Yes - Hourly Emissions have
been averaged
UTM x (m)
729460
729520
729520
729547
729520
729560
729520
729550
729540
729544
729538
729519
729519
729519
729519
729519
729519
729546
729540
729583
729524
729524
729524
729578
729578
729636
729239
729492
UTMy
(m)
4237585
4237550
4237585
4238029
4237585
4237920
4237935
4237550
4237980
4237424
4237429
4237854
4237843
4237832
4237821
4237810
4237799
4237904
4237699
4237960
4238016
4237999
4237982
4237885
4237810
4238220
4237241
4237630
Elevation
(m)
131.06
129.54
129.84
132.59
129.84
131.98
132.89
128.63
133.2
125
125
132.28
132.28
132.28
132.28
131.98
131.98
131.98
131.37
131.37
133.2
133.2
133.2
130.76
131.06
128.32
118.57
130.45
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume Emission Releases
Annual
Average
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Pb
2.31 E-03
4.62E-03
7.62E-03
2.31E-03
3.02E-05
3.02E-05
3.02E-05
3.02E-05
2.41 E-04
1 .93E-03
7.23E-04
3.37E-04
3.37E-04
3.37E-04
3.37E-04
3.37E-04
3.37E-04
2.31E-03
3.72E-04
1 .40E-03
1 .93E-04
1 .93E-04
1 .93E-04
4.33E-03
3.17E-03
3.67E-04
4.63E-06
4.76E-05
Release
Height
above
ground-
level (m)
0.61
4.27
4.27
6.40
4.27
6.40
3.66
4.27
4.27
0.91
3.66
18.30
18.30
18.30
18.30
18.30
18.30
20.00
21.30
9.30
21.30
21.30
21.30
7.62
5.49
2.00
2.00
2.00
Lateral
Dimension
(m)
0.28
0.21
0.57
2.33
0.57
2.33
0.57
0.21
0.57
0.57
0.57
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
0.20
0.30
18.60
0.30
0.30
0.30
15.12
18.60
2.33
2.33
2.33
Vertical
Dimension
(m)
0.28
0.28
0.28
10.60
0.28
10.60
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.43
0.28
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
18.00
10.10
8.65
12.70
12.70
12.70
7.09
5.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
July 2007
D-22
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70002
70004
70006
70008A
70008B
70010
70100
70101
70102
70103
70104
70105
70106
70107
70108
70109
70110
70111
Emission Point Description
Fugitive dross wind erosion
Fugitive concentrate wind erosion
Fugitive sinter wind erosion
Fugitive slag storage wind erosion
Fugitive slag storage wind erosion
Fugitive secondaries wind erosion
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly emissions
have been averaged
Yes - hourly emissions
have been averaged
Yes - hourly emissions
have been averaged
Yes - hourly emissions
have been averaged
Yes - hourly emissions
have been averaged
Yes - hourly emissions
have been averaged
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
729620
729515
729537
728878
729150
729482
727276
727340
727415
727489
727547
727605
727669
727734
727788
727844
727906
727969
UTMy
(m)
4238201
4237391
4237395
4237050
4237150
4237609
4237113
4237103
4237101
4237110
4237113
4237116
4237116
4237106
4237103
4237110
4237110
4237110
Elevation
(m)
130.45
124.97
124.97
128
128
130.45
132.59
131.06
128.02
128.93
131.67
132.28
132.89
134.42
138.99
144.17
137.77
124.97
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
30.00
15.00
15.00
166.00
75.00
20.00
10.00
74.17
74.17
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
54.90
54.90
10.00
10.00
10.00
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
40.00
150.00
150.00
275.00
175.00
40.00
64.48
10.00
10.00
58.12
58.12
64.48
64.48
10.00
10.00
62.86
62.86
49.97
Angle
(' from N)
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.00
51.00
0.00
90.01
1.24
1.24
86.83
86.83
90.01
90.01
3.36
3.36
90.01
90.01
90.01
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-23
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70112
70113
70114
70115
70116
70117
70118
70119
70120
70121
70122
70150
70151
70152
70153
70154
70155
70156
70157
70158
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim
bridge) segment AB
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
728019
728069
728103
728106
728108
728109
728109
728132
728161
728187
728203
728209
728221
728233
728246
728258
728268
728278
728307
728340
UTMy
(m)
4237110
4237110
4237105
4237182
4237234
4237285
4237348
4237432
4237502
4237583
4237653
4237686
4237735
4237784
4237838
4237893
4237942
4237992
4238061
4238118
Elevation
(m)
124.66
124.36
125.58
128.63
130.45
134.72
135.94
132.89
130.15
131.67
128.63
128.63
134.42
130.45
130.45
128.63
125.88
124.97
124.05
122.22
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
49.97
38.69
77.39
51.57
51.57
61.21
86.75
76.58
84.57
72.68
32.85
50.46
50.46
55.89
55.89
49.99
49.99
74.83
65.31
65.31
Angle
(' from N)
90.01
90.01
2.39
1.79
1.79
0.00
15.08
22.26
17.76
12.81
11.32
13.69
13.69
12.66
12.66
11.57
11.57
22.77
29.64
29.64
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-24
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70159
70160
70161
70162
70163
70164
70165
70166
70167
70168
70169
70170
70171
70172
70173
70174
70175
70176
70177
70178
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
728372
728402
728432
728474
728499
728523
728545
728568
728592
728617
728648
728668
728679
728681
728676
728668
728646
728617
728621
728674
UTMy
(m)
4238175
4238230
4238286
4238370
4238414
4238458
4238506
4238554
4238599
4238643
4238700
4238749
4238790
4238963
4239030
4239120
4239176
4239239
4239236
4239229
Elevation
(m)
113.69
112.17
118.57
119.48
119.48
120.09
120.7
121.62
119.18
121.01
124.36
137.16
138.99
147.22
153.62
151.18
162.76
165.81
165.81
172.52
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
98.04
66.93
90.59
62.01
68.72
53.87
53.87
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
63.25
63.25
94.58
50.33
50.33
52.79
52.79
50.82
50.82
65.74
52.91
43.73
75.98
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Angle
(' from N)
28.39
28.39
26.58
29.14
29.14
24.96
24.96
28.83
28.83
28.32
22.26
14.75
5.05
87.40
86.18
84.36
68.95
65.08
7.11
7.11
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-25
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70179
70180
70181
70182
70183
70184
70185
70186
70187
70188
70189
70190
70191
70192
70193
70194
70195
70196
70197
70198
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
728727
728823
728877
728929
728992
729044
729095
729183
729232
729280
729320
729359
729420
729454
729487
729541
729585
729611
729620
729622
UTMy
(m)
4239222
4239204
4239197
4239189
4239169
4239161
4239153
4239134
4239112
4239092
4239059
4239026
4238959
4238919
4238879
4238814
4238766
4238717
4238642
4238568
Elevation
(m)
174.96
173.13
171.6
165.2
166.42
160.32
163.07
168.25
166.73
162.15
165.51
161.54
164.9
161.85
162.46
159.11
154.23
162.46
155.45
155.14
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
97.42
54.02
54.02
65.51
51.82
51.82
91.32
53.37
53.37
52.18
52.18
90.62
52.17
52.17
83.81
66.20
57.75
76.20
73.49
62.33
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Angle
(' from N)
10.53
8.29
8.29
17.80
8.64
8.64
12.67
23.34
23.34
39.78
39.78
47.47
50.17
50.17
50.37
47.70
62.43
83.29
88.26
90.00
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-26
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70199
70200
70201
70202
70203
70204
70205
70206
70207
70208
70209
70210
70211
70212
70213
70250
70251
70252
70300
70350
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to
plant entrance) segment BC
New area source input (plant entrance to NW
corner of Stip Mill Blding/SMB) segment CD
New area source input (plant entrance to NW
corner of Stip Mill Blding/SMB) segment CD
New area source input (plant entrance to NW
corner of Stip Mill Blding/SMB) segment CD
New area source input (NW corner of SMB to
cone, hopper) segment DE
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
729609
729585
729560
729538
729522
729495
729482
729464
729448
729437
729428
729413
729393
729377
729375
729367
729367
729393
729416
729461
UTMy
(m)
4238447
4238400
4238352
4238289
4238227
4238145
4238084
4238029
4237982
4237926
4237881
4237815
4237764
4237717
4237713
4237692
4237689
4237625
4237574
4237564
Elevation
(m)
156.67
149.66
147.52
145.08
145.39
142.34
140.51
141.43
141.43
135.33
133.81
133.81
133.2
132.59
132.59
132.28
132.28
130.76
129.24
130.76
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
68.70
51.46
46.05
23.47
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
61.78
53.76
53.76
66.19
64.25
86.59
61.57
58.43
49.28
56.75
45.40
68.57
54.98
49.28
5.45
21.62
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Angle
(' from N)
12.49
27.11
27.11
19.67
14.05
17.98
12.54
17.76
18.45
11.32
11.32
13.14
21.39
18.45
26.90
19.93
68.35
68.07
12.23
9.61
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-27
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70351
70352
70353
70354
70355
70356
70357
70358
70400
70401
70402
70403
70404
70405
70406
70450
70451
70452
70453
70454
Emission Point Description
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW
corner SMB) segment EF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
729482
729495
729497
729497
729493
729479
729459
729434
729411
729410
729405
729403
729404
729413
729423
729429
729438
729454
729471
729490
UTMy
(m)
4237561
4237555
4237493
4237493
4237439
4237432
4237425
4237423
4237555
4237532
4237505
4237485
4237482
4237461
4237431
4237416
4237394
4237366
4237343
4237318
Elevation
(m)
130.15
130.15
128.32
128.32
128.02
125.58
125.58
129.24
127.71
128.02
128.32
128.32
129.84
129.84
127.71
129.24
129.24
124.97
126.19
124.97
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
17.74
21.78
10.00
29.47
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
24.35
30.68
16.78
23.40
31.73
28.05
31.66
10.98
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
41.34
10.00
25.79
18.62
22.52
26.67
22.81
23.48
28.02
19.58
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Angle
(' from N)
32.45
77.98
3.78
89.12
10.13
55.95
71.22
83.72
2.40
2.87
9.32
5.32
65.80
71.02
68.49
68.39
59.02
55.52
51.96
51.69
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-28
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70500
70501
70502
70503
70504
70505
70506
70507
70508
70509
70510
70511
70512
70513
70550
70551
70552
70553
70600
70601
Emission Point Description
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
729587
729592
729593
729592
729589
729586
729583
729577
729569
729552
729540
729527
729514
729499
729479
729460
729451
729450
729611
729611
UTMy
(m)
4237602
4237573
4237528
4237505
4237478
4237453
4237425
4237400
4237384
4237366
4237351
4237337
4237323
4237316
4237311
4237298
4237280
4237278
4237950
4237950
Elevation
(m)
127.71
127.71
127.1
125.88
124.36
123.75
123.75
123.14
124.66
124.66
124.97
124.97
121.31
124.97
127.71
125.58
128.02
128.02
130.15
130.15
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
29.96
19.13
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
24.48
10.00
35.37
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
27.21
23.16
27.29
25.13
27.67
27.05
18.86
25.99
18.70
19.92
19.24
17.85
20.25
21.51
17.86
10.00
23.58
10.00
Angle
(' from N)
79.53
84.56
1.91
3.37
4.77
7.26
5.64
13.58
27.20
42.90
39.12
41.33
45.02
62.80
74.42
55.33
23.98
90.00
1.10
88.53
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-29
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70602
70603
70604
70605
70606
70607
70608
70609
70610
70611
70612
70650
70651
70652
70653
70654
70655
70656
70657
70658
Emission Point Description
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (north end of main building
to refinery dock unpaved) segment HL
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
729612
729611
729610
729606
729606
729606
729605
729603
729601
729598
729591
729512
729496
729493
729493
729493
729483
729473
729465
729465
UTMy
(m)
4237883
4237846
4237821
4237784
4237753
4237753
4237693
4237661
4237635
4237614
4237604
4237946
4237936
4237904
4237902
4237859
4237846
4237826
4237795
4237792
Elevation
(m)
128.93
128.93
128.63
128.93
129.24
129.24
127.71
125.27
127.71
127.71
127.71
132.89
133.81
133.5
132.89
132.59
132.59
133.2
132.89
132.89
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
24.48
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
21.01
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
17.22
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
31.74
37.18
24.97
37.80
29.92
10.00
35.82
32.69
25.94
21.09
14.00
17.32
16.15
28.36
10.00
26.79
18.66
21.02
31.49
10.00
Angle
(' from N)
0.82
0.70
3.12
5.51
0.87
90.00
1.45
3.18
5.02
8.66
29.07
82.58
56.33
1.51
73.48
12.88
36.89
27.49
13.72
72.34
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-30
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-3. Emission Parameters for Area Sources for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70659
70660
70661
70662
70663
70664
70665
70666
70667
70668
70669
70700
70701
70702
70703
Emission Point Description
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter
storage) segment IJ
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM
Hourly Emissions or
Emissions Factor?
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
Yes - hourly factors
UTMx
(m)
729470
729474
729480
729481
729480
729480
729482
729482
729488
729497
729511
729427
729386
729346
729322
UTMy
(m)
4237776
4237753
4237726
4237701
4237660
4237659
4237640
4237626
4237606
4237588
4237572
4237243
4237233
4237218
4237208
Elevation
(m)
132.59
132.28
132.28
131.67
131.37
131.37
130.45
130.45
130.45
130.45
130.15
122.53
127.71
128.02
128.02
Source Type
(Point, Area or
Volume)
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Release
Height (m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Length of x
Side of Area
(m)
23.56
28.24
24.63
20.90
10.00
19.45
13.43
19.37
19.36
20.08
11.66
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Length of y
Side of Area
(m)
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.94
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
29.75
43.12
42.69
25.49
Angle
(' from N)
79.04
77.79
88.26
87.95
4.09
85.60
90.00
74.35
62.43
47.99
39.78
61.04
75.53
69.94
65.68
Initial Vertical
Dimension of the
Area Source Plume
(m)
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
July 2007
D-31
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-4. Hourly Emissions Factors by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
10001A1
10001A2
10001B1
10001B2
20004B
20004C
70100
70101
70102
70103
70104
70105
70106
70107
70108
70109
70110
70111
70112
70113
70114
70115
70116
70117
70118
70119
70120
70121
70122
70150
70151
70152
70153
70154
70155
70156
70157
70158
70159
70160
70161
70162
70163
70164
70165
70166
70167
70168
70169
70170
70171
70172
70173
70174
Emissions Factor for Hour of Day
Hr1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Hr2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr7
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Hr8
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr9
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr13
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr14
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr15
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr16
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr18
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr21
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr22
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
July 2007
D-32
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-4. Hourly Emissions Factors by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70175
70176
70177
70178
70179
70180
70181
70182
70183
70184
70185
70186
70187
70188
70189
70190
70191
70192
70193
70194
70195
70196
70197
70198
70199
70200
70201
70202
70203
70204
70205
70206
70207
70208
70209
70210
70211
70212
70213
70250
70251
70252
70300
70350
70351
70352
70353
70354
70355
70356
70357
70358
70400
70401
Emissions Factor for Hour of Day
Hr1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Hr2
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr3
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr4
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr5
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr6
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr7
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Hr8
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr9
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr10
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr11
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr12
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr13
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr14
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr15
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr16
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr17
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr18
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr19
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr21
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr22
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr23
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr24
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
July 2007
D-33
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-4. Hourly Emissions Factors by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70402
70403
70404
70405
70406
70450
70451
70452
70453
70454
70500
70501
70502
70503
70504
70505
70506
70507
70508
70509
70510
70511
70512
70513
70550
70551
70552
70553
70600
70601
70602
70603
70604
70605
70606
70607
70608
70609
70610
70611
70612
70650
70651
70652
70653
70654
70655
70656
70657
70658
70659
70660
70661
70662
Emissions Factor for Hour of Day
Hr1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Hr2
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr3
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr4
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr5
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr6
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr7
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Hr8
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr9
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr10
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr11
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr12
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr13
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr14
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr15
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr16
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr17
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr18
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr19
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr21
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr22
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr23
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr24
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
July 2007
D-34
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-4. Hourly Emissions Factors by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70663
70664
70665
70666
70667
70668
70669
70700
70701
70702
70703
Emissions Factor for Hour of Day
Hr1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Hr2
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr3
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr4
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr5
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr6
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr7
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Hr8
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr9
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr10
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr11
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr12
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr13
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr14
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr15
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr16
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr17
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr18
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr19
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
Hr20
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Hr21
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.125
Hr22
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr23
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Hr24
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
July 2007
D-35
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
30001
40004
40005
50007
50008
50011
50012
50013
50014
50015
50016
50017
50018
60001
60002
60003
60004
60005
60006
60007
60008
10001A1
10001A2
10001B1
10001B2
20001 A
20001 B
20002
20003
20004
20004B
20004C
20005A
20005B
20005C
20005D
20005E
20005F
20006
20007
30002
30011
30012
30013
Emission Point Description
Main stack - GEP stack height (1 67.67 is actual
stack ht)
Dross kettle heat stack
Dross kettle heat stack
New baghouse No. 8 stack (part of 2000 SIP)
New baghouse No. 9 stack (part of 2000 SIP)
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Kettle setting heat stack
Strip mill heat stack
Strip mill heat stack
Strip mill baghouse
Low alpha baghouse
Strip mill vent
Strip mill vent
Strip mill vent
Strip mill vent
New dump concentrate hopper (Part of 2000 SIP) a
New dump concentrate storage (Part of 2000 SIP) a
Load concentrate rail car a
Dump concentrate and secondary unloader (new
location) 3
Load sinter railcar/dump sinter a
Load sinter railcar/dump sinter 3
Sinter unloading (NE corner of sinter building) 3
Sinter loading/unloading (truck/rail) (at sinter
building) "
Fume Loading a
New Railcar fume unloading (Part of 2002 SIP-wet
vs dry loading) a
New Railcar fume unloading (Part of 2002 SIP-wet
vs dry loading) 3
Sinter mix room 3
Sinter mix room 3
Sinter mix room 3
Sinter mix room 3
Sinter mix room a
Sinter mix room a
Sinter building fugitives a
#3 Baghouse roof vents '"
Blastfurnace a
#5 Baghouse roof vent a
#5 Baghouse roof vent a
#5 Baghouse roof vent 3
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bin2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bin3
0.11
0.17
0.17
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Bm4
0.10
0.19
0.19
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bin5
0.12
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Bin6
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
Bin?
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
-
-
-
-
-
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
BinS
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
4.77
4.76
4.76
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.80
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.72
4.77
4.77
4.77
4.77
BinS
7.24
6.98
6.98
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.04
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.12
7.24
7.24
7.24
7.24
Bm4
11.94
12.30
12.30
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.03
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.08
12.08
12.08
12.08
12.08
12.08
12.08
12.08
11.94
11.94
11.94
11.94
BinS
17.65
16.98
16.98
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.62
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.04
17.04
17.04
17.04
17.04
17.04
17.04
17.04
17.65
17.65
17.65
17.65
Bin6
24.08
23.58
23.58
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
23.93
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
23.97
23.97
23.97
23.97
23.97
23.97
23.97
23.97
24.08
24.08
24.08
24.08
Bin?
35.09
34.06
34.06
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.64
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
35.09
35.09
35.09
35.09
Bin8
40.99
45.01
45.01
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
42.76
-
-
-
-
44.21
44.21
44.21
44.21
44.21
44.21
44.21
44.21
40.99
40.99
40.99
40.99
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
Bin2
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
BinS
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
Bm4
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
BinS
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
Bin6
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
Bin?
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
-
-
-
-
-
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
BinS
4.99
5.72
5.72
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
4.99
4.99
4.99
4.99
July 2007
D-36
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
40006
50006
70001
70007
70009
70002
70004
70006
70008A
70008B
70010
70100
70101
70102
70103
70104
70105
70106
70107
70108
70109
70110
70111
70112
70113
70114
70115
70116
70117
Emission Point Description
New dross plant fugitives (part of 2000 SIP) a
New refinery plant fugitives (part of 2000 SIP
w/install BH# 8&9) "
Fugitive dross handling '"
Fugitive slag handling 3
Fugitive secondaries handling 'a
Fugitive dross wind erosion 3
Fugitive concentrate wind erosion 3
Fugitive sinter wind erosion '"
Fugitive slag storage wind erosion a
Fugitive slag storage wind erosion 3
Fugitive secondaries wind erosion '"
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin3
0.17
0.05
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bm4
0.19
0.08
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin5
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Bin6
0.20
0.33
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Bin?
0.27
0.19
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
0.00
0.22
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
4.76
4.80
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
6.98
7.04
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.30
12.03
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
16.98
17.62
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
23.58
23.93
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
34.06
33.64
Bin8
45.01
42.76
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
5.72
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
5.72
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
5.72
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
5.72
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
5.72
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
5.72
5.86
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
5.72
5.86
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
5.72
5.86
July 2 007
D-37
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70118
70119
70120
70121
70122
70150
70151
70152
70153
70154
70155
70156
70157
70158
70159
70160
70161
70162
70163
70164
70165
70166
70167
70168
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Hwy 55 to Joachim bridge)
segment AB 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC 3
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
-
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
July 2 007
D-38
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70169
70170
70171
70172
70173
70174
70175
70176
70177
70178
70179
70180
70181
70182
70183
70184
70185
70186
70187
70188
70189
70190
70191
70192
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
-
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
July 2007
D-39
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70193
70194
70195
70196
70197
70198
70199
70200
70201
70202
70203
70204
70205
70206
70207
70208
70209
70210
70211
70212
70213
70250
70251
70252
Emission Point Description
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (Joachim bridge exit to plant
entrance) segment BC a
New area source input (plant entrance to NW corner
of Slip Mill Blding/SMB) segment CD a
New area source input (plant entrance to NW corner
of Slip Mill Blding/SMB) segment CD a
New area source input (plant entrance to NW corner
of Slip Mill Blding/SMB) segment CD a
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
-
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
July 2007
D-40
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70300
70350
70351
70352
70353
70354
70355
70356
70357
70358
70400
70401
70402
70403
70404
70405
70406
70450
70451
70452
70453
70454
70500
70501
Emission Point Description
New area source input (NW corner of SMB to cone.
hopper) segment DE a
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB)segmentEFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (cone, hopper to SW corner
SMB) segment EFฐ
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (NW corner SMB to SW
corner of SMB ) segment DF a
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG "
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG a
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG a
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG a
New area source input (SW corner SMB to North
end of Slag Haul Road) segment FG a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
-
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
July 2007
D-41
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70502
70503
70504
70505
70506
Emission Point Description
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
Panic
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
e Density (g/cm3)
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
July 2007
D-42
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70507
70508
70509
70510
70511
70512
70513
70550
70551
70552
70553
70600
70601
70602
70603
70604
70605
70606
70607
70608
70609
70610
70611
70612
Emission Point Description
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (North end of Slag Haul
Road to refinery dock) segment GH a
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK a
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK a
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK a
New area source input (South Slag Haul Road
paved) segment GK a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
New area source input (north end of main building to
refinery dock unpaved) segment HL a
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
-
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
July 2007
D-43
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-5. Particle Size Inputs by Emission Point for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
70650
70651
70652
70653
70654
70655
70656
70657
70658
70659
70660
70661
70662
70663
70664
70665
70666
70667
70668
70669
70700
70701
70702
70703
Emission Point Description
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (sinter plant to sinter storage)
segment IJ 3
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM 3
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM 3
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM 3
New area source input (south Slag Haul Road
unpaved) segment KM 3
Mass Fraction
Bin1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Bin2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Bin3
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Bm4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Bin5
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Bin6
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
-
-
Particle Diameter (jjm)
Bin1
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
Bin2
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
BinS
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
Bm4
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
12.63
BinS
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
17.57
Bin6
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
25.25
Bin?
Bin8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Panic e Density (g/cm!)
Bin1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bm4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BinS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin6
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Bin?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BinS
3 Emission point description derived from MDNR (2007b).
July 2 007
D-44
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-6. Building Downwash Parameters for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
| 13 I 14 | 15 I 16 | 17 I 18 | 19 I 20 | 21 I 22 | 23 I 24 | 25 I 26 | 27 I 28 | 29 I
B ILEH T
EIIILE 1C
E ILD LEI I
44 44
44 c 4 4
44 c 4 4
44 c 4 4
44 c 4 4
44 1 C4 144
44 c 4 4
44 c 4 4
44 c 4 4
44 c 4 4
4 414 4
MILEH T
MILE IE
M ILDLEM
BAEJ
EAEJ
July 2007
D-45
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-6. Building Downwash Parameters for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
2! 1 24 | 25 1
July 2007
D-46
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006031
7009003
7008004
7006052
7006013
7001044
7010001
7008007
7006053
7009001
Children
Ages 0 to 7
737
254
197
187
176
164
145
141
139
120
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.032
0.027
0.089
0.015
0.153
0.017
0.019
0.057
0.031
0.046
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.013
0.010
0.036
6.0E-03
0.064
7.0E-03
8.0E-03
0.023
0.012
0.017
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
40
51
186
51
231
30
37
105
91
85
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
20
17
57
10
97
11
12
36
20
29
From
Other a
46
50
99
50
115
42
45
70
64
62
Total
66
67
156
60
213
53
57
106
84
91
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-47
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7008005
6015002
7008002
7009002
6012052
7007003
7007005
7008003
7007001
7006054
Children
Ages 0 to 7
104
95
92
86
79
77
74
72
70
63
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.066
0.134
0.062
0.045
0.093
0.083
0.034
0.047
0.054
0.047
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.027
0.056
0.025
0.017
0.039
0.034
0.014
0.019
0.022
0.018
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
132
282
100
91
107
195
73
83
111
139
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
42
85
39
29
60
53
22
30
35
30
From
Other a
79
134
68
65
70
102
58
62
72
82
Total
122
219
107
93
130
155
80
92
106
112
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-48
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006051
7008006
7007004
7002029
7006011
2001044
7002016
7002033
8001017
6014015
Children
Ages 0 to 7
62
58
49
46
45
34
29
23
22
15
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.031
0.057
0.065
0.133
0.100
0.026
0.095
0.122
0.059
0.189
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.012
0.023
0.026
0.054
0.042
0.010
0.039
0.050
0.024
0.079
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
55
112
146
222
185
44
354
245
120
277
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
20
36
41
85
64
17
61
78
38
121
From
Other a
51
72
84
112
99
47
160
120
75
132
Total
71
108
126
197
162
64
221
199
113
253
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-49
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014027
8001030
6014025
7002032
7002021
6012003
6015001
3001003
3001000
8001036
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.449
0.078
0.223
0.107
0.101
0.022
0.171
0.034
0.012
0.076
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.188
0.031
0.093
0.044
0.041
9.0E-03
0.072
0.013
5.0E-03
0.031
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
223
145
116
242
211
38
42
43
27
117
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1644
50
662
68
65
14
404
21
8
48
From
Other a
794
84
794
119
108
45
794
47
41
74
Total
2438
134
1456
187
173
59
1197
68
49
122
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-50
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012053
2001050
6015016
8001035
8001031
8001037
2001041
6012016
7002030
6012001
Children
Ages 0 to 7
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.090
0.019
0.238
0.071
0.068
0.063
0.013
0.026
0.116
0.031
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.038
7.0E-03
0.100
0.029
0.027
0.025
5.0E-03
0.011
0.047
0.013
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
97
32
105
119
144
113
28
42
205
43
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
57
12
736
45
44
40
8
17
74
20
From
Other a
67
43
794
75
84
72
42
46
106
47
Total
124
55
1529
120
127
113
50
63
180
67
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-51
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014051
6014044
6015017
7002028
6012021
6014039
6014046
6015012
6015019
6012051
2001058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.444
0.240
0.222
0.110
0.042
0.675
0.458
0.163
0.098
0.094
0.023
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.186
0.101
0.093
0.045
0.018
0.282
0.192
0.068
0.041
0.039
9.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
184
159
153
189
53
294
129
63
176
89
34
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1623
744
656
70
27
2497
1679
363
0
60
15
From
Other a
794
794
794
100
50
794
794
794
794
64
44
Total
2417
1538
1450
170
77
3291
2472
1156
794
123
59
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 Model
H6 Model
H6 Model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-52
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012013
8001006
8001049
8001045
7002031
6012014
2001029
2001015
3001065
2001023
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.028
0.038
0.088
0.084
0.110
0.024
0.016
0.010
0.012
6.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.012
0.015
0.035
0.034
0.045
0.010
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
42
87
585
376
237
39
38
26
28
20
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
18
25
56
54
70
16
10
7
8
4
From
Other a
46
63
244
168
117
45
45
41
42
39
Total
64
87
300
222
187
61
55
48
49
42
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-53
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002011
7002012
6014018
8001000
8001044
6012057
2001059
6012049
2001056
8001034
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.097
0.130
0.158
0.067
0.081
0.089
0.037
0.076
0.021
0.076
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.040
0.053
0.066
0.027
0.033
0.037
0.015
0.032
8.0E-03
0.030
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
556
519
400
461
373
124
36
84
35
112
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
62
83
101
43
52
57
24
49
13
48
From
Other a
234
220
177
199
167
76
44
62
44
72
Total
296
303
278
242
219
133
68
111
58
120
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model I
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-54
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001032
8001029
2001057
6012044
6012030
6012019
8001042
6012022
2001030
6014043
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.067
0.069
0.022
0.054
0.046
0.032
0.045
0.031
0.024
0.386
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.027
0.028
9.0E-03
0.022
0.019
0.014
0.018
0.013
9.0E-03
0.162
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
141
129
35
68
62
46
106
51
48
150
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
42
44
14
34
29
21
29
20
15
1387
From
Other a
83
78
44
56
54
48
70
50
49
794
Total
125
123
58
90
83
69
99
70
64
2181
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model I
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
July 2007
D-55
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014028
6015015
6014021
6015018
8001047
6012065
7002014
8001019
6012062
8001023
2001051
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.413
0.231
0.224
0.152
0.092
0.126
0.110
0.088
0.075
0.077
0.017
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.173
0.097
0.094
0.064
0.037
0.053
0.045
0.036
0.031
0.031
7.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
179
98
95
160
447
136
276
230
108
158
32
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1500
703
669
304
59
80
70
56
48
49
11
From
Other a
794
794
794
794
194
81
132
115
70
89
43
Total
2294
1496
1462
1097
252
161
202
171
118
138
54
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-56
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012041
2001060
6012005
6012006
3001017
3001055
6014042
6014052
6014032
6014033
6014049
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.046
0.019
0.024
0.024
0.042
0.010
0.740
0.283
0.669
0.708
0.333
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.019
8.0E-03
0.010
0.010
0.016
4.0E-03
0.310
0.118
0.280
0.296
0.139
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
60
37
38
38
87
24
129
216
162
162
167
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
30
12
15
15
27
6
2729
941
2476
2614
1162
From
Other a
53
45
45
45
63
40
794
794
794
794
794
Total
83
57
61
60
90
46
3523
1734
3270
3407
1955
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-57
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014029
6014050
6015013
6015011
7002006
7002009
6014006
7002017
6014007
3001019
2001066
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.380
0.274
0.173
0.137
0.128
0.099
0.154
0.126
0.160
0.102
0.028
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.159
0.115
0.072
0.057
0.052
0.040
0.065
0.051
0.067
0.040
0.011
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
135
171
53
123
703
958
153
323
200
169
41
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1360
903
414
225
82
63
98
80
102
65
18
From
Other a
794
794
794
794
287
380
87
149
104
93
46
Total
2154
1696
1208
1019
369
443
185
229
207
158
64
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-58
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002025
6012031
8001003
6012018
6012004
3001015
2001003
3001063
3001009
3001066
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.070
0.044
0.046
0.028
0.023
0.027
6.0E-03
0.014
0.027
0.013
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.028
0.018
0.019
0.012
0.010
0.010
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
0.011
5.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
179
60
109
43
38
70
17
30
60
30
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
44
28
30
18
15
17
4
9
17
8
From
Other a
97
53
71
47
45
57
37
42
53
42
Total
141
81
101
65
60
74
41
51
70
50
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-59
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Current NAAQS Scenario for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001104
2001101
2001022
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.023
0.023
7.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.0E-03
9.0E-03
3.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
56
58
22
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
15
15
5
From
Other a
52
52
39
Total
67
67
44
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
1 a "Other" refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air) and "recent air" refers to contributions
2 associated with outdoor ambient air.
O
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006031
7009003
Children
Ages 0 to 7
737
254
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.014
0.012
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
C*~ปil
Concentration
(pg/g)
40
51
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
9
8
From
Other a
46
50
Total
55
58
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-60
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7008004
7006052
7006013
7001044
7010001
7008007
7006053
7009001
7008005
6015002
Children
Ages 0 to 7
197
187
176
164
145
141
139
120
104
95
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.039
7.0E-03
0.067
8.0E-03
9.0E-03
0.025
0.014
0.020
0.029
0.059
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.016
3.0E-03
0.028
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
0.010
5.0E-03
8.0E-03
0.012
0.025
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
186
51
231
30
37
105
91
85
132
282
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
25
4
43
5
5
16
9
13
19
38
From
Other a
99
50
115
42
45
70
64
62
79
134
Total
124
54
158
47
50
86
73
75
98
172
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-61
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7008002
7009002
6012052
7007003
7007005
7008003
7007001
7006054
7006051
7008006
Children
Ages 0 to 7
92
86
79
77
74
72
70
63
62
58
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.027
0.020
0.041
0.037
0.015
0.021
0.024
0.021
0.014
0.025
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.011
7.0E-03
0.017
0.015
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
0.010
8.0E-03
5.0E-03
0.010
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
100
91
107
195
73
83
111
139
55
112
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
17
13
26
23
10
13
15
13
9
16
From
Other a
68
65
70
102
58
62
72
82
51
72
Total
85
77
96
126
68
75
87
95
60
88
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-62
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7007004
7002029
7006011
2001044
7002016
7002033
8001017
6014015
6014027
8001030
6014025
Children
Ages 0 to 7
49
46
45
34
29
23
22
15
14
14
13
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.029
0.059
0.044
0.012
0.042
0.054
0.026
0.083
0.198
0.034
0.098
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.012
0.024
0.018
5.0E-03
0.017
0.022
0.011
0.035
0.083
0.014
0.041
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
146
222
185
44
354
245
120
277
223
145
116
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
18
37
28
7
27
34
17
53
899
22
362
From
Other a
84
112
99
47
160
120
75
132
434
84
434
Total
103
149
127
54
187
155
92
185
1333
106
796
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
July 2007
D-63
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002032
7002021
6012003
6015001
3001003
3001000
8001036
6012053
2001050
6015016
8001035
Children
Ages 0 to 7
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.047
0.045
0.010
0.075
0.015
5.0E-03
0.033
0.040
8.0E-03
0.105
0.031
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.019
0.018
4.0E-03
0.032
6.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.013
0.017
3.0E-03
0.044
0.013
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
242
211
38
42
43
27
117
97
32
105
119
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
30
29
6
221
9
3
21
25
5
402
20
From
Other a
119
108
45
434
47
41
74
67
43
434
75
Total
149
137
51
654
56
45
95
92
48
836
95
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-64
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001031
8001037
2001041
6012016
7002030
6012001
6014051
6014044
6015017
7002028
6012021
Children
Ages 0 to 7
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.030
0.028
6.0E-03
0.012
0.051
0.014
0.195
0.106
0.098
0.049
0.019
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.012
0.011
2.0E-03
5.0E-03
0.021
6.0E-03
0.082
0.044
0.041
0.020
8.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
144
113
28
42
205
43
184
159
153
189
53
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
19
18
4
7
33
9
887
407
359
31
12
From
Other a
84
72
42
46
106
47
434
434
434
100
50
Total
103
90
45
54
139
56
1321
841
793
131
62
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-65
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014039
6014046
6015012
6015019
6012051
2001058
6012013
8001006
8001049
8001045
7002031
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.297
0.202
0.072
0.043
0.041
0.010
0.012
0.017
0.039
0.037
0.048
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.124
0.084
0.030
0.018
0.017
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
0.016
0.015
0.020
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
294
129
63
176
89
34
42
87
585
376
237
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1365
918
198
0
26
7
8
11
25
24
31
From
Other a
434
434
434
434
64
44
46
63
244
168
117
Total
1799
1352
632
434
90
50
54
74
269
192
148
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-66
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012014
2001029
2001015
3001065
2001023
7002011
7002012
6014018
8001000
8001044
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.011
7.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.0E-03
0.043
0.057
0.070
0.030
0.036
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.0E-03
0.017
0.023
0.029
0.012
0.014
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
39
38
26
28
20
556
519
400
461
373
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
7
4
3
3
2
27
37
45
19
23
From
Other a
45
45
41
42
39
234
220
177
199
167
Total
52
50
44
45
40
261
257
221
218
190
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-67
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012057
2001059
6012049
2001056
8001034
8001032
8001029
2001057
6012044
6012030
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.039
0.016
0.034
9.0E-03
0.033
0.029
0.030
9.0E-03
0.024
0.020
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.016
6.0E-03
0.014
4.0E-03
0.013
0.012
0.012
4.0e-03
0.010
9.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
124
36
84
35
112
141
129
35
68
62
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
25
10
21
6
21
19
19
6
15
13
From
Other a
76
44
62
44
72
83
78
44
56
54
Total
102
55
83
50
93
101
98
50
71
67
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-68
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012019
8001042
6012022
2001030
6014043
6014028
6015015
6014021
6015018
8001047
6012065
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.014
0.020
0.014
0.010
0.170
0.182
0.102
0.099
0.067
0.040
0.055
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
0.071
0.076
0.043
0.041
0.028
0.016
0.023
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
46
106
51
48
150
179
98
95
160
447
136
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
9
13
9
7
758
820
384
366
166
26
35
From
Other a
48
70
50
49
434
434
434
434
434
194
81
Total
57
83
59
55
1192
1254
818
799
600
220
116
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-69
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002014
8001019
6012062
8001023
2001051
6012041
2001060
6012005
6012006
3001017
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.048
0.039
0.033
0.034
8.0E-03
0.020
9.0E-03
0.011
0.010
0.018
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.020
0.016
0.014
0.014
3.0E-03
9.0E-03
3.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
7.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
276
230
108
158
32
60
37
38
38
87
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
31
25
21
22
5
13
5
7
7
12
From
Other a
132
115
70
89
43
53
45
45
45
63
Total
163
140
92
111
48
66
50
52
52
75
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-70
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
3001055
6014042
6014052
6014032
6014033
6014049
6014029
6014050
6015013
6015011
7002006
7002009
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-03
0.326
0.125
0.295
0.312
0.147
0.167
0.121
0.076
0.060
0.056
0.044
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.0E-03
0.136
0.052
0.123
0.130
0.061
0.070
0.051
0.032
0.025
0.023
0.018
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
24
129
216
162
162
167
135
171
53
123
703
958
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
3
1492
514
1354
1429
635
744
494
227
123
36
28
From
Other a
40
434
434
434
434
434
434
434
434
434
287
380
Total
43
1926
948
1788
1863
1069
1178
927
660
557
323
408
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-71
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014006
7002017
6014007
3001019
2001066
7002025
6012031
8001003
6012018
6012004
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.068
0.056
0.071
0.045
0.012
0.031
0.019
0.020
0.012
0.010
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.028
0.023
0.030
0.018
5.0E-03
0.012
8.0E-03
8.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
153
323
200
169
41
179
60
109
43
38
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
43
35
45
29
8
20
12
13
8
7
From
Other a
87
149
104
93
46
97
53
71
47
45
Total
130
184
149
122
54
116
66
84
55
52
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-72
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-8. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
3001015
2001003
3001063
3001009
3001066
2001104
2001101
2001022
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.012
3.0E-03
6.0E-03
0.012
6.0E-03
0.010
0.010
3.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
1E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
70
17
30
60
30
56
58
22
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
7
2
4
8
4
7
6
2
From
Other a
57
37
42
53
42
52
52
39
Total
64
39
46
61
46
58
59
41
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
1 a "Other" refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air) and "recent air" refers to contributions
2 associated with outdoor ambient air.
July 2007
D-73
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006031
7009003
7008004
7006052
7006013
7001044
7010001
7008007
7006053
7009001
Children
Ages 0 to 7
737
254
197
187
176
164
145
141
139
120
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-03
5E-03
0.016
3.0E-03
0.027
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
0.010
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.2E-03
1.8E-03
6.3E-03
1.0E-03
0.0112
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
4.1E-03
2.1E-03
3.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
40
51
186
51
231
30
37
105
91
85
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
4
3
10
2
17
2
2
6
4
5
From
Other a
46
50
99
50
115
42
45
70
64
62
Total
49
53
109
52
133
44
47
76
68
67
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-74
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7008005
6015002
7008002
7009002
6012052
7007003
7007005
7008003
7007001
7006054
Children
Ages 0 to 7
104
95
92
86
79
77
74
72
70
63
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.012
0.024
0.011
8.0E-03
0.016
0.015
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
0.010
8.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.7E-03
9.9E-03
4.4E-03
3.0E-03
6.9E-03
6.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.3E-03
3.9E-03
3.1E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
132
282
100
91
107
195
73
83
111
139
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
7
15
7
5
10
9
4
5
6
5
From
Other a
79
134
68
65
70
102
58
62
72
82
Total
87
149
75
70
81
112
62
67
78
87
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-75
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006051
7008006
7007004
7002029
7006011
2001044
7002016
7002033
8001017
6014015
6014027
Children
Ages 0 to 7
62
58
49
46
45
34
29
23
22
15
14
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-03
0.010
0.011
0.023
0.018
5.0E-03
0.017
0.022
0.010
0.033
0.079
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.1E-03
4.0E-03
4.7E-03
9.6E-03
7.4E-03
1.8E-03
6.8E-03
8.8E-03
4.2E-03
0.0139
0.0331
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
55
112
146
222
185
44
354
245
120
277
223
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
4
6
7
15
11
3
11
14
7
21
458
From
Other a
51
72
84
112
99
47
160
120
75
132
221
Total
55
78
92
127
110
50
171
134
82
154
679
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
July 2007
D-76
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001030
6014025
7002032
7002021
6012003
6015001
3001003
3001000
8001036
6012053
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.014
0.039
0.019
0.018
4.0E-03
0.030
6.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.013
0.016
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.5E-03
0.0164
7.7E-03
7.3E-03
1.6E-03
0.0126
2.3E-03
8.0E-04
5.4E-03
6.6E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
145
116
242
211
38
42
43
27
117
97
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
9
184
12
11
2
112
4
1
9
10
From
Other a
84
221
119
108
45
221
47
41
74
67
Total
93
405
131
119
48
333
51
43
82
77
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-77
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001050
6015016
8001035
8001031
8001037
2001041
6012016
7002030
6012001
6014051
6014044
Children
Ages 0 to 7
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0E-03
0.042
0.013
0.012
0.011
2.0E-OE
5.0E-03
0.020
6.0E-03
0.078
0.042
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.3E-03
0.0176
5.0E-03
4.8E-03
4.5E-03
9.0e-04
1.9E-03
8.3E-03
2.3E-03
0.0327
0.0177
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
32
105
119
144
113
28
42
205
43
184
159
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
2
205
8
8
7
1
3
13
4
452
207
From
Other a
43
221
75
84
72
42
46
106
47
221
221
Total
45
426
83
91
79
43
49
119
50
673
428
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-78
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6015017
7002028
6012021
6014039
6014046
6015012
6015019
6012051
2001058
6012013
8001006
Children
Ages 0 to 7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.039
0.019
7.0E-03
0.119
0.081
0.029
0.017
0.017
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
7.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.0163
7.9E-03
3.1E-03
0.0498
0.0338
0.0120
7.2E-03
6.9E-03
1.6E-03
2.1E-03
2.7E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
153
189
53
294
129
63
176
89
34
42
87
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
183
12
5
695
467
101
0
11
3
3
4
From
Other a
221
100
50
221
221
221
221
64
44
46
63
Total
404
112
55
916
688
322
221
74
46
50
67
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-79
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001049
8001045
7002031
6012014
2001029
2001015
3001065
2001023
7002011
7002012
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.015
0.015
0.019
4.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.0E-03
0.017
0.023
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.2E-03
6.0E-03
7.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.1E-03
7.0E-04
8.0E-04
4.0E-04
7.0E-03
9.3E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
585
376
237
39
38
26
28
20
556
519
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
10
9
12
3
2
1
1
1
11
15
From
Other a
244
168
117
45
45
41
42
39
234
220
Total
254
178
130
48
47
42
43
39
245
235
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-80
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014018
8001000
8001044
6012057
2001059
6012049
2001056
8001034
8001032
8001029
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.028
0.012
0.014
0.016
7.0E-03
0.013
4.0E-03
0.013
0.012
0.012
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.0117
4.8E-03
5.8E-03
6.6E-03
2.6E-03
5.6E-03
1.5E-03
5.4E-03
4.7E-03
4.9E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
400
461
373
124
36
84
35
112
141
129
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
18
8
9
10
4
9
2
9
7
8
From
Other a
177
199
167
76
44
62
44
72
83
78
Total
195
207
176
87
49
70
46
81
90
86
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-81
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001057
6012044
6012030
6012019
8001042
6012022
2001030
6014043
6014028
6015015
6014021
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-03
9.0E-03
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
6.0E-03
4.0E-03
0.068
0.073
0.041
0.040
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.5E-03
4.0E-03
3.4E-03
2.4E-03
3.2E-03
2.3E-03
1.6E-03
0.0285
0.0305
0.0171
0.0165
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
35
68
62
46
106
51
48
150
179
98
95
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
2
6
5
4
5
4
3
386
418
196
186
From
Other a
44
56
54
48
70
50
49
221
221
221
221
Total
47
62
59
52
75
54
51
607
639
417
407
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-82
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6015018
8001047
6012065
7002014
8001019
6012062
8001023
2001051
6012041
2001060
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.027
0.016
0.022
0.019
0.016
0.013
0.014
3.0E-03
8.0E-03
3.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.0112
6.5E-03
9.3E-03
7.9E-03
6.3E-03
5.5E-03
5.5E-03
1.2E-03
3.4E-03
1.4E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
160
447
136
276
230
108
158
32
60
37
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
85
10
14
12
10
8
9
2
5
2
From
Other a
221
194
81
132
115
70
89
43
53
45
Total
306
204
95
144
125
79
98
45
58
47
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-83
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012005
6012006
3001017
3001055
6014042
6014052
6014032
6014033
6014049
6014029
6014050
6015013
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
7.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.130
0.050
0.118
0.125
0.059
0.067
0.048
0.030
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-03
7.0E-04
0.0546
0.0208
0.0493
0.0522
0.0245
0.0280
0.0202
0.0128
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
38
38
87
24
129
216
162
162
167
135
171
53
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
3
3
5
1
760
262
689
728
323
379
251
115
From
Other a
45
45
63
40
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
221
Total
48
48
68
41
981
483
910
949
544
600
472
336
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-84
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6015011
7002006
7002009
6014006
7002017
6014007
3001019
2001066
7002025
6012031
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.024
0.023
0.017
0.027
0.022
0.028
0.018
5.0E-03
0.012
8.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.0101
9.2E-03
7.1E-03
0.0114
9.1E-03
0.0118
7.0E-03
2.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.2E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
123
703
958
153
323
200
169
41
179
60
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
63
14
11
17
14
18
12
3
8
5
From
Other a
221
287
380
87
149
104
93
46
97
53
Total
284
302
391
104
163
122
104
49
104
58
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-85
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001003
6012018
6012004
3001015
2001003
3001063
3001009
3001066
2001104
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.0E-03
5.0E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
1.0E-03
3.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
4.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.3E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-03
1.8E-03
4.0E-04
lOe-03
1.9E-03
9.0E-04
1.6E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
109
43
38
70
17
30
60
30
56
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
5
3
3
3
1
2
3
1
3
From
Other a
71
47
45
57
37
42
53
42
52
Total
76
50
48
60
38
44
56
44
54
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-86
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-9. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3 max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001101
2001022
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-03
1.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.6E-03
5.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
58
22
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
3
1
From
Other a
52
39
Total
55
40
Method of
Estimating Indoor
Dust Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
1 a "Other" refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air) and "recent air" refers to contributions
2 associated with outdoor ambient air.
July 2007
D-87
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006031
7009003
7008004
7006052
7006013
7001044
7010001
7008007
7006053
7009001
Children
Ages 0 to 7
737
254
197
187
176
164
145
141
139
120
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
3.9E-03
7.0E-04
6.7E-03
8.0E-04
9.0E-04
2.5E-03
1.4E-03
2.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-04
4.0E-04
1.6E-03
3.0E-04
2.8E-03
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
8.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
40
51
186
51
231
30
37
105
91
85
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
1
2
0
4
0
1
2
1
1
From
Other a
46
50
99
50
115
42
45
70
64
62
Total
47
51
102
50
120
43
45
71
65
63
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-88
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7008005
6015002
7008002
7009002
6012052
7007003
7007005
7008003
7007001
7006054
Children
Ages 0 to 7
104
95
92
86
79
77
74
72
70
63
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.9E-03
5.9E-03
2.7E-03
2.0E-03
4.1E-03
3.7E-03
1.5E-03
2.1E-03
2.4E-03
2.1E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.2E-03
2.5E-03
1.1E-03
7.0E-04
1.7E-03
1.5E-03
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
8.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
132
282
100
91
107
195
73
83
111
139
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
2
4
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
From
Other a
79
134
68
65
70
102
58
62
72
82
Total
81
138
70
66
73
105
59
63
73
83
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-89
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006051
7008006
7007004
7002029
7006011
2001044
7002016
7002033
8001017
6014015
6014027
Children
Ages 0 to 7
62
58
49
46
45
34
29
23
22
15
14
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.4E-03
2.5E-03
2.9E-03
5.9E-03
4.4E-03
1.2E-03
4.2E-03
5.4E-03
2.6E-03
8.3E-03
0.0198
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
2.4E-03
1.8E-03
5.0E-04
1.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.1E-03
3.5E-03
8.3E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
55
112
146
222
185
44
354
245
120
277
223
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
2
2
4
3
1
3
3
2
5
165
From
Other a
51
72
84
112
99
47
160
120
75
132
80
Total
52
74
86
116
101
48
163
124
77
138
245
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
July 2007
D-90
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001030
6014025
7002032
7002021
6012003
6015001
3001003
3001000
8001036
6012053
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.4E-03
9.8E-03
4.7E-03
4.5E-03
1.0E-03
7.5E-03
1.5E-03
5E-04
3.3E-03
4.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.4E-03
4.1E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
4.0E-04
3.2E-03
6.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.3E-03
1.7E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
145
116
242
211
38
42
43
27
117
97
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
2
66
3
3
1
40
1
0
2
3
From
Other a
84
80
119
108
45
80
47
41
74
67
Total
86
146
122
111
46
120
48
42
76
69
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-91
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001050
6015016
8001035
8001031
8001037
2001041
6012016
7002030
6012001
6014051
6014044
Children
Ages 0 to 7
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.0E-04
0.0105
3.1E-03
3.0E-03
2.8E-03
6.0E-04
1.2E-03
5.1E-03
1.4E-03
0.0195
0.0106
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0E-04
4.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
2.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.1E-03
6.0E-04
8.2E-03
4.4E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
32
105
119
144
113
28
42
205
43
184
159
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
74
2
2
2
0
1
3
1
163
75
From
Other a
43
80
75
84
72
42
46
106
47
80
80
Total
44
153
77
86
74
42
47
109
48
242
154
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-92
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6015017
7002028
6012021
6014039
6014046
6015012
6015019
6012051
2001058
6012013
8001006
Children
Ages 0 to 7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.8E-03
4.9E-03
1.9E-03
0.0297
0.0202
7.2E-03
4.3E-03
4.1E-03
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.7E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.1E-03
2.0E-03
8.0E-04
0.0124
8.4E-03
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
7.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
153
189
53
294
129
63
176
89
34
42
87
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
66
3
1
251
168
36
0
3
1
1
1
From
Other a
80
100
50
80
80
80
80
64
44
46
63
Total
145
103
52
330
248
116
80
66
44
47
64
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-93
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001049
8001045
7002031
6012014
2001029
2001015
3001065
2001023
7002011
7002012
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.9E-03
3.7E-03
4.8E-03
1.1E-03
7.0E-04
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.3E-03
5.7E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
4.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.0E-04
1.7E-03
2.3E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
585
376
237
39
38
26
28
20
556
519
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
2
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
4
From
Other a
244
168
117
45
45
41
42
39
234
220
Total
247
171
120
46
46
41
42
39
236
224
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-94
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014018
8001000
8001044
6012057
2001059
6012049
2001056
8001034
8001032
8001029
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.6E-03
3.9E-03
1.6E-03
3.4E-03
9.0E-04
3.3E-03
2.9E-03
3.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.9E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
6.0E-04
1.4E-03
4.0E-04
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
400
461
373
124
36
84
35
112
141
129
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
4
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
From
Other a
177
199
167
76
44
62
44
72
83
78
Total
181
201
169
79
45
64
45
74
85
80
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-95
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001057
6012044
6012030
6012019
8001042
6012022
2001030
6014043
6014028
6015015
6014021
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.0E-04
2.4E-03
2.0E-03
1.4E-03
2.0E-03
1.4E-03
1.0E-03
0.0170
0.0182
0.0102
9.9E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-04
1.0E-03
9.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
6.0E-04
4.0E-04
7.1E-03
7.6E-03
4.3E-03
4.1E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
35
68
62
46
106
51
48
150
179
98
95
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
139
150
70
67
From
Other a
44
56
54
48
70
50
49
80
80
80
80
Total
45
57
55
49
71
51
49
219
230
150
147
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-96
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6015018
8001047
6012065
7002014
8001019
6012062
8001023
2001051
6012041
2001060
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.7E-03
4.0E-03
5.5E-03
4.8E-03
3.9E-03
3.3E-03
3.4E-03
8.0E-04
2.0E-03
9.0E-04
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.8E-03
1.6E-03
2.3E-03
2.0E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
3.0E-04
9.0E-04
3.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
160
447
136
276
230
108
158
32
60
37
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
30
3
4
3
2
2
2
0
1
1
From
Other a
80
194
81
132
115
70
89
43
53
45
Total
110
196
84
135
117
73
91
44
54
45
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-97
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012005
6012006
3001017
3001055
6014042
6014052
6014032
6014033
6014049
6014029
6014050
6015013
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
1.8E-03
4.0E-04
0.0326
0.0125
0.0295
0.0312
0.0147
0.0167
0.0121
7.6E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
7.0E-04
2.0E-04
0.0136
5.2E-03
0.0123
0.0130
6.1E-03
7.0E-03
5.1E-03
3.2E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
38
38
87
24
129
216
162
162
167
135
171
53
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination sample in
block
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
1
1
0
274
94
248
262
117
136
91
42
From
Other a
45
45
63
40
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Total
46
46
64
40
353
174
328
342
196
216
170
121
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-98
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6015011
7002006
7002009
6014006
7002017
6014007
3001019
2001066
7002025
6012031
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-03
5.6E-03
4.4E-03
6.8E-03
5.6E-03
7.1E-03
4.5E-03
1.2E-03
3.1E-03
1.9E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
1.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.3E-03
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
5.0E-04
1.2E-03
8.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
123
703
958
153
323
200
169
41
179
60
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Re-contamination samples
nearby
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
23
4
3
4
4
5
3
1
2
1
From
Other a
80
287
380
87
149
104
93
46
97
53
Total
102
291
383
91
153
109
96
47
99
54
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
H6 model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-99
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001003
6012018
6012004
3001015
2001003
3001063
3001009
3001066
2001104
2001101
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
3.0E-04
6.0E-04
1.2E-03
6.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.0E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.0E-04
2.0E-04
5.0E-04
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
109
43
38
70
17
30
60
30
56
58
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
From
Other a
71
47
45
57
37
42
53
42
52
52
Total
72
48
46
57
38
43
54
43
52
53
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
Air+soil regression-
based model
July 2007
D-100
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-10. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m max-monthly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001022
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0E-04
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
22
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA
soil measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
0
From
Other a
39
Total
40
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-
based model
1 a "Other" refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air) and "recent air" refers to contributions
2 associated with outdoor ambient air.
July 2007
D-101
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006031
7009003
7008004
7006052
7006013
7001044
7010001
7008007
7006053
7009001
Children
Ages 0 to
7
737
254
197
187
176
164
145
141
139
120
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.0E-03
6.0E-03
0.019
3.0E-03
0.033
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
0.012
7.0E-03
0.01
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.7E-03
2.2E-03
7.8E-03
1.3E-03
0.0139
1.5E-03
1.6E-03
5.0E-03
2.6E-03
3.7E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
40
51
186
51
231
30
37
105
91
85
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
4
4
12
2
21
2
3
8
4
6
From
Other a
46
50
99
50
115
42
45
70
64
62
Total
50
54
111
52
137
45
47
77
69
68
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-102
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7008005
6015002
7008002
7009002
6012052
7007003
7007005
7008003
7007001
7006054
Children
Ages 0 to
7
104
95
92
86
79
77
74
72
70
63
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.014
0.029
0.013
0.01
0.02
0.018
7.0E-03
0.01
0.012
0.01
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.8E-03
0.0122
5.4E-03
3.6E-03
8.5E-03
7.3E-03
3.0E-03
4.1E-03
4.8E-03
3.9E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
132
282
100
91
107
195
73
83
111
139
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
9
19
9
6
13
11
5
7
8
7
From
Other a
79
134
68
65
70
102
58
62
72
82
Total
89
152
76
71
83
114
63
68
79
88
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-103
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7006051
7008006
7007004
7002029
7006011
2001044
7002016
7002033
8001017
6014015
6014027
Children
Ages 0 to
7
62
58
49
46
45
34
29
23
22
15
14
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.0E-03
0.012
0.014
0.029
0.022
6.0E-03
0.021
0.027
0.013
0.041
0.098
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.6E-03
5.0E-03
5.8E-03
0.0118
9.1E-03
2.3E-03
8.4E-03
0.0108
5.2E-03
0.0172
0.0409
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
55
112
146
222
185
44
354
245
120
277
223
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in block
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
4
8
9
18
14
4
13
17
8
26
534
From
Other a
51
72
84
112
99
47
160
120
75
132
258
Total
56
80
93
130
112
51
173
137
83
158
792
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
July 2007
D-104
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001030
6014025
7002032
7002021
6012003
6015001
3001003
3001000
8001036
6012053
Children
Ages 0 to
7
14
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.017
0.048
0.023
0.022
5.0E-03
0.037
7.0E-03
3.0E-03
0.017
0.02
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.8E-03
0.0203
9.5E-03
9.0E-03
2.0E-03
0.0156
2.8E-03
1.0E-03
6.6E-03
8.2E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
145
116
242
211
38
42
43
27
117
97
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples nearby
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in block
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
11
215
15
14
3
131
5
2
11
12
From
Other a
84
258
119
108
45
258
47
41
74
67
Total
95
473
134
122
48
389
51
43
84
79
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
H6 Model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-105
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001050
6015016
8001035
8001031
8001037
2001041
6012016
7002030
6012001
6014051
6014044
6015017
Children
Ages 0 to
7
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.0E-03
0.052
0.015
0.015
0.014
3.0E-03
6.0E-03
0.025
7.0E-03
0.096
0.052
0.048
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.6E-03
0.0217
6.2E-03
6.0E-03
5.5E-03
1.1E-03
2.4E-03
0.0103
2.8E-03
0.0404
0.0219
0.0202
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
32
105
119
144
113
28
42
205
43
184
159
153
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in block
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination sample in block
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
3
239
10
9
9
2
4
16
4
528
242
213
From
Other a
43
258
75
84
72
42
46
106
47
258
258
258
Total
46
497
85
93
81
43
50
122
51
785
500
471
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
July 2007
D-106
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002028
6012021
6014039
6014046
6015012
6015019
6012051
2001058
6012013
8001006
8001049
8001045
Children
Ages 0 to
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.024
9.0E-03
0.147
0.10
0.035
0.021
0.02
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
8.0E-03
0.019
0.018
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.8E-03
3.8E-03
0.0614
0.0416
0.0148
8.9E-03
8.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.4E-03
7.7E-03
7.4E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
189
53
294
129
63
176
89
34
42
87
585
376
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination sample in block
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
15
6
812
546
118
0
13
3
4
5
12
12
From
Other a
100
50
258
258
258
258
64
44
46
63
244
168
Total
115
56
1070
804
376
258
77
47
50
68
256
180
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-107
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002031
6012014
2001029
2001015
3001065
2001023
7002011
7002012
6014018
8001000
Children
Ages 0 to
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.024
5.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.0E-03
0.021
0.028
0.034
0.015
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.7E-03
2.2E-03
1.4E-03
9.0E-04
1.0E-03
5.0E-04
8.6E-03
0.0115
0.0144
5.9E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
237
39
38
26
28
20
556
519
400
461
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
15
3
2
1
2
1
13
18
22
9
From
Other a
117
45
45
41
42
39
234
220
177
199
Total
133
49
48
42
43
39
247
238
199
208
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-108
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
8001044
6012057
2001059
6012049
2001056
8001034
8001032
8001029
2001057
6012044
Children
Ages 0 to
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.018
0.019
8.0E-03
0.017
5.0E-03
0.016
0.014
0.015
5.0E-03
0.012
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.1E-03
8.1E-03
3.2E-03
6.9E-03
1.8E-03
6.6E-03
5.8E-03
6.1E-02
1.9E-03
4.9E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
373
124
36
84
35
112
141
129
35
68
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
11
12
5
11
3
11
9
10
3
7
From
Other a
167
76
44
62
44
72
83
78
44
56
Total
178
89
50
72
47
83
92
88
47
63
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-109
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6012030
6012019
8001042
6012022
2001030
6014043
6014028
6015015
6014021
6015018
8001047
6012065
Children
Ages 0 to
7
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.01
7.0E-03
0.01
7.0E-03
5.0E-03
0.084
0.09
0.05
0.049
0.033
0.02
0.027
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.2E-03
2.9E-03
3.9E-03
2.9E-03
2.0E-03
0.0351
0.0376
0.0211
0.0204
0.0138
8.0E-03
0.0115
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
62
46
106
51
48
150
179
98
95
160
447
136
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination samples nearby
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
6
4
6
4
3
451
488
228
217
99
13
17
From
Other a
54
48
70
50
49
258
258
258
258
258
194
81
Total
60
53
76
54
52
709
746
486
475
357
207
98
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-110
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
7002014
8001019
6012062
8001023
2001051
6012041
2001060
6012005
6012006
3001017
Children
Ages 0 to
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.024
0.019
0.016
0.017
4.0E-03
0.01
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
9.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.7E-03
7.7E-03
6.8E-03
6.8E-03
1.5E-03
4.2E-03
1.7E-03
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
3.5E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
276
230
108
158
32
60
37
38
38
87
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
15
12
10
11
2
6
3
3
3
6
From
Other a
132
115
70
89
43
53
45
45
45
63
Total
147
127
81
100
46
59
48
49
48
69
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-lll
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
3001055
6014042
6014052
6014032
6014033
6014049
6014029
6014050
6015013
6015011
7002006
7002009
6014006
7002017
Children
Ages 0 to
7
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.0E-03
0.161
0.061
0.145
0.154
0.072
0.083
0.06
0.038
0.03
0.028
0.022
0.034
0.027
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.0E-04
0.0674
0.0257
0.0609
0.0644
0.0303
0.0345
0.025
0.0157
0.0125
0.0113
8.8E-03
0.014
0.0112
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
24
129
216
162
162
167
135
171
53
123
703
958
153
323
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination sample in block
Re-contamination samples nearby
Re-contamination samples nearby
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
1
887
306
805
850
378
442
293
135
73
18
14
21
17
From
Other a
40
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
287
380
87
149
Total
41
1145
564
1063
1108
635
700
551
393
331
305
394
108
166
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
H6 model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-112
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
6014007
3001019
2001066
7002025
6012031
8001003
6012018
6012004
3001015
2001003
Children
Ages 0 to
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.035
0.022
6.0E-03
0.015
0.01
0.01
6.0E-03
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
1.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.0146
8.7E-03
2.4E-03
6.2E-03
4.0E-03
4.1E-03
2.5E-03
2.1E-03
2.2E-03
5.0E-03
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
200
169
41
179
60
109
43
38
70
17
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
22
14
4
10
6
6
4
3
4
1
From
Other a
104
93
46
97
53
71
47
45
57
37
Total
126
107
50
106
59
78
51
48
60
38
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
July 2007
D-113
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment D-ll. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m max-quarterly) Scenario
for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
3001063
3001009
3001066
2001104
2001101
2001022
Children
Ages 0 to
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
Average Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0E-03
6.0E-03
3.0E-03
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.0E-03
Annual
Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.2E-03
2.3E-03
1.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
6.0E-04
Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
30
60
30
56
58
22
Method of Estimating Soil
Concentrations
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Regression equation from EPA soil
measurements vs. distance
Predicted Indoor Dust
Concentrations (pg/g)
From
Recent
Air
2
4
2
3
3
1
From
Other a
42
53
42
52
52
39
Total
44
57
44
55
55
40
Method of Estimating
Indoor Dust
Concentrations
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
Air+soil regression-based
model
1 a "Other" refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air) and "recent air" refers to contributions
2 associated with outdoor ambient air.
July 2007
D-114
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix E: Media Concentrations for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents E-i
List of Exhibits E-ii
List of Attachments E-iii
E. MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY PB SMELTER CASE
STUDY E-l
E.I. SPATIAL TEMPLATE E-2
E.2. AIR E-6
E.2.1. Air Dispersion Modeling E-6
E.2.2. Air Concentration and Total Deposition Results E-7
E.2.3. Inhalation Exposure Concentrations E-10
E.2.4. Air Modeling Performance Assessment E-12
E.3. OUTDOOR SURFACE SOIL/DUST E-17
E.4. INDOOR DUST E-19
REFERENCES E-22
July 2007 E-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit E-1. Ratios of the Maximum-to-Mean Block-level Annual Average E-4
Exhibit E-2. Spatial Template for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study (Including
U.S. Census Blocks with Children under the Age of Seven) E-5
Exhibit E-3. Annual Average Air Concentrations for the Secondary Pb Smelter
Case Study E-8
Exhibit E-4. Annual Average Total Deposition of Pb across the Study Area for the
Current Conditions Scenario E-8
Exhibit E-5. Annual Average Air Concentration Isopleths for the Current
Conditions Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-9
Exhibit E-6. Ratios of Inhalation Exposure Concentrations to Ambient Air
Concentrations from the NAT A National-scale Air Toxics Assessment E-10
Exhibit E-7. Annual Average Inhalation Exposure Concentrations for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-ll
Exhibit E-8. Modeled Annual Average Air Pb Concentrations Compared to Monitored
Annual Average Air Pb Concentrations E-13
Exhibit E-9. Wind Rose of Meteorological Data Used for Secondary Pb Smelter
Case Study (Direction from which Wind is Blowing) E-14
Exhibit E-10. Air Monitor Locations near the Secondary Pb Smelter E-15
Exhibit E-ll. Pb Deposition Fluxes from Studies in the United States E-17
Exhibit E-12. Summary of Soil Pb Concentration Factors with Distance E-19
Exhibit E-13. Summary of Surface Soil Pb Concentrations for the Current Conditions
Scenario E-19
Exhibit E-14. Number of U.S. Census Blocks and Number of Children Ages 0 to 7
Residing in Areas Associated with Different Estimates of Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations E-20
Exhibit E-15. Annual Average Indoor Dust Pb Exposure Concentrations for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-21
July 2007 E-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment E-l. Emission Parameters for All Sources for the Secondary Pb
Smelter Case Study E-25
Attachment E-2. Building Downwash Parameters for the Secondary Pb Smelter
Case Study E-26
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario
for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-27
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 |ig/m3
Max-Monthly) Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-39
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 |ig/m3
Max-Monthly) Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-50
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 |ig/m3
Max-Monthly) Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-61
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 |ig/m3
Max-Quarterly) Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-72
Attachment E-8. Comparison of Monitored to Modeled Air Concentrations for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study E-83
Attachment E-9. Input Parameters for Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study Soil Model
Calculations E-84
July 2007 E-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
1 E. MEDIA CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE SECONDARY PB SMELTER
2 CASE STUDY
3 This appendix discusses methods, results, limitations, and uncertainties associated with
4 the estimation of environmental media concentrations for the secondary lead (Pb) smelter case
5 study included in the human exposure and health risk assessments. These media concentrations
6 were estimated using a combination of modeling approaches and the estimated concentrations for
7 the current conditions scenario were compared to available measurement data to evaluate the
8 performance of the approaches. Estimates presented in this appendix are specified with regard to
9 number of decimal places, which results in various numbers of implied significant figures. This
10 is not intended to convey greater precision for some estimates than others; it is simply an
11 expedient and initial result of the software used for the calculation. Greater attention is given to
12 significant figures in the presentation of estimates in the main body of the report.
13 For this analysis, five air quality scenarios were evaluated, including current conditions,
14 in which the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is attained and
15 four possible alternative NAAQS, as described below:
16 Attainment of air concentration of 0.2 |ig/m3, based on a maximum calendar quarter
17 averaging period;
18 Attainment of air concentration of 0.5 |ig/m3, based on a maximum monthly averaging
19 period;
20 Attainment of air concentration of 0.2 |ig/m3, based on a maximum monthly averaging
21 period; and
22 Attainment of air concentration of 0.05 |ig/m3, based on a maximum monthly averaging
23 period.
24
25 This analysis focused on three primary environmental media and their exposure
26 concentrations: ambient air, indoor dust, and outdoor surface soil/dust. Estimated inhalation and
27 indoor dust exposure concentrations differed for the five air quality scenarios because they each
28 were based, at least in part, on the estimated ambient air concentrations, which varied across
29 scenarios. The outdoor surface soil/dust exposure concentrations estimated for the current
30 conditions scenario were also used for the alternative NAAQS scenarios (i.e., it was assumed
31 that reductions in ambient air concentrations associated with the alternative NAAQS scenarios
July 2007 E-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 did not have a significant impact on soil concentrations).1 The approaches used and the
2 estimated exposure concentrations for air, outdoor soil, and indoor dust are described in the
3 remainder of this appendix.
4 E.I. SPATIAL TEMPLATE
5 The study area extent was defined using geographic information system (GIS) software to
6 identify U.S. Census block groups that fall predominantly within 10 kilometers (km) of the
7 facility; 12 U.S. Census block groups were identified. Because of the irregular shape of U.S.
8 Census block groups, not all of the U.S. Census block groups with area within 10 km were
9 included, and some that were included have area outside 10 km. Block groups falling along the
10 10 km radius from the source were generally included if most of their area fell within the radius.
11 Model receptors were placed at all U.S. Census block centroids within the 12 U.S. Census block
12 groups of interest. This resulted in 665 U.S. Census block centroid points being modeled. The
13 U.S. Census blocks with no children under age seven were included in the modeling simulations
14 to aid in understanding the patterns of air concentrations in the study area. These locations were
15 not included in this assessment and are not included in exhibits summarizing modeling results
16 (with the exception of isopleths diagrams), because this assessment focuses on the health risk for
17 Pb in children under age seven. The remaining 298 U.S. Census blocks with children under the
18 age of seven as of the 2000 U.S. Census were included in the exposure assessment and are the
19 basis for all of the exhibits (with the exception of isopleths diagrams) in this appendix.
1 Derivation of the outdoor surface soil/dust estimates for the current conditions scenario is further
discussed in Section E.3.
July 2007 E-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The spatial template for this case study was developed in the pilot assessment and
2 includes all U.S. Census blocks within the extent of the study area. As was done for the primary
3 Pb smelter case study, an analysis was performed to investigate whether it would be appropriate
4 to reduce the number of individual locations within the template to gain modeling efficiency by
5 replacing some sets of individual blocks with the corresponding block group. This analysis
6 involved comparing the maximum U.S. Census block level modeled air concentration to the
7 mean annual average air concentration for the U.S. Census block group to identify occurrences
8 where this difference was less than a factor of two, and the U.S. Census block group might be
9 substituted for the individual U.S. Census blocks. For this case study, although five U.S. Census
10 block groups had maximum-to-average ratios less than 2.0, the individual U.S. Census blocks
11 within these five U.S. Census block groups were included in the spatial template because of the
12 small size of the U.S. Census block groups and their proximity to the facility (see Exhibit E-l).
13 That is, based on the analysis performed for the pilot assessment, the spatial template for this
14 assessment also included all individual U.S. Census blocks within the study area (see Exhibit E-
15 2).
16 In addition, two air Pb-TSP monitors from the U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
17 database were identified between 400 and 700 meters (m) of the facility (USEPA, 2007). The
18 locations of these two monitors were modeled as discrete receptors and the results at these
19 locations were used to directly compare estimated concentrations from the current conditions
20 scenario modeling to the available monitoring data.
July 2007 E-3 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit E-l. Ratios of the Maximum-to-Mean Block-level Annual Average
Air Concentrations in each Block Group
Mam Slacks a Secondary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter Asa
ocfc Gro up. fyfcx. to Mean /snnual A-<ฃ . Air Cone. Rat o < 2.0
ock Gro up, Max. to Mean Annual Atg . Ar Cone. Rati o > 2.0
Ratio of maximum-to-mean block-lexel annual average air
concentrations in each block group from the pilot analysis
Meters
July 2007
E-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit E-2. Spatial Template for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study (Including U.S.
2 Census Blocks with Children under the Age of Seven)
fi
Main Stack at Secondary
Pb Smelter
N
A
2,500
5,000
10,000 Meters
July 2007
E-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 E.2. AIR
2 The air concentrations and total (dry + wet) deposition fluxes of Pb for the secondary Pb
3 smelter case study were modeled using the AERMOD 07026 air dispersion model, and the air
4 concentrations were compared to the air concentrations from nearby monitors (USEPA, 2004;
5 2004). The emissions used for the air quality modeling are described in Appendix B.
6 E.2.1. Air Dispersion Modeling
7 The meteorological data used for the AERMOD air dispersion model includes five
8 consecutive years (1998 to 2002) of nearby measurements. Surface-level and upper air
9 meteorological data were obtained for weather stations located in Montgomery, Alabama, and
10 Centerville, Alabama (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997; 1997),
11 respectively, and processed using the meteorological pre-processor, AERMET 06341 (USEPA,
12 2002). These stations represent locations close in proximity and geography to Troy, Alabama,
13 and for which five consecutive years of surface and upper air meteorological data were available.
14 Obtaining five consecutive years of weather observations for use in AERMOD was desirable
15 because it allowed for the natural variability in weather conditions to be captured in the air
16 modeling.
17 All five years of meteorological data (1998 to 2002) were simulated individually using
18 AERMOD with the same emissions. There were no modeled differences in emissions between
19 the different simulation years because the available emissions data were not necessarily
20 representative of any particular year. Instead, they were compiled to represent current
21 conditions, given the available emissions data. The estimates for process emissions for the
22 secondary Pb smelter analyzed in this assessment were calculated from Pb emissions measured
23 during stack tests performed in 2005 and 2006 (URS Corporation, 2005; 2005; 2006). Fugitive
24 emissions for four fugitive sources (associated with the smelter building, materials handling,
25 loader traffic, and truck traffic) were estimated based on 1987 Prevention of Significant
26 Deterioration (PSD) data (URS Corporation, 2006), which were the most recent available data on
27 fugitive emissions from the facility. Due to the relatively flat terrain in the study area, terrain
28 calculations were not included in this application. All of the inputs for these modeling
29 simulations are provided in Attachments E-l and E-2. Monthly average air concentrations and
30 total deposition fluxes for each simulation year and receptor location (i.e., U.S. Census blocks
31 and monitor locations) were output from the air dispersion model at each receptor (i.e., U.S.
32 Census block) and monitor location, as described in Section E. 1.
July 2007 E-6 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 E.2.2. Air Concentration and Total Deposition Results
2 The monthly average air concentration model results for the current conditions scenario
3 were calculated at the centroid of each U. S. Census block and monitor receptor point as
4 described in Section E.2.1. The concentrations were also averaged quarterly and compared to
5 the current NAAQS (1.5 |ig/m3) to confirm that the estimated air concentrations for this current
6 conditions scenario were at or below the current NAAQS. This comparison indicated that none
7 of the U.S. Census block-level air concentrations exceeded the current NAAQS. The monthly
8 averages were then averaged over each year of the modeling period to generate annual averages.
9 To take into account variations in meteorological data, the annual average concentrations and
10 total depositions for each of the five years were averaged to generate one set of representative
11 annual average concentration estimates for the current conditions scenario.
12 Monthly and quarterly averages were also compared to four alternative NAAQS
13 scenarios including: monthly maximum NAAQS scenarios of 0.5 |ig/m3, 0.2 |ig/m3, and
14 0.05 |ig/m3; and one quarterly maximum NAAQS scenario of 0.2 |ig/m3. For these alternative
15 scenarios there were several modeled U.S. Census blocks which did not meet the alternative
16 NAAQS, in which case a ratio was developed from the maximum monthly or quarterly averaged
17 value and the alternative NAAQS level. This roll-back factor was then applied to scale down the
18 concentrations at each of the locations and a new combined annual average was calculated from
19 the scaled data set (i.e., a proportional rollback of all modeled locations was implemented).
20 Attachments E-3 to E-7 present the annual average air Pb concentration estimates for the
21 298 U.S. Census blocks with at least one child under seven years of age for all scenarios.
22 Exhibit E-3 presents a summary of these data for the 298 U.S. Census blocks with at least one
23 child under seven years of age for the current conditions scenario and the four alternative
24 NAAQS scenarios.
July 2007 E-7 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit E-3. Annual Average Air Concentrations for the Secondary Pb
Smelter Case Study
Statistic b
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Annual Average Pb Air Concentration (jig/m3) a
Current
Conditions
0.1
0.02
3.3E-03
5.2E-04
2.7E-04
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 (jg/m3.
Max Quarterly
0.03
4.1E-03
8.8E-04
1.4E-04
7.2E-05
2
0.5 (jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.07
8.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.9E-04
1.5E-04
3
0.2 (jg/m3.
Max Monthly
0.03
3.4E-03
7.3E-04
1.2E-04
6.0E-05
4
0.05 (jg/m3.
Max Monthly
7.1E-03
8.6E-04
1.8E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
3
4
5
6
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a The 298 U.S. Census blocks with children under the age of seven selected for analysis were used to create
this summary.
b The statistic (e.g., 95th percentile, median) may not be at the same location for each of the data results
presented here.
As described in Section E.2.1, wet and dry Pb deposition was also modeled and a
summary of the total deposition flux estimates are presented in Exhibit E-4.
Exhibit E-4. Annual Average Total Deposition of Pb across the
Study Area for the Current Conditions Scenario
Statistic a
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Annual Average Total Deposition of Pb
(g/m2/year)
0.05
5.4E-03
1.0E-03
1.3E-04
3.8E-05
a The statistic (e.g., 95 percentile, median) may not be at the same location for
each of the data results presented here.
Exhibit E-5 shows the isopleths of the U.S. Census block-level modeled annual average
air concentration results for the current conditions scenario.
July 2007
E-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit E-5. Annual Average Air Concentration Isopleths for the Current Conditions
2 Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Legend
Main Slack at Secondary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter Area
Modeled Air Concentration (ug/m3)
0.0003 0.01 -J 0.3
0.001 0,03 1.0
0.003 =ซ.= 0.1 3-0
N
A
2,500
i I
5,000
I
Meters
July 2007
E-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
E.2.3. Inhalation Exposure Concentrations
Inhalation exposure concentrations of Pb were estimated for the population of interest
(young children) from the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations using age group-
and location-specific relationships for Pb developed from modeling performed for the U.S. EPA
1999 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (USEPA, 2006), one of the U.S. EPA's National Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA) activities. These relationships account for air concentration
differences indoors and outdoors, as well as for mobility or time spent in different locations (e.g.,
outdoors at home, inside at home) for the population of interest.
The NATA national-scale assessment produced air concentrations of Pb (and other
hazardous air pollutants [HAPs]) for each U.S. Census tract (using the Assessment System for
Population Exposure Nationwide model [ASPEN]), and corresponding exposure concentrations
of Pb for each of five age groups at each U.S. Census tract (using the Hazardous Air Pollutant
Exposure Model [HAPEM]). The relationships (or ratios) between the Pb inhalation exposure
concentrations and the ambient Pb air concentrations from the NATA national-scale assessment
for the 0 to 4 age group (the closest age group to the age group of interest for this assessment for
which ASPEN and HAPEM outputs were available) ranged from 0.44 to 0.46 for the U.S.
Census tracts in the study area for the secondary Pb smelter case study. The ratios are presented
in Exhibit E-6. It was assumed that these U.S. Census tract-specific ratios provided a reasonable
approximation of the ratios for the U.S. Census blocks and block groups contained within each
tract.
The resulting inhalation exposure estimates for each scenario and U.S. Census block with
at least one child under the age of seven are provided in Attachments E-3 to E-7.
Exhibit E-6. Ratios of Inhalation Exposure Concentrations to Ambient
Air Concentrations from the NATA National-scale Air Toxics Assessment
u
S. Census Tract ID
01109988900
01109989100
01109989200
01109989000
Ratio of Inhalation Exposure Concentration:
Ambient Air Concentration
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.44
Use of ratios for the 0 to 4 age group (rather than for 0 to 7) contributes some uncertainty
in the estimate of children's inhalation exposure concentrations. In addition, there is some
uncertainty in the magnitude of the air concentrations generated using the ASPEN model for the
NATA national-scale assessment (USEPA, 2006). In a comparison to monitoring data across the
country, the ASPEN-modeled air concentrations generally underestimated monitored
July 2007
E-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
concentrations (USEPA, 2006; Section on Comparison to Monitored Values). However, the
relationship between ambient air concentrations and inhalation exposure concentrations (i.e., the
comparison used here) is not expected to be affected by underestimated ambient air
concentrations from the NATA national-scale assessment (see Exhibit E-7). In addition, some of
the exposure modeling inputs used in the NATA simulations were not specific to Pb and thus
may introduce additional uncertainties. For example, the penetration factor, which is used to
estimate the fraction of the pollutant in outdoor air that reaches indoor air, used for Pb in the
NATA assessment, is based on a study that examined the penetration of hexavalent chromium
particles, which are generally more reactive than Pb particles (Long et al., 2004).
Exhibit E-7. Annual Average Inhalation Exposure Concentrations for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Statistic b
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Annual Average Pb Inhalation Exposure Concentration (ug/m3) a
Current
Conditions
Scenario
0.06
6.7E-03
1.4E-03
2.3E-04
1.2E-04
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 ug/m3.
Max Quarterly
0.01
1.8E-03
3.9E-04
6.2E-05
3.2E-05
2
0.5 ug/m3.
Max Monthly
0.03
3.8E-03
8.1E-04
1.3E-04
6.7E-05
3
0.2 ug/m3.
Max Monthly
0.01
1.5E-03
3.2E-04
5.2E-05
2.7E-05
4
0.05 ug/m3.
Max Monthly
3.1E-03
3.8E-04
8.1E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
12
13
14
15
16
a The 298 U.S. Census blocks/block groups with at least one child under seven years of age were used to create this
summary.
b The statistic (e.g., 95th percentile, median) may not be at the same location for each of the data results presented
here.
July 2007
E-ll
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 E.2.4. Air Modeling Performance Assessment
2 The monitoring data at the two air monitor locations near the facility were compared to
3 modeled concentrations at the same locations (see Exhibit E-8). For this comparison, air
4 monitoring measurements from 1998 through 2002 were compared to the modeled air
5 concentrations. These years of monitoring data were selected to correspond to the years of
6 meteorological data used in the air modeling.2 Overall, the modeled combined annual average
7 concentrations at the monitor locations (located to the northwest of the facility) are slightly lower
8 than the weighted annual average values at the monitor3 closest to the facility and approximately
9 a factor of two to three lower at the monitor slightly farther from the facility. Because the
10 meteorological data used for the modeling were not site-specific, there is likely some uncertainty
11 with use of these data to estimate air concentrations at specific points. It is possible that the local
12 predominant wind direction is different from that of the meteorological data. Therefore, the
13 weighted annual average monitored air concentrations were also compared to the combined
14 annual average modeled air concentrations within similar distances to the facility, in all
15 directions modeled on a radial grid (see Exhibit E-8). When compared to concentrations in all
16 directions, the monitored values fall within the range of modeled results. A more detailed
17 comparison is presented in Attachment E-8.
Note that the emissions data used in this modeling represent stack testing performed in 2005 and 2006 and
fugitive emission estimates from 1987 (Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), 2007).
Given that these emissions data, when used together, are not clearly representative of any specific time period, the
decision was made to use monitoring data corresponding to the years of meteorological data used in the modeling
(i.e., 1998 to 2002).
3Annual averages were calculated from the monthly composite data from the U.S. EPA AQS database and
weighted by the number of days in a month (USEPA, 2007).
July 2007 E-12 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit E-8. Modeled Annual Average Air Pb Concentrations Compared to Monitored
Annual Average Air Pb Concentrations
Monitor Values a
U.S. EPA
AQS
Monitor
11090003
11090006
Distance
from
Midpoint of
Facility (m)
400
680
Range of Annual
Average Monitor Air
Concentrations from
the U.S. EPA AQS
Database from 1 998
to 2002 (ng/m3)
0.275 to 0.467
0.1 39 to 0.204
Modeled Results b
Range of
Modeled
Distances for
Comparison
300 to 500m (108
Points)
600 to 800 m(108
Points)
Range of Annual
Average Modeled
Concentrations
(jig/m3)
0.04 to 2.5
0.02 to 0.2
Annual Average
Modeled
Concentration at
Monitor Location
(Hg/m3) c
0.260
0.059
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
a Annual average monitor air concentrations were created from the monthly composite data from the U.S. EPA AQS
database (USEPA, 2007). Each average was weighted based on the number of days in the month.
b The modeled concentrations presented here were generated from a model run with a radial receptor grid. This
summary is not from U.S. Census block centroid results.
0 These values are the annual average concentrations for the specific receptor location from the model run.
A wind rose created from five years of Montgomery, Alabama, wind data (see Exhibit
E-9) shows that the predominant directions from which the wind is blowing are east, east south-
east, and northwest. Both monitors are located northwest of the facility. The potential difference
between actual site meteorological data and the meteorological data used in the modeling may
help explain why the modeled concentrations are not closer to the monitored concentrations at
the exact monitor locations, but modeled concentrations in all directions are within the range of
monitored concentrations at similar distances. Because the monitors are both located northwest
of the facility (see Exhibit E-10), it cannot be determined from the available data whether all
modeled air concentrations and deposition rates could potentially be underestimated or the
degree of over- or under-prediction by the model is dependent on direction (or neither or both).
A directional difference between modeled and actual air concentrations can impact risk results
(either under- or over-predicting) because the number of modeled children varies spatially for the
U.S. Census blocks located near the facility.
July 2007
E-13
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit E-9. Wind Rose of Meteorological Data Used for Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
(Direction from which Wind is Blowing)
; WEST
NORTH
10%.
8%
SOUTH
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
^| 8.8-11.1
^| 57- 6,3
^| 3.6 - 5.7
| | 2.1 - 3.6
^| 0.5- 2.1
Calms: 22.33%
1 Note: Wind rose derived from five years (1998 to 2002) of meteorological data (41,766 hours of data).
July 2007
E-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit E-10. Air Monitor Locations near the Secondary Pb Smelter
Leg aid
fc AD S Monto ring Locate ns
ฃ Public School Locations
ฃ htein Stacks at Secondary Pb Smelter
:::::::::: Secondary Pb Smelter Afca
Road
Railroad
Wrter Bodies
0 250 500 1.000
July 2007
E-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 No local measurements of Pb deposition (dry, wet, or total) were found for comparison to
2 the model predicted deposition results. In the U.S. EPA Pb Criteria Document (2006), the U.S.
3 EPA summarized studies that provided ranges of Pb total deposition fluxes in various locations
4 across the United States. None of these studies were specifically for total deposition near a
5 secondary Pb smelter, but they provided a range of total deposition values for comparison.
6 Exhibit E-l 1 summarizes this range of total deposition values.
7 The ranges of annual average deposition fluxes from the secondary Pb smelter emissions
8 modeled at a nearby U.S. Census block centroid with children under seven years of age are 3.8E-
9 05 to 4.9E-02 gram per square meter per year (g/m2/yr) and 0 to 5.7E-04 g/m2/yr for dry and wet
10 deposition, respectively. These ranges are slightly larger than those deposition fluxes presented
11 in the studies in Exhibit E-l 1, which is expected because none of the studies presented in Exhibit
12 E-l 1 measured deposition directly next to a secondary Pb smelter facility. The lower modeled
13 dry deposition fluxes are comparable to those at the low end of the majority of the measured
14 ranges from the studies in Exhibit E-l 1, which is expected given that the locations of those
15 deposition fluxes could be described as urban background. The lower modeled fluxes for wet
16 deposition (median: 2.4E-05) may also be explained by urban background not included in the
17 modeling. The median modeled dry deposition flux (1.03E-03 g/m2/year) falls within the range
18 of some of the measurements presented in Exhibit E-l 1 (i.e., New York City, Detroit, and sites
19 near Lake Michigan). Comparison of the modeled total deposition fluxes to the study
20 measurements throughout the United States provides some confidence that the modeled total
21 deposition is within the expected range.
July 2007 E-16 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit E-ll. Pb Deposition Fluxes from Studies in the United States
Location
Mean Value or Range
(g Pb/m2/year)
Source
Total Deposition Fluxes
New York City, building exterior plate collecting total
deposition (weekly values from 2003 to 2005 averaged)
9.8E-03
(Caravanos et al., 2006)
Dry Deposition Fluxes
Two sites on Chesapeake Bay in 1990 to 1991
New York-New Jersey Harbor Bight area
Urban site in metropolitan Detroit 1982 to 1991
Sites near Lake Michigan 1993 to 1995
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
Lake Erie
Wet Deposition Fluxes
Reston, Virginia
Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay
Western Maryland
North-central Maryland
Great Lakes Region
3.7E-04to1E-03
1.5E-04to7.6E-04
4E-04 to 4E-03
8.4E-03to1.4E-02
9.5E-04
9.2E-04
7.8E-04
4.4E-04
3.9E-04to5.1E-04
6.4E-04
3.0E-04to6.0E-04
5.5E-04to1.0E-03
(Wuetal., 1994)
(Gaoetal.,2002)
(Pirrone et al., 1995)
(Yietal., 2001)
(Sweet etal., 1998)
(Sweet etal., 1998)
(Sweet etal., 1998)
(Conko etal., 2004)
(Kim etal., 2000)
(Lawson and Mason,
2001)
(Scudlark etal., 2005)
(Sweet etal., 1998)
2
3 E.3. OUTDOOR SURFACE SOIL/DUST
4 Outdoor surface soil/dust concentrations of Pb were estimated by defining the spatial
5 pattern of surface soil/dust concentrations around the secondary Pb smelter facility using air and
6 surface soil/dust model results and then adjusting the magnitude of the concentrations based on
7 measured concentrations from a different secondary Pb smelter facility for which there were
8 soil/dust Pb measurements.
9 The spatial pattern of the outdoor soil/dust concentrations were estimated using the
10 AERMOD total deposition estimates and the U.S. EPA's Multiple Pathways of Exposure (MPE)
11 methodology (USEP A, 1998). The MPE methodology represents the update of the Indirect
12 Exposure Methodology (IEM) (USEPA, 1990) and consists of a set of multimedia fate and
13 transport algorithms developed by the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD),
14 including a soil mixing model. In the MPE soil mixing model algorithms, cumulative soil
15 concentrations were calculated as a function of total particle deposition, soil mixing depth, bulk
16 density, and a soil loss constant. The soil loss constant (in this case) was defined as a function of
17 loss due to leaching, erosion, and runoff processes. Concentration in the soil was calculated in
18 the top 1 centimeter (cm) of soil assuming constant total deposition of Pb for the entire operating
July 2007
E-17
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 period of the facility (37 years). All input parameters used for the soil mixing model are listed in
2 Attachment E-9. Site-specific input parameters were used when feasible, but assumptions were
3 made for some parameters, in many cases based on suggested values in the database of input
4 parameters included with the U.S. EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP)
5 (2005).
6 As the total deposition rate estimates used in the soil mixing model were those derived
7 from the AERMOD simulations using current emissions estimates, without additional historical
8 emissions, it is recognized that the resultant cumulative deposition and associated estimate of soil
9 concentration will be an underestimate of current soil concentrations (and this is supported by
10 comparison to concentrations near other secondary Pb smelters). Consequently, the AERMOD-
11 MPE generated results were only used to produce a spatial pattern for the soil concentrations.
12 This base pattern of concentrations was then scaled up using soil measurements available for
13 another secondary Pb smelter facility. The measurements of Pb in surface soil samples located
14 100 to 1000 m from the other secondary Pb smelter facility (Kimbrough and Suffet, 1995) were
15 up to 13 times higher than the AERMOD-MPE generated base concentrations, depending on the
16 distance from the facility. Distance-specific scaling factors, presented in Exhibit E-12, were
17 developed by averaging the concentrations from the Kimbrough and Suffet (1995) data within
18 different distance rings around the facility and comparing these average concentrations to the
19 averages within the same distance rings from the modeled soil concentrations. This scaling
20 preserves the overall pattern of soil concentrations estimated using the modeling approach
21 (which takes into account site-specific inputs such as meteorological data and facility
22 characteristics) and adjusts the magnitude of the concentrations to better correspond with
23 measured values at a surrogate location.
24 The surface soil concentrations estimated for the current conditions scenario using this
25 approach for each U.S. Census block are summarized in Exhibit E-13 and provided in
26 Attachment E-3. These surface soil concentrations for the current conditions scenario were also
27 used for the alternative NAAQS scenarios (i.e., it was assumed that reductions in ambient air
28 concentrations associated with the alternative NAAQS scenarios did not have a significant
29 impact on soil concentrations). The individual U.S. Census block surface soil concentrations for
30 the alternative NAAQS scenarios are presented in Attachments E-4 to E-7.
July 2007 E-18 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit E-12. Summary of Soil Pb Concentration Factors with Distance
2
3
4
Distance (m)
0 to 200
200 to 400
400 to 600
600 to 800
800+
Factor
1
2
4
6
13
Exhibit E-13. Summary of Surface Soil Pb Concentrations for the
Current Conditions Scenario
Statistic
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Average Surface Soil Pb
Concentration:
Model Output (mg/kg) a
52.5
5.0
0.9
0.1
0.03
Average Soil Pb
Concentration: Scaled
(mg/kg) a
315.3
65.6
12.0
1.4
0.4
Distance from Main Stack
(m)b
680
1,600
3,300
8,500
16,000
5
6
1
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a Surface soil concentrations were calculated to a depth of 1 cm.
b Some U.S. Census blocks greater than 10 km from the facility were included in the spatial template because of the
irregular shape of U.S. Census block groups (see Section E.I).
E.4. INDOOR DUST
Indoor dust Pb sampling data were not available for the secondary Pb smelter case study,
necessitating the use of modeling to characterize indoor dust Pb levels within the study area. A
version of the air-only regression-based model (USEPA, 1989) that uses ambient air Pb levels
for predicting dust levels was chosen. This is a similar model as used for the primary Pb smelter
case study at distances greater than 1.5 km from the source; however, in the case of the
secondary Pb smelter, an "air-only" version of the model was employed reflecting the reduced
overall confidence associated with soil characterization for this case study. For a more detailed
explanation of the air-only regression-based model see Appendix G.
Exhibit E-14 shows the number of U.S. Census blocks associated with different estimates
of indoor dust Pb concentration. Exhibit E-14 also shows the number of children ages 0 to 7
residing in areas associated with different estimates of indoor dust Pb concentration.
July 2007
E-19
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit E-14. Number of U.S. Census Blocks and Number of Children Ages 0 to 7 Residing in Areas
Associated with Different Estimates of Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
Indoor Dust Pb
Concentration
(M9/9)
60
70
80
100
120
Number of U.S. Census Blocks with Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations
Greater than Value in First Column a
Current
Conditions
Scenario
298
27
4
3
1
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 ug/m3.
Max
Quarterly
298
3
1
0
0
2
0.5 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
298
6
3
1
0
3
0.2 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
298
1
1
0
0
4
0.05 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
298
0
0
0
0
Number of Children Living in Area with Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations Greater than Value in First Column b
Current
Conditions
Scenario
1698
121
9
8
1
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 ug/m3.
Max
Quarterly
1698
8
1
0
0
2
0.5 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
1698
17
8
1
0
3
0.2 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
1698
1
1
0
0
4
0.05 ug/m3.
Max
Monthly
1698
0
0
0
0
4
5
6
a The 298 U.S. Census blocks with children ages 0 to 7 in the 2000 U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005) were used to develop this summary. Note that
blocks without children were excluded.
b Number of children ages 0 to 7 from the 2000 U.S. Census were used in this analysis (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
July 2007
E-20
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Exhibit E-15 presents a summary of the Pb indoor dust concentrations generated in the
secondary Pb smelter case study for the 298 U.S. Census blocks/block groups with at least one
child under seven years of age for the current conditions scenario and the four alternative
NAAQS scenarios. All estimated indoor dust Pb concentrations for residences with at least one
child under seven years of age in the secondary Pb smelter case study are presented in
Attachments E-3 to E-7.
Exhibit E-15. Annual Average Indoor Dust Pb Exposure Concentrations for the Secondary
Pb Smelter Case Study
Statistic b
Maximum
95th Percentile
Median
5th Percentile
Minimum
Annual Average Indoor Dust Pb Exposure Concentrations (jxg/g) a
Current
Conditions
Scenario
166.2
72.9
62.7
60.4
60.2
Alternative NAAQS Scenario
1
0.2 ug/m3.
Max Quarterly
88.6
63.5
60.7
60.1
60.1
2
0.5 ug/m3.
Max Monthly
119.8
67.3
61.5
60.2
60.1
3
0.2 ug/m3.
Max Monthly
83.9
62.9
60.6
60.1
60.1
4
0.05 ug/m3.
Max Monthly
66.0
60.7
60.2
60.0
60.0
a The 298 U.S. Census blocks/block groups with at least one child under seven years of age were used to
create this summary.
b The statistic (e.g., 95th percentile, median) may not be at the same location for each of the data results
presented here.
Studies summarized in the 1990 review of the Pb NAAQS contained measurements of
indoor house dust ranging from 10 to 35,000 parts per million (ppm), and a high value of
100,000 ppm for one home within 2 km of a Pb smelting facility (USEPA, 1989). The indoor
dust Pbconcentrations for the secondary Pb smelter case study fall within the range presented by
the U.S. EPA (1989), although at the low-end of the range. The fact that this facility is a
secondary Pb smelter and the summarized literature was inclusive of primary Pb smelters may
explain some of the difference.
July 2007
E-21
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). (2006) Personal Communication (Via Email) From
3 Charles Killebrew, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to Rebecca Murphy, ICF
4 International. Re: Sander's Lead. September 6.
5 Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). (2007) Personal Communication (Via Fax) From
6 Charles Killebrew, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to Zack Pekar, Ambient
7 Standards Group, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA. 10 pages. May 4.
8 Alabama National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2006) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database
9 for Pike County. Fort Worth, TX: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Available online at:
10 http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey .aspx?County=AL 109.
11 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (2000) Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Risk
12 Assessment Guidelines Part IV: Technical Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic
13 Analysis . September. Available online at: http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/finalStoc.html#download .
14 Caravanos, I; Weiss, A. L.; Jaeger, R. J. (2006) An Exterior and Interior Leaded Dust Deposition Survey in New
15 York City: Results of a 2-Year Study. Environmental Research. 100: 159-164.
16 Conko, K. M.; Rice, K. C.; Kennedy, M. M. (2004) Atmospheric Wet Deposition of Trace Elements to a Suburban
17 Environment. Atmos. Environ. 38: 4025-4033.
18 Gao, Y.; Nelson, E. D.; Field, M. P.; Ding, Q.; Li, H.; Sherrell, R. M.; Gigliotti, C. L.; Van Ry, D. A.; Glenn, T. R.;
19 Eisenreich, S. J. (2002) Characterization of Atmospheric Trace Elements on PM2.5 Particulate Matter Over
20 the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Atmospheric Environment. 36: 1077-1086. (as cited in EPA
21 2006, criteria document).
22 Hanson, R. L. (1991) Evapotranspiration and Drought. USGS Water-Supply Paper 2375: 99-104. U.S. Geological
23 Survey.
24 Kim, G.; Scudlark, J. R.; Church, T. M. (2000) Atmospheric Wet Deposition of Trace Elements to Chesapeake and
25 Delaware Bays. Atmos. Environ. 34: 3437-3444.
26 Kimbrough, D. E.and Suffet, I. H. (1995) Off-Site Forensic Determination of Airborne Elemental Emissions by
27 Multi-Media Analysis: A Case Study at Two Secondary Lead Smelters. 30. 29: 2217-2221.
28 Lawson, N. M.and Mason, R. P. (2001) Concentration of Mercury, Methylmercury, Cadmium, Lead, Arsenic, and
29 Selenium in the Rain and Stream Water of Two Contrasting Watersheds in Western Maryland. Water Res.
30 35:4039-4052.
31 Long, T.; Johnson, T.; Laurenson, J.; Rosenbaum, A. (2004) Development of Penetration and Proximity
32 Microenvironment Factor Distributions for the HAPEM5 in Support of the 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
3 3 Assessment (NATA). Memorandum prepared for Ted Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
34 and Standards (OAQPS); April 5.
35 McKone, T. E. and Bodnar, A. B. (2001) Development and Evaluation of State-Specific Landscape Data Sets for
36 Multimedia Source-to-Dose Models. LBNL-43722. Ernesto Orlando Lawrence Berkley National
37 Laboratory; July.
38 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). (2002) Climatography of the United States. No. 81, Volumes 1 and 23.
39 Available online at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html.
40
July 2007 E-22 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2 Pirrone, N.; Keeler, G. J.; Warner, P. O. (1995) Trends of Ambient Concentrations and Deposition Fluxes of
3 Particulate Trace Metals in Detroit From 1982 to 1992. Science of Total Environment. 162(43): 61. (as
4 cited in EPA 2006, criteria document)
5 Schwab, G. O.; Fangmeier, D. D.; Elliot, W. J.; Frevert, R. K. (1993) Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.
6 New York: Wiley.
7 Scudlark, J. R.; Rice, K. C.; Conko, K. M.; Bricker, O. P.; Church, T. M. (2005) Transmission of Atmospherically
8 Derived Trace Elements Through an Undeveloped, Forested Maryland Watershed. Water Air Soil Pollut.
9 163:53-79.
10 Sweet, C. W.; Weiss, A.; Vermette, S. J. (1998) Atmospheric Deposition of Trace Metals at Three Sites Near the
11 Great Lakes. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 103: 423-439. (as cited in EPA 2006, criteria document).
12 URS Corporation. (2005a) Periodic NESHAP-Required Inorganic Lead Source Emissions Testing Program
13 Conducted February 15, 2005 on Stack No. 10.
14 URS Corporation. (2005b) Periodic NESHAP-Required Inorganic Lead Source Emissions Testing Program
15 Conducted October 18, 2005 on Stack No. 4.
16 URS Corporation. (2006a) Memorandum From Billy R. Nichols at URS Corporation to Ronald W. Gore at Alabama
17 Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Regarding 2005 Annual Emission Estimates for the
18 Secondary Pb Smelter. April 26, 2006.
19 URS Corporation. (2006b) Periodic NESHAP-Required Inorganic Lead Source Emissions Testing Program
20 Conducted February 7 and 8, 2006 on Stack No. 1 and Stack No. 5.
21 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) United States Census 2000: Summary File 1. Public Information Office. Available
22 online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfilel.html.
23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1989) Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
24 Lead: Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation. EPA-450/2-89-011. Research Triangle Park, NC:
25 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; June.
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1990) Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated With
27 Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. EPA 600/6-90/003. Office of Health and
28 Environmental Assessment. Available online at: Available at
29 http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.asp?loc=7-4-0.
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998) Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated With
31 Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Update to EPA/600/6-90/003, EPA/NCEA (EPA
32 600/R-98/137). Cincinnati, OH: National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). Available online
33 at: oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=427339.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002) Addendum to User's Guide for the AERMOD
3 5 Meteorological Preprocessor. EPA-454/B-02-002b. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality
36 Planning and Standards (OAQPS); Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division.
37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004a) Addendum User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory
3 8 Mode - AERMOD. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available online at: Available at
3 9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/7thconf/aermod/aerguide_addm.pdf.
July 2007 E-23 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004b) User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model -
2 AERMOD. EPA-454/B-03-001. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; September.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2005) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for
4 Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA530-R-05-006. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
5 Response; September. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/risk.htm.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006a) 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Available
7 online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/nsata99.html.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006b) Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). Volume I and II.
9 Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF.
10 Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823.
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007) Air Quality System (AQS) Database. Available online at:
12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebwarning.htm.
13 Wu, Z. Y.; Han, M; Lin, Z. C.; Ondov, J. M. (1994) Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, Year 1:
14 Sources and Dry Deposition of Selected Elements in Aerosol Particles. Atmospheric Environment. 28:
15 1471-1486. (as cited in EPA 2006, criteria document).
16 Yi, S. M.; Shahin, U.; Sivadechathep, J.; Sofuoglu, S. C.; Holsen, T. M. (2001) Overall Elemental Dry Deposition
17 Velocities Measured Around Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment. 35: 1133-1140. (as cited in EPA
18 2006, criteria document).
July 2007 E-24 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-l. Emission Parameters for All Sources for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
Stackl
Stack4
Stacks
Stackl 0
Areal
Area2
Area3
Location
UTMx (m)
596705
596810
596715
596766
596647
596831
596742
UTMy (m)
3517220
3517275
3517220
3517210
3517376
3517404
3517510
Elevation
(m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source Type
(point.area)
POINT
POINT
POINT
POINT
AREAPOLY
AREA
AREAPOLY
Point Source
Actual
Annual
Average
Emission
Rate (g/s)
1.22E-02
1.07E-02
2.02E-02
6.93E-04
-
-
Release
Height (m)
54.9
27.4
54.9
9.1
-
-
Stack Gas Exit
Temperature
(K)
360
340
356
304
-
-
Stack Gas
Exit
Veolcity
/m/s\
37.5
30.4
29.9
18.3
-
-
Stack
Diameter
(m)
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.1
-
-
Area Source
Annual
Average
Emission
(g/(s m2)
-
-
-
3.93E-06
1.00E-05
1.34E-06
Release
Height (m)
-
-
-
0
0
0
Length of
x-side of
area (m)
-
-
-
7
27
8
Length of
y-side of
area (m)
-
-
-
46
Angle
(from
North)
-
-
-
0
0
0
Initial vertical
dimension of
the area
source plume
(m)
-
-
-
0
0
0
July 2007
E-25
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-2. Building Downwash Parameters for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Emission
Point ID
Stackl
Stack4
Stacks
Stackl 0
Building
BUILDHGT
BUILDWID
BUILDLEN
XBADJ
YBADJ
BUILDHGT
BUILDWID
BUILDLEN
XBADJ
YBADJ
BUILDHGT
BUILDWID
BUILDLEN
XBADJ
YBADJ
BUILDWID
BUILDLEN
XBADJ
YBADJ
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
17.00 ! 17.00 ; 17.00 ; 17.00 i 17.00
80.41 j 73.38 ; 65.23 i 67.63 i 74.66
73.98 s 66.71 i 60.44 i 69.19 i 77.33
-1.92 s 8.22 i 15.09 i 13.15 ! 10.80
-36.09 s -29.59 ' -22.75 ' -17.56 i -8.50
14.00 s 14.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 : 17.00
111.64 > 88.90 i 65.23 i 67.63 i 74.66
-120.83 i -133.98 i -85.04 i -96.48 ; -104.98
56.92 i 47.61 ! 40.68 ! 27.52 i 16.86
17.00 ; 17.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 ! 17.00
80.41 j 73.38 ; 65.23 ; 67.63 i 74.66
-3.66 i 4.80 i 10.09 i 6.72 i 3.14
-26.25 ! -20.19 i -14.09 i -9.90 i -2.07
73.98 s 66.71 i 60.44 i 69.19 i 77.33
-2.66 s -3.25 '' -6.75 '' -18.40! -29.50
25.72 s 31.15 i 35.08 i 35.60 i 38.37
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
17.00 i 17.00 \ 17.00 ; 17.00 : 17.00 i 17.00 ; 17.00 : 17.00 ; 17.00 \ 17.00 ; 17.00 : 17.00 ; 17.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 ) 17.00 i 17.00
83.11 ; 86.37 \ 87.01 i 85.00 ! 80.41 ! 73.38 i 65.23 ! 67.63 i 74.66 < 79.42 i 81.76 ! 81.62 i 79.00 ! 73.98 i 66.71 | 60.44 ! 69.19
8.13 ; 5.22 I 2.14 i -1.00 i -4.11 I -7.10 i -9.87 i -16.26 i -28.83 I -40.52 i -50.99 i -59.90 i -67.00 I -72.06 ! -74.93 I -75.52 I -82.34
0.82 i 10.11 ! 19.09 : 27.50 i 35.07 i 41.57 ' 16.29 i 20.49 ' 23.88 ! 49.69 ' 48.40 i 45.64 ' 41.50 i 36.09 i 29.59 i 22.75 i 17.56
17.00 : 17.00 ! 17.00 i 17.00 = 17.00 I 14.00 i 14.00 = 14.00 i 14.00 | 14.00 i 14.00 = 14.00 i 14.00 I 14.00 : 14.00 j 17.00 I 17.00
79.42 i 81.76 < 81.62 i 79.00 i 73.98 i 170.27 i 168.20 i 164.18 i 164.63 i 163.45 i 157.30 i 14
-110.30: -112.26) -110.81 ; -106.00 ; -97.96 -92.06 i -73.30 ; -69.83 i -71.06 i -70.13 i -67.07 ; -6
5.68 i -5.66 ) -16.84 ! -27.50 | -37.33: -48.85 ! -58.97 | -68.88 i -73.84 ) -74.86 i -73.61 | -7
17.00 i 17.00 s 17.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 ! 17.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 s 17.00 i 17.00 i 1
79.42 i 81.76 i 81.62 ; 79.00 i 73.98 | 66.71 ; 118.46! 69.19 ; 77.33 i 83.11 ; 86.37 8
-0.53 i -4.18 } -7.71 i -11.00 ; -13.96 1-16.49 : -18.531 -23.92 : -35.26J -45.52 : -54.41 ; -6
5.82 i 13.53 ! 20.83 i 27.50 i 33.33 i 38.15 i 11.29 i 41.31 i 41.81 ! 41.03 i 39.01 i 3
83.11 ; 86.37 ! 87.01 i 85.00 ! 80.41 ! 73.38 i 65.23 ! 67.63 i 74.66 | 79.42 i 81.76 8
-39.69 i -48.68 I -56.20 i -62.00 i-65.92! -67.84 i -67.69 i -69.41 '' -75.70 I -79.68 i -81.25 -8
39.98 i 40.37 ! 39.54 i 37.50 ; 34.33 j 30.11 i 23.47 ; 16.19 i 9.17 ! 1.86 i -5.50 ; -1
6.37I 131.00! 111.641 88.90 < 65.23 i 67.63
.99; 159.00: 167.181 170.27; 60.44 i 69.19
98 -55.00 ! -46.35 ; -36.29 i 24.61 27.29
12 i -64.50 ! -56.92 ; -47.61 \ -40.68 ! -27.52
00 i 17.00 ! 17.00 i 17.00 ; 17.00 I 17.00
01 ; 85.00 i 80.41 i 73.38 i 65.23 | 67.63
64 i -67.00 I -70.32 ; -71 .51 | -70.52 I -75.91
80 31.50 i 26.25 i 20.19 i 14.09 i 9.90
01 i 85.00 ! 80.41 ; 73.38 \ 65.23 ! 67.63
62 i 79.00 ! 73.98 ; 66.71 | 60.44 ! 69.19
.35 '' -77.00 I -71 .32 i -63.46 \ -53.68 | -50.79
.69 ; -19.50 I -25.72 i -31.15 i -35.08 | -35.60
23 | 24
17.00 i 17.00
77.33 I 83.11
-88.131-91.25
8.50 i -0.82
17.00 : 17.00
74.66 ! 79.42
77.33 i 83.11
27.66 i 27.19
-16.86) -5.68
17.00 s 17.00
74.66 I 79.42
-8047 -8259
2.07 ! -5.82
74.66 | 79.42
77.33 I 83.11
-47.83 : -43.42
-38.37 I -39.98
25 |
17.00
86.37
-91.59 -
-10.11
17.00
81.76
86.37
25.89
5.66
17.00
81.76
86.37
-82.19:-
-13.53:-
81.76
86.37
-3769'-
-40.37 ;
00
01
.15
09
00
62
01
81
84
00
62
01
.30
83
62
01
.81
.54
27 | 28
17.00 ! 17.00
85.00 s 80.41
-84.00 1 -76.30
-27.50 s -35.07
17.00 \ 17.00
79.00 ; 73.98
85.00 i 80.41
21.00 i 17.56
27.50 i 37.33
17.00 s 17.00
79.00 i 73.98
85 00 80 41
-74.00 \ -66.45
-27.50 ! -33.33
79.00 ! 73.98
85.00 s 80.41
-23.00 1 -14.49
-37.50 | -34.33
29 | 30 | 31 | 32
17.00 i 17.00 ! 17.00 ; 17.00
73.38 ; 65.23 i 67.63 i 74.66
-66.28 i -55.36 ; -51.38 i -45.83
-41.57 i -16.29 i -20.49 ' -23.88
14.00 : 14.00 s 14.00 i 14.00
170.271 168.20; 164.181 164.63
88.90 ; 68.16 ! 76.12 ; 91.53
3.16 ; 5.13 i -6.30 ; -20.47
48.85 ; 58.97 i 68.88 ; 73.84
17.00 ; 17.00 ; 17.00 i 17.00
66.71 i 118.46s 69.19 ; 77.33
73.38 ; 65.23 i 67.63 ; 74.66
-56.88 ; -46.70 i -43.72 i -39.40
-38.15 ; -11.29 ! -41.31 i -41.81
73.38 ; 65.23 i 67.63 i 74.66
-5.54 i 2.46 s 1.78 '' 1.04
-30.11 i -23.47 s -16.19 ; -9.17
33 | 34 | 35 | 36
17.00 i 17.00 i 17.00 ; 17.00
83.11 i 86.37 I 87.01 ; 85.00
79.42 ; 81.76 ! 81.62 i 79.00
-38.89 ; -30.77 I -21.72 i -12.00
-49.69 i -48.40 i -45.64 ' -41.50
14.00 : 14.00 I 14.00 ; 14.00
163.45; 157.30! 146.371 131.00
107.20; 128.55: 145.99; 159.00
-37.07 ; -61.47 -84.01 ; -104.00
74.86 ; 73.61 ! 70.12 ! 64.50
17.00 ; 17.00 ! 17.00 i 17.00
83.11 i 86.37 i 87.01 ; 85.00
79.42 ; 81.76 I 81.62 i 79.00
-33.89 ; -27.35 I -19.98 i -12.00
-41.03 ; -39.01 i -35.80 i -31.50
79.42 ; 81.76 ! 81.62 i 79.00
0.27 i -0.51 | -1.28 '' -2.00
-1.86 i 5.50 I 12.69 ; 19.50
July 2007
E-26
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9003026
9001004
0003048
2001012
1004004
1002001
9001007
0003040
2001009
0001002
0002023
9003043
9004000
2001037
9003012
1004092
1004014
0003121
2001005
9001011
0003061
2001004
0001023
1004031
0003080
9003051
2001039
2001001
9002026
Children
Ages 0 to 7
71
63
53
42
38
35
35
31
31
30
29
26
24
22
21
21
21
19
19
18
18
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
14
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.1E-03
4.6E-03
4.2E-03
5.8E-04
6.7E-04
7.9E-03
4.0E-03
6.8E-03
4.9E-04
3.0E-03
0.02
3.0E-03
8.8E-04
5.2E-04
1.4E-03
8.1E-04
7.2E-04
1.4E-03
7.5E-04
4.4E-03
3.3E-03
7.3E-04
5.4E-03
3.1E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
4.4E-04
9.8E-04
8.1E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.0E-03
2.1E-03
1.9E-03
2.6E-04
3.0E-04
3.6E-03
1.9E-03
3.0E-03
2.2E-04
1.3E-03
6.8E-03
1.4E-03
4.1E-04
2.3E-04
6.4E-04
3.6E-04
3.3E-04
6.4E-04
3.4E-04
2.1E-03
1.4E-03
3.3E-04
2.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.9E-04
4.4E-04
3.7E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.1
14.9
17.8
1.3
2.7
28.2
14.4
29.7
1.4
11.4
79.6
11.1
1.4
1.4
5.1
3.7
3.0
6.0
2.2
16.2
14.8
2.0
25.4
10.7
14.1
11.5
1.0
2.8
25.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.8
3.9
3.6
0.5
0.6
6.7
3.4
5.7
0.4
2.5
12.9
2.5
0.7
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.2
0.6
3.7
2.7
0.6
4.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
0.4
0.8
6.8
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.8
63.9
63.6
60.5
60.6
66.7
63.4
65.7
60.4
62.5
72.9
62.5
60.7
60.4
61.2
60.7
60.6
61.2
60.6
63.7
62.7
60.6
64.6
62.6
62.5
62.4
60.4
60.8
66.8
July 2007
E-27
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001000
0002024
0001015
2001068
1004068
0002027
1002015
0001029
1004041
2001026
1002014
1003025
0003051
9003023
2001010
0002038
0001026
1003000
1003006
0001009
9003041
1004050
1004036
0003068
0003007
1004025
9003003
1004098
0003089
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0E-03
0.01
5.1E-03
9.1E-04
4.6E-03
0.01
9.0E-03
5.2E-03
3.5E-03
5.9E-04
0.01
8.2E-03
2.8E-03
2.0E-03
6.4E-04
0.02
7.0E-03
6.9E-03
6.1E-03
4.2E-03
3.9E-03
3.6E-03
3.1E-03
2.8E-03
1.3E-03
1.0E-03
8.3E-04
6.9E-04
9.5E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.3E-03
5.9E-03
2.3E-03
4.0E-04
2.1E-03
6.0E-03
4.1E-03
2.3E-03
1.6E-03
2.6E-04
4.7E-03
3.7E-03
1.3E-03
9.5E-04
2.9E-04
8.5E-03
3.1E-03
3.1E-03
2.7E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
5.6E-04
4.7E-04
3.8E-04
3.1E-04
4.2E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
10.5
66.2
22.2
2.6
25.8
58.0
28.1
19.9
12.9
1.8
34.1
40.5
9.7
5.3
1.7
65.5
26.4
23.7
27.0
14.7
13.4
15.4
10.8
12.8
4.8
4.3
2.0
2.3
41.7
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
2.6
11.3
4.3
0.8
3.9
11.3
7.6
4.4
3.0
0.5
8.8
6.9
2.4
1.7
0.5
16.2
5.9
5.8
5.1
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.6
8.0
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
62.6
71.3
64.3
60.8
63.9
71.3
67.6
64.4
63.0
60.5
68.8
66.9
62.4
61.7
60.5
76.2
65.9
65.8
65.1
63.5
63.3
63.1
62.7
62.3
61.1
60.9
60.7
60.6
68.0
July 2007
E-28
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1003008
9002023
9002015
9001010
9001005
1004059
0003114
0003037
0003042
9003027
0003155
1004058
1004096
1004007
2001051
0002050
0002036
1003013
0002026
1003016
0003138
1002003
0003140
0003083
1003007
1004047
0001006
1004037
0003071
Children
Ages 0 to 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.1E-03
5.9E-03
5.6E-03
5.5E-03
4.7E-03
3.4E-03
2.9E-03
2.5E-03
0.05
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
2.4E-03
6.0E-04
5.6E-04
3.1E-04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
8.5E-03
8.5E-03
5.4E-03
4.1E-03
3.3E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.6E-03
2.8E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
1.1E-03
2.3E-02
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
2.7E-04
2.5E-04
1.4E-04
1.0E-02
8.1E-03
7.9E-03
7.7E-03
6.2E-03
5.0E-03
4.9E-03
3.8E-03
3.8E-03
2.4E-03
1.9E-03
1.5E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
36.1
19.1
21.7
15.5
17.5
16.0
10.1
10.1
256.0
9.7
11.5
11.2
2.4
2.0
0.6
101.5
65.1
57.6
91.1
45.1
69.5
35.3
53.5
49.0
23.8
15.6
11.9
9.0
11.3
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
6.8
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.0
2.8
2.4
2.1
44.1
2.5
2.3
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
18.9
15.3
14.7
14.6
11.7
9.5
9.1
7.2
7.2
4.5
3.5
2.8
2.2
2.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
66.8
65.0
64.7
64.7
64.0
62.8
62.4
62.1
104.1
62.5
62.3
62.1
60.5
60.5
60.3
78.9
75.3
74.7
74.6
71.7
69.5
69.1
67.2
67.2
64.5
63.5
62.8
62.2
62.1
July 2007
E-29
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9004022
0003004
1004028
1004019
1004013
9003002
2001006
2001007
1002018
0002018
1002012
0002022
1003023
1002016
9002021
9002030
1003028
0003144
9002000
0001012
9002006
0003060
0003079
1004051
1004048
9001013
9001002
0003107
1004049
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
9.3E-04
8.6E-04
8.2E-04
6.2E-04
5.9E-04
0.02
0.01
0.01
9.1E-03
8.7E-03
8.6E-03
7.2E-03
7.0E-03
5.5E-03
5.2E-03
4.6E-03
4.3E-03
4.3E-03
4.0E-03
3.9E-03
3.6E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
3.1E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.6E-04
5.2E-04
4.9E-04
4.2E-04
3.9E-04
3.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.6E-04
6.8E-03
5.0E-03
4.6E-03
4.1E-03
3.9E-03
3.9E-03
3.4E-03
3.2E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
1.9E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
3.8
4.5
3.7
3.3
3.5
1.9
1.6
1.4
51.9
47.6
34.9
36.4
49.5
26.7
25.6
27.8
28.8
27.7
14.5
15.6
15.0
16.3
17.7
13.4
12.9
8.3
9.8
10.6
12.8
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
12.7
9.4
8.6
7.7
7.3
7.2
6.1
5.9
4.7
4.4
3.9
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.6
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.2
61.0
60.9
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.5
60.5
72.7
69.4
68.6
67.7
67.3
67.2
66.1
65.9
64.7
64.4
63.9
63.6
63.6
63.4
63.3
63.0
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.8
62.6
July 2007
E-30
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004054
1004057
9003044
1004055
0003128
2001028
1004011
0002047
0002039
0002028
1002020
1002002
0003093
0003082
0002017
9002011
1003004
0001032
0001027
9002001
0003078
1003001
1004060
1004046
0001013
9001012
1004052
9001014
0003070
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
1.3E-03
7.0E-04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
8.8E-03
8.2E-03
7.7E-03
6.9E-03
6.7E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.1E-03
4.9E-03
4.9E-03
4.5E-03
4.4E-03
4.1E-03
4.0E-03
3.5E-03
3.3E-03
3.1E-03
2.9E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.8E-04
9.3E-04
8.7E-04
5.9E-04
3.1E-04
1.0E-02
9.2E-03
7.3E-03
6.5E-03
4.0E-03
3.7E-03
3.4E-03
3.1E-03
3.1E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
2.3E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
8.0
9.1
7.6
7.6
7.5
4.3
2.5
76.6
73.6
77.2
50.6
35.2
34.2
42.4
29.4
27.1
27.1
24.9
25.2
18.2
21.0
15.9
20.1
15.0
14.5
8.8
14.8
8.9
9.9
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.1
0.6
19.2
17.4
13.9
12.2
7.4
7.0
6.5
5.8
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.2
4.2
4.2
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.5
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.9
61.9
61.8
61.7
61.7
61.1
60.6
79.2
77.4
73.9
72.2
67.4
67.0
66.5
65.8
65.7
65.5
65.5
65.2
64.2
64.2
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.3
63.0
62.8
62.7
62.5
July 2007
E-31
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003036
9004015
9004014
0003073
0001003
0003115
9004016
1004072
1004056
9003017
9004017
9004006
0003020
9003013
0003006
9004008
1004089
2001011
1004100
2001008
2001013
1003012
1002019
0002025
0003087
1003009
0003088
0002019
9002029
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.9E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
6.5E-04
5.7E-04
5.6E-04
4.7E-04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
9.6E-03
9.4E-03
8.2E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
9.8E-04
9.2E-04
8.9E-04
8.3E-04
6.7E-04
6.4E-04
5.9E-04
5.6E-04
5.7E-04
5.3E-04
5.6E-04
4.8E-04
2.9E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.1E-04
6.8E-03
6.3E-03
6.0E-03
5.1E-03
4.8E-03
4.3E-03
4.2E-03
3.8E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.1
6.5
7.1
11.3
8.0
7.5
5.4
5.1
7.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
5.1
4.2
4.8
3.0
4.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.0
59.6
50.2
71.9
56.2
50.4
43.5
39.7
28.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
12.6
11.7
11.4
9.7
9.0
8.1
7.9
6.9
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
62.4
62.2
62.1
62.1
62.1
61.9
61.7
61.7
61.6
61.2
61.2
61.1
61.1
61.0
61.0
61.0
60.9
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.4
72.6
71.7
71.4
69.7
69.0
68.1
67.9
66.9
July 2007
E-32
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001035
0003085
0001025
9002012
0001031
9002017
0003142
0003077
0001024
0003055
0003056
9003042
9003050
0001008
1004045
0003065
0003052
1004033
1004040
0003050
1004038
0003069
0003049
0003031
9001001
9004018
0003122
0003123
0003160
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.8E-03
7.2E-03
6.8E-03
6.1E-03
5.9E-03
5.8E-03
5.2E-03
4.8E-03
4.7E-03
4.1E-03
4.0E-03
3.8E-03
3.8E-03
3.7E-03
3.6E-03
3.5E-03
3.3E-03
3.1E-03
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
2.7E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.1E-03
1.9E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.5E-03
3.2E-03
3.0E-03
2.8E-03
2.6E-03
2.7E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
9.9E-04
8.8E-04
8.3E-04
7.9E-04
7.7E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
30.3
47.3
27.5
23.2
23.0
19.7
29.5
19.8
19.4
14.3
16.0
14.2
14.0
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.3
10.3
10.2
9.4
9.1
11.9
10.9
10.5
5.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
8.6
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
6.6
6.1
5.7
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.4
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
66.6
66.1
65.7
65.1
65.0
64.9
64.4
64.0
64.0
63.5
63.4
63.2
63.2
63.1
63.0
63.0
62.8
62.6
62.4
62.3
62.2
62.2
62.2
62.1
61.8
61.6
61.6
61.5
61.5
July 2007
E-33
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004030
9003033
0003110
2001031
2001027
9004023
0003127
0003001
2001002
1004094
1004018
1004010
2001038
2001036
1004000
1004003
2001042
2001053
2001047
2001059
0002042
0003046
0002041
0002029
0002037
1003014
0003137
1003011
1002007
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
9.1E-04
8.8E-04
8.1E-04
8.0E-04
6.0E-04
5.8E-04
5.6E-04
5.0E-04
4.8E-04
3.8E-04
3.5E-04
3.5E-04
3.0E-04
0.13
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.7E-04
7.3E-04
6.8E-04
6.5E-04
5.3E-04
5.4E-04
5.1E-04
4.1E-04
3.9E-04
3.6E-04
3.6E-04
2.7E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
1.7E-04
1.6E-04
1.6E-04
1.3E-04
5.6E-02
2.3E-02
1.4E-02
8.2E-03
7.3E-03
7.0E-03
6.7E-03
6.6E-03
5.9E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
5.5
4.1
5.8
4.7
4.3
3.3
5.5
2.8
2.5
3.4
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
315.3
141.9
141.8
66.9
57.0
49.5
99.0
64.2
45.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
106.2
44.3
26.4
15.5
13.9
13.2
12.7
12.3
11.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.4
61.3
61.3
61.2
61.0
61.0
61.0
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
166.2
104.3
86.4
75.5
73.9
73.2
72.7
72.3
71.1
July 2007
E-34
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1002013
1002017
1003010
0003090
0003091
1003022
0002015
0003094
1001017
9002031
1003005
9002022
9002014
9002013
9002020
9002016
1003003
9001009
1001016
0003058
9002007
1004043
0001010
0003054
0003053
0003064
0001011
0001018
9001015
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.01
0.01
0.01
9.6E-03
9.5E-03
9.2E-03
9.0E-03
8.1E-03
7.2E-03
6.6E-03
6.5E-03
6.0E-03
5.8E-03
5.7E-03
5.6E-03
5.3E-03
5.2E-03
5.0E-03
4.9E-03
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
4.0E-03
4.0E-03
3.9E-03
3.9E-03
3.5E-03
3.5E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.2E-03
5.1E-03
5.1E-03
4.3E-03
4.2E-03
4.1E-03
4.0E-03
3.6E-03
3.3E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.8E-03
2.7E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.3E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.1E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.6E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
39.4
36.0
49.7
42.0
36.9
51.0
45.4
33.4
24.1
25.3
29.5
22.2
22.5
21.3
20.5
19.1
23.1
11.6
16.1
18.5
18.6
14.5
13.7
13.5
13.1
13.2
12.9
14.7
8.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
9.7
9.6
9.6
8.1
8.0
7.7
7.6
6.8
6.1
5.5
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
69.7
69.6
69.6
68.1
68.0
67.7
67.6
66.8
66.1
65.5
65.5
65.0
64.9
64.8
64.7
64.4
64.4
64.2
64.1
63.8
63.8
63.4
63.3
63.3
63.3
63.0
63.0
62.9
62.8
July 2007
E-35
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001007
0003063
0003066
0001020
0003067
0003109
0003076
0001019
1004039
0003072
0001005
0003152
0003159
9004021
2001029
0003015
0003112
9003020
9003016
0003002
9003021
0003003
9003010
2001000
1004081
1004024
1004091
0003129
1004093
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.3E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
3.1E-03
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.4E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
9.5E-04
9.1E-04
9.1E-04
8.4E-04
8.2E-04
8.1E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
9.4E-04
7.6E-04
7.5E-04
7.2E-04
5.7E-04
5.6E-04
5.6E-04
5.8E-04
5.5E-04
4.8E-04
5.0E-04
4.7E-04
4.7E-04
4.2E-04
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
3.8E-04
3.6E-04
3.7E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.7
10.8
10.9
14.7
10.3
15.2
12.5
12.9
8.8
10.6
8.2
8.0
6.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
4.8
2.8
2.7
4.4
2.6
4.3
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.1
3.7
2.3
3.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
62.8
62.7
62.7
62.7
62.6
62.5
62.5
62.2
62.1
62.0
61.8
61.4
61.4
61.3
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.7
July 2007
E-36
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004017
1004015
1004005
1004006
2001070
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.1E-04
6.9E-04
5.2E-04
4.9E-04
4.3E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
1.9E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
2.4
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.3
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.6
60.6
60.4
60.4
60.4
July 2007
E-3 7
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-3. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in the Current Conditions Scenario for the
Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001052
2001062
2001058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.4E-04
3.3E-04
2.7E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.5E-04
1.5E-04
1.2E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
0.7
0.6
0.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
0.3
0.2
From Other b
60
60
60
Total
60.3
60.3
60.2
1 Recent air refers to contributions associated with recent outdoor ambient air.
' Other refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air).
July 2007
E-38
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9003026
9001004
0003048
2001012
1004004
1002001
9001007
0003040
2001009
0001002
0002023
9003043
9004000
2001037
9003012
1004092
1004014
0003121
2001005
9001011
0003061
2001004
0001023
1004031
0003080
9003051
2001039
2001001
Children
Ages 0 to 7
71
63
53
42
38
35
35
31
31
30
29
26
24
22
21
21
21
19
19
18
18
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.2E-03
2.6E-03
2.4E-03
3.3E-04
3.8E-04
4.4E-03
2.2E-03
3.8E-03
2.8E-04
1.7E-03
8.6E-03
1.7E-03
4.9E-04
2.9E-04
7.7E-04
4.5E-04
4.1E-04
8.1E-04
4.2E-04
2.5E-03
1.8E-03
4.1E-04
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
2.5E-04
5.5E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.6E-04
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.5E-04
1.7E-04
2.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.7E-03
1.2E-04
7.4E-04
3.8E-03
7.7E-04
2.3E-04
1.3E-04
3.6E-04
2.0E-04
1.8E-04
3.6E-04
1.9E-04
1.2E-03
8.1E-04
1.8E-04
1.4E-03
8.0E-04
7.5E-04
7.6E-04
1.1E-04
2.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.1
14.9
17.8
1.3
2.7
28.2
14.4
29.7
1.4
11.4
79.6
11.1
1.4
1.4
5.1
3.7
3.0
6.0
2.2
16.2
14.8
2.0
25.4
10.7
14.1
11.5
1.0
2.8
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.0
2.2
2.0
0.3
0.3
3.7
1.9
3.2
0.2
1.4
7.2
1.4
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
2.1
1.5
0.3
2.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
0.2
0.5
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.0
62.2
62.0
60.3
60.3
63.7
61.9
63.2
60.2
61.4
67.2
61.4
60.4
60.2
60.7
60.4
60.3
60.7
60.4
62.1
61.5
60.3
62.6
61.5
61.4
61.4
60.2
60.5
July 2007
E-39
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9002026
0001000
0002024
0001015
2001068
1004068
0002027
1002015
0001029
1004041
2001026
1002014
1003025
0003051
9003023
2001010
0002038
0001026
1003000
1003006
0001009
9003041
1004050
1004036
0003068
0003007
1004025
9003003
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
14
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.5E-03
1.7E-03
7.5E-03
2.9E-03
5.1E-04
2.6E-03
7.5E-03
5.1E-03
2.9E-03
2.0E-03
3.3E-04
5.9E-03
4.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.2E-03
3.6E-04
0.01
3.9E-03
3.9E-03
3.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.5E-03
7.1E-04
5.8E-04
4.6E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.1E-03
7.6E-04
3.3E-03
1.3E-03
2.3E-04
1.2E-03
3.4E-03
2.3E-03
1.3E-03
9.0E-04
1.5E-04
2.7E-03
2.1E-03
7.0E-04
5.3E-04
1.6E-04
4.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-03
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.2E-04
8.0E-04
6.9E-04
3.2E-04
2.6E-04
2.2E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
25.2
10.5
66.2
22.2
2.6
25.8
58.0
28.1
19.9
12.9
1.8
34.1
40.5
9.7
5.3
1.7
65.5
26.4
23.7
27.0
14.7
13.4
15.4
10.8
12.8
4.8
4.3
2.0
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
3.8
1.4
6.3
2.4
0.4
2.2
6.4
4.3
2.5
1.7
0.3
5.0
3.9
1.3
1.0
0.3
9.1
3.3
3.3
2.9
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
63.8
61.4
66.3
62.4
60.4
62.2
66.4
64.3
62.5
61.7
60.3
65.0
63.9
61.3
61.0
60.3
69.1
63.3
63.3
62.9
62.0
61.8
61.7
61.5
61.3
60.6
60.5
60.4
July 2007
E-40
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004098
0003089
1003008
9002023
9002015
9001010
9001005
1004059
0003114
0003037
0003042
9003027
0003155
1004058
1004096
1004007
2001051
0002050
0002036
1003013
0002026
1003016
0003138
1002003
0003140
0003083
1003007
1004047
Children
Ages 0 to 7
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.9E-04
5.4E-03
4.5E-03
3.3E-03
3.1E-03
3.1E-03
2.6E-03
1.9E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-03
0.03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
3.4E-04
3.2E-04
1.8E-04
0.01
0.01
9.8E-03
9.7E-03
7.8E-03
6.4E-03
6.1E-03
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
3.0E-03
2.3E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.8E-04
2.4E-03
2.1E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
8.5E-04
7.2E-04
6.3E-04
1.3E-02
7.6E-04
6.9E-04
6.2E-04
1.5E-04
1.4E-04
7.8E-05
5.6E-03
4.5E-03
4.4E-03
4.3E-03
3.5E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
1.4E-03
1.0E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
2.3
41.7
36.1
19.1
21.7
15.5
17.5
16.0
10.1
10.1
256.0
9.7
11.5
11.2
2.4
2.0
0.6
101.5
65.1
57.6
91.1
45.1
69.5
35.3
53.5
49.0
23.8
15.6
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
4.5
3.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
24.8
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
10.6
8.6
8.3
8.2
6.6
5.4
5.1
4.1
4.0
2.6
2.0
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.3
64.5
63.8
62.8
62.6
62.6
62.2
61.6
61.4
61.2
84.8
61.4
61.3
61.2
60.3
60.3
60.1
70.6
68.6
68.3
68.2
66.6
65.4
65.1
64.1
64.0
62.6
62.0
July 2007
E-41
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001006
1004037
0003071
9004022
0003004
1004028
1004019
1004013
9003002
2001006
2001007
1002018
0002018
1002012
0002022
1003023
1002016
9002021
9002030
1003028
0003144
9002000
0001012
9002006
0003060
0003079
1004051
1004048
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.9E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
8.0E-04
6.6E-04
6.1E-04
5.2E-04
4.8E-04
4.6E-04
3.5E-04
3.3E-04
8.5E-03
6.3E-03
5.7E-03
5.1E-03
4.9E-03
4.8E-03
4.1E-03
3.9E-03
3.1E-03
2.9E-03
2.6E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.3E-04
6.6E-04
6.2E-04
3.7E-04
2.9E-04
2.8E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
1.6E-04
1.5E-04
3.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.6E-03
2.3E-03
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
9.8E-04
9.1E-04
8.6E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
11.9
9.0
11.3
3.8
4.5
3.7
3.3
3.5
1.9
1.6
1.4
51.9
47.6
34.9
36.4
49.5
26.7
25.6
27.8
28.8
27.7
14.5
15.6
15.0
16.3
17.7
13.4
12.9
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
7.2
5.3
4.8
4.3
4.1
4.1
3.4
3.3
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.6
61.2
61.2
60.7
60.6
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
67.2
65.3
64.8
64.3
64.1
64.1
63.4
63.3
62.6
62.5
62.2
62.0
62.0
61.9
61.9
61.7
61.6
July 2007
E-42
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9001013
9001002
0003107
1004049
1004054
1004057
9003044
1004055
0003128
2001028
1004011
0002047
0002039
0002028
1002020
1002002
0003093
0003082
0002017
9002011
1003004
0001032
0001027
9002001
0003078
1003001
1004060
1004046
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.9E-03
1.9E-03
1.9E-03
1.7E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
7.4E-04
3.9E-04
0.01
0.01
9.3E-03
8.1E-03
5.0E-03
4.6E-03
4.3E-03
3.9E-03
3.8E-03
3.7E-03
3.7E-03
3.5E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.8E-04
8.7E-04
8.3E-04
7.8E-04
5.8E-04
5.8E-04
5.5E-04
5.2E-04
4.9E-04
3.3E-04
1.8E-04
5.7E-03
5.2E-03
4.1E-03
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
1.9E-03
1.7E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
8.3
9.8
10.6
12.8
8.0
9.1
7.6
7.6
7.5
4.3
2.5
76.6
73.6
77.2
50.6
35.2
34.2
42.4
29.4
27.1
27.1
24.9
25.2
18.2
21.0
15.9
20.1
15.0
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
10.8
9.8
7.8
6.9
4.2
3.9
3.7
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.6
61.6
61.6
61.5
61.1
61.1
61.0
61.0
60.9
60.6
60.3
70.8
69.8
67.8
66.9
64.2
63.9
63.7
63.3
63.2
63.1
63.1
62.9
62.3
62.3
62.1
62.1
61.9
July 2007
E-43
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001013
9001012
1004052
9001014
0003070
0003036
9004015
9004014
0003073
0001003
0003115
9004016
1004072
1004056
9003017
9004017
9004006
0003020
9003013
0003006
9004008
1004089
2001011
1004100
2001008
2001013
1003012
1002019
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
8.1E-04
7.8E-04
7.1E-04
7.1E-04
7.0E-04
6.7E-04
6.7E-04
6.0E-04
3.7E-04
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
2.7E-04
8.4E-03
7.8E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.9E-04
9.2E-04
8.4E-04
8.2E-04
7.3E-04
7.2E-04
6.8E-04
6.6E-04
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
5.5E-04
5.2E-04
5.0E-04
4.7E-04
3.8E-04
3.6E-04
3.3E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
3.0E-04
3.1E-04
2.7E-04
1.6E-04
1.5E-04
1.4E-04
1.2E-04
3.8E-03
3.5E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
14.5
8.8
14.8
8.9
9.9
12.1
6.5
7.1
11.3
8.0
7.5
5.4
5.1
7.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
5.1
4.2
4.8
3.0
4.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.0
59.6
50.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
7.1
6.6
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.9
61.7
61.6
61.5
61.4
61.4
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
67.1
66.6
July 2007
E-44
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0002025
0003087
1003009
0003088
0002019
9002029
0001035
0003085
0001025
9002012
0001031
9002017
0003142
0003077
0001024
0003055
0003056
9003042
9003050
0001008
1004045
0003065
0003052
1004033
1004040
0003050
1004038
0003069
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.6E-03
6.5E-03
6.0E-03
5.4E-03
5.3E-03
4.6E-03
4.4E-03
4.0E-03
3.8E-03
3.4E-03
3.3E-03
3.3E-03
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
2.7E-03
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.4E-03
2.9E-03
2.7E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.1E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.9E-04
9.9E-04
9.3E-04
9.1E-04
8.8E-04
8.4E-04
7.8E-04
7.3E-04
6.8E-04
6.7E-04
6.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
71.9
56.2
50.4
43.5
39.7
28.4
30.3
47.3
27.5
23.2
23.0
19.7
29.5
19.8
19.4
14.3
16.0
14.2
14.0
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.3
10.3
10.2
9.4
9.1
11.9
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
6.4
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.5
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.2
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
66.4
65.5
65.1
64.6
64.5
63.9
63.7
63.4
63.2
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.5
62.3
62.2
62.0
61.9
61.8
61.8
61.8
61.7
61.7
61.6
61.5
61.4
61.3
61.3
61.2
July 2007
E-45
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003049
0003031
9001001
9004018
0003122
0003123
0003160
1004030
9003033
0003110
2001031
2001027
9004023
0003127
0003001
2001002
1004094
1004018
1004010
2001038
2001036
1004000
1004003
2001042
2001053
2001047
2001059
0002042
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.7E-04
9.6E-04
8.8E-04
8.6E-04
8.2E-04
6.7E-04
6.6E-04
6.5E-04
5.1E-04
4.9E-04
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
3.4E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
2.8E-04
2.7E-04
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.7E-04
0.07
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.4E-04
6.3E-04
5.6E-04
4.9E-04
4.7E-04
4.4E-04
4.3E-04
4.3E-04
4.1E-04
3.8E-04
3.7E-04
3.0E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1.5E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.3E-04
1.2E-04
9.5E-05
8.8E-05
8.8E-05
7.6E-05
3.1E-02
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
10.9
10.5
5.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
8.6
5.5
4.1
5.8
4.7
4.3
3.3
5.5
2.8
2.5
3.4
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
315.3
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
59.8
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.2
61.2
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
119.8
July 2007
E-46
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003046
0002041
0002029
0002037
1003014
0003137
1003011
1002007
1002013
1002017
1003010
0003090
0003091
1003022
0002015
0003094
1001017
9002031
1003005
9002022
9002014
9002013
9002020
9002016
1003003
9001009
1001016
0003058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
0.03
0.02
0.01
9.3E-03
8.8E-03
8.4E-03
8.2E-03
7.4E-03
6.5E-03
6.4E-03
6.4E-03
5.4E-03
5.3E-03
5.2E-03
5.1E-03
4.6E-03
4.1E-03
3.7E-03
3.6E-03
3.4E-03
3.3E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.8E-03
2.7E-03
2.5E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.3E-02
7.8E-03
4.6E-03
4.1E-03
4.0E-03
3.8E-03
3.7E-03
3.3E-03
2.9E-03
2.9E-03
2.9E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
141.9
141.8
66.9
57.0
49.5
99.0
64.2
45.2
39.4
36.0
49.7
42.0
36.9
51.0
45.4
33.4
24.1
25.3
29.5
22.2
22.5
21.3
20.5
19.1
23.1
11.6
16.1
18.5
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
24.9
14.9
8.7
7.8
7.4
7.1
6.9
6.2
5.5
5.4
5.4
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
3.9
3.4
3.1
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
84.9
74.9
68.7
67.8
67.4
67.1
66.9
66.2
65.5
65.4
65.4
64.6
64.5
64.4
64.3
63.9
63.4
63.1
63.1
62.8
62.8
62.7
62.7
62.5
62.5
62.4
62.3
62.1
July 2007
E-47
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9002007
1004043
0001010
0003054
0003053
0003064
0001011
0001018
9001015
0001007
0003063
0003066
0001020
0003067
0003109
0003076
0001019
1004039
0003072
0001005
0003152
0003159
9004021
2001029
0003015
0003112
9003020
9003016
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.5E-03
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-03
1.7E-03
1.5E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.2E-03
9.6E-04
9.5E-04
8.8E-04
7.2E-04
7.1E-04
7.0E-04
7.0E-04
6.7E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.2E-03
1.0E-03
9.9E-04
9.8E-04
9.7E-04
8.9E-04
8.8E-04
8.5E-04
8.8E-04
8.2E-04
8.1E-04
7.9E-04
7.9E-04
7.6E-04
7.5E-04
7.4E-04
6.5E-04
6.2E-04
5.9E-04
5.3E-04
4.3E-04
4.2E-04
4.1E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
3.3E-04
3.1E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
18.6
14.5
13.7
13.5
13.1
13.2
12.9
14.7
8.2
12.7
10.8
10.9
14.7
10.3
15.2
12.5
12.9
8.8
10.6
8.2
8.0
6.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
4.8
2.8
2.7
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
62.1
61.9
61.9
61.9
61.8
61.7
61.7
61.6
61.6
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.4
61.4
61.4
61.2
61.2
61.1
61.0
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
July 2007
E-48
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-4. Estimated Media Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario for
the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003002
9003021
0003003
9003010
2001000
1004081
1004024
1004091
0003129
1004093
1004017
1004015
1004005
1004006
2001070
2001052
2001062
2001058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
6.0E-04
5.7E-04
5.3E-04
5.1E-04
5.1E-04
4.7E-04
4.6E-04
4.6E-04
4.0E-04
3.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.8E-04
2.4E-04
1.9E-04
1.8E-04
1.5E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.7E-04
2.8E-04
2.7E-04
2.6E-04
2.4E-04
2.3E-04
2.3E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
1.8E-04
1.7E-04
1.3E-04
1.3E-04
1.1E-04
8.5E-05
8.2E-05
6.7E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
4.4
2.6
4.3
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.1
3.7
2.3
3.4
2.4
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
1 Recent air refers to contributions associated with recent outdoor ambient air.
' Other refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air).
July 2007
E-49
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9003026
9001004
0003048
2001012
1004004
1002001
9001007
0003040
2001009
0001002
0002023
9003043
9004000
2001037
9003012
1004092
1004014
0003121
2001005
9001011
0003061
2001004
0001023
1004031
0003080
9003051
2001039
2001001
9002026
Children
Ages 0 to 7
71
63
53
42
38
35
35
31
31
30
29
26
24
22
21
21
21
19
19
18
18
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
14
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.8E-04
1.0E-03
9.5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .5E-04
1.8E-03
9.0E-04
1.5E-03
1.1E-04
6.7E-04
3.4E-03
6.7E-04
2.0E-04
1 .2E-04
3.1E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .6E-04
3.2E-04
1 .7E-04
1.0E-03
7.3E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .2E-03
7.1E-04
6.7E-04
6.5E-04
9.8E-05
2.2E-04
1.8E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.2E-04
4.8E-04
4.2E-04
5.8E-05
6.9E-05
8.0E-04
4.2E-04
6.8E-04
4.9E-05
3.0E-04
1 .5E-03
3.1E-04
9.2E-05
5.3E-05
1 .4E-04
8.2E-05
7.4E-05
1 .4E-04
7.6E-05
4.6E-04
3.3E-04
7.4E-05
5.4E-04
3.2E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.4E-05
9.9E-05
8.4E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.1
14.9
17.8
1.3
2.7
28.2
14.4
29.7
1.4
11.4
79.6
11.1
1.4
1.4
5.1
3.7
3.0
6.0
2.2
16.2
14.8
2.0
25.4
10.7
14.1
11.5
1.0
2.8
25.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.8
1.3
0.1
0.6
2.9
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.6
0.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.2
1.5
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.4
60.9
60.8
60.1
60.1
61.5
60.8
61.3
60.1
60.6
62.9
60.6
60.2
60.1
60.3
60.2
60.1
60.3
60.1
60.8
60.6
60.1
61.0
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.1
60.2
61.5
July 2007
E-50
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001000
0002024
0001015
2001068
1004068
0002027
1002015
0001029
1004041
2001026
1002014
1003025
0003051
9003023
2001010
0002038
0001026
1003000
1003006
0001009
9003041
1004050
1004036
0003068
0003007
1004025
9003003
1004098
0003089
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.8E-04
3.0E-03
1 .2E-03
2.0E-04
1.0E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
1 .2E-03
8.0E-04
1 .3E-04
2.4E-03
1.8E-03
6.3E-04
4.6E-04
1 .4E-04
4.3E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .4E-03
9.4E-04
8.7E-04
8.2E-04
7.1E-04
6.2E-04
2.8E-04
2.3E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .6E-04
2.1E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.0E-04
1 .3E-03
5.1E-04
9.1E-05
4.7E-04
1 .3E-03
9.2E-04
5.2E-04
3.6E-04
6.0E-05
1.1E-03
8.3E-04
2.8E-04
2.1E-04
6.4E-05
1 .9E-03
7.0E-04
7.0E-04
6.2E-04
4.2E-04
4.1E-04
3.7E-04
3.2E-04
2.8E-04
1 .3E-04
1.1E-04
8.6E-05
7.0E-05
9.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
10.5
66.2
22.2
2.6
25.8
58.0
28.1
19.9
12.9
1.8
34.1
40.5
9.7
5.3
1.7
65.5
26.4
23.7
27.0
14.7
13.4
15.4
10.8
12.8
4.8
4.3
2.0
2.3
41.7
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.6
2.5
1.0
0.2
0.9
2.5
1.7
1.0
0.7
0.1
2.0
1.6
0.5
0.4
0.1
3.6
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
1.8
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.6
62.5
61.0
60.2
60.9
62.5
61.7
61.0
60.7
60.1
62.0
61.6
60.5
60.4
60.1
63.6
61.3
61.3
61.2
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.5
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
61.8
July 2007
E-51
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1003008
9002023
9002015
9001010
9001005
1004059
0003114
0003037
0003042
9003027
0003155
1004058
1004096
1004007
2001051
0002050
0002036
1003013
0002026
1003016
0003138
1002003
0003140
0003083
1003007
1004047
0001006
1004037
0003071
Children
Ages 0 to 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.8E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
7.6E-04
6.5E-04
5.7E-04
0.01
6.6E-04
6.2E-04
5.5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
7.0E-05
5.0E-03
4.1E-03
3.9E-03
3.9E-03
3.1E-03
2.5E-03
2.4E-03
1.9E-03
1.9E-03
1 .2E-03
9.3E-04
7.5E-04
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.2E-04
6.2E-04
5.8E-04
5.8E-04
4.9E-04
3.4E-04
2.9E-04
2.5E-04
5.2E-03
3.1E-04
2.7E-04
2.5E-04
6.1E-05
5.7E-05
3.1E-05
2.2E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .4E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
8.5E-04
8.5E-04
5.5E-04
4.2E-04
3.3E-04
2.7E-04
2.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
36.1
19.1
21.7
15.5
17.5
16.0
10.1
10.1
256.0
9.7
11.5
11.2
2.4
2.0
0.6
101.5
65.1
57.6
91.1
45.1
69.5
35.3
53.5
49.0
23.8
15.6
11.9
9.0
11.3
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
9.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
2.6
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.5
61.1
61.1
61.1
60.9
60.6
60.6
60.5
69.9
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.1
60.1
60.1
64.3
63.4
63.3
63.3
62.6
62.1
62.1
61.6
61.6
61.0
60.8
60.6
60.5
60.5
July 2007
E-52
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9004022
0003004
1004028
1004019
1004013
9003002
2001006
2001007
1002018
0002018
1002012
0002022
1003023
1002016
9002021
9002030
1003028
0003144
9002000
0001012
9002006
0003060
0003079
1004051
1004048
9001013
9001002
0003107
1004049
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.2E-04
2.6E-04
2.4E-04
2.1E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
3.4E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1.0E-03
9.7E-04
9.7E-04
9.0E-04
8.9E-04
8.1E-04
7.6E-04
7.6E-04
7.5E-04
7.4E-04
7.0E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .5E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
9.4E-05
8.7E-05
8.6E-05
6.3E-05
5.9E-05
1 .5E-03
1.1E-03
1 .OE-03
9.1E-04
8.8E-04
8.7E-04
7.6E-04
7.3E-04
5.6E-04
5.2E-04
4.8E-04
4.3E-04
4.5E-04
4.0E-04
3.9E-04
3.6E-04
3.4E-04
3.5E-04
3.5E-04
3.3E-04
3.1E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
3.8
4.5
3.7
3.3
3.5
1.9
1.6
1.4
51.9
47.6
34.9
36.4
49.5
26.7
25.6
27.8
28.8
27.7
14.5
15.6
15.0
16.3
17.7
13.4
12.9
8.3
9.8
10.6
12.8
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.9
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
62.9
62.1
61.9
61.7
61.7
61.6
61.4
61.3
61.1
61.0
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
July 2007
E-53
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004054
1004057
9003044
1004055
0003128
2001028
1004011
0002047
0002039
0002028
1002020
1002002
0003093
0003082
0002017
9002011
1003004
0001032
0001027
9002001
0003078
1003001
1004060
1004046
0001013
9001012
1004052
9001014
0003070
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.2E-04
5.1E-04
4.7E-04
4.6E-04
4.4E-04
3.0E-04
1 .6E-04
5.1E-03
4.6E-03
3.7E-03
3.3E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.7E-03
1 .6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1 .4E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.2E-04
8.9E-04
7.9E-04
7.5E-04
7.1E-04
6.6E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.3E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
1 .3E-04
7.1E-05
2.3E-03
2.1E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .5E-03
8.9E-04
8.2E-04
7.7E-04
6.9E-04
7.0E-04
6.7E-04
6.6E-04
6.2E-04
5.2E-04
4.9E-04
4.6E-04
4.5E-04
4.2E-04
4.0E-04
3.7E-04
3.4E-04
3.3E-04
2.9E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
8.0
9.1
7.6
7.6
7.5
4.3
2.5
76.6
73.6
77.2
50.6
35.2
34.2
42.4
29.4
27.1
27.1
24.9
25.2
18.2
21.0
15.9
20.1
15.0
14.5
8.8
14.8
8.9
9.9
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
4.3
3.9
3.1
2.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.1
64.3
63.9
63.1
62.7
61.7
61.6
61.5
61.3
61.3
61.2
61.2
61.2
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.6
July 2007
E-54
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003036
9004015
9004014
0003073
0001003
0003115
9004016
1004072
1004056
9003017
9004017
9004006
0003020
9003013
0003006
9004008
1004089
2001011
1004100
2001008
2001013
1003012
1002019
0002025
0003087
1003009
0003088
0002019
9002029
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.5E-04
5.8E-04
5.7E-04
5.5E-04
5.5E-04
4.9E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.1E-04
3.3E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.7E-04
2.7E-04
2.4E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1.1E-04
3.4E-03
3.1E-03
3.0E-03
2.6E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
1.8E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.9E-04
2.7E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .3E-04
1.1E-04
6.6E-05
5.8E-05
5.6E-05
4.7E-05
1 .5E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
9.6E-04
9.4E-04
8.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.1
6.5
7.1
11.3
8.0
7.5
5.4
5.1
7.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
5.1
4.2
4.8
3.0
4.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.0
59.6
50.2
71.9
56.2
50.4
43.5
39.7
28.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.6
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
62.8
62.6
62.6
62.2
62.0
61.8
61.8
61.6
July 2007
E-55
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001035
0003085
0001025
9002012
0001031
9002017
0003142
0003077
0001024
0003055
0003056
9003042
9003050
0001008
1004045
0003065
0003052
1004033
1004040
0003050
1004038
0003069
0003049
0003031
9001001
9004018
0003122
0003123
0003160
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.8E-03
1 .6E-03
1.5E-03
1 .4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
9.3E-04
9.0E-04
8.6E-04
8.5E-04
8.3E-04
8.1E-04
7.9E-04
7.5E-04
6.9E-04
6.5E-04
6.1E-04
6.0E-04
5.9E-04
5.8E-04
5.7E-04
4.8E-04
4.3E-04
4.2E-04
4.0E-04
3.9E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.8E-04
7.2E-04
6.8E-04
6.4E-04
5.9E-04
6.1E-04
5.2E-04
4.8E-04
4.7E-04
4.1E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
4.0E-04
3.7E-04
3.6E-04
3.5E-04
3.3E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.7E-04
2.7E-04
2.6E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
30.3
47.3
27.5
23.2
23.0
19.7
29.5
19.8
19.4
14.3
16.0
14.2
14.0
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.3
10.3
10.2
9.4
9.1
11.9
10.9
10.5
5.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
8.6
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.5
61.4
61.3
61.2
61.1
61.1
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
July 2007
E-56
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004030
9003033
0003110
2001031
2001027
9004023
0003127
0003001
2001002
1004094
1004018
1004010
2001038
2001036
1004000
1004003
2001042
2001053
2001047
2001059
0002042
0003046
0002041
0002029
0002037
1003014
0003137
1003011
1002007
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.8E-04
3.5E-04
3.4E-04
3.3E-04
2.7E-04
2.6E-04
2.6E-04
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
8.5E-05
7.9E-05
7.9E-05
6.8E-05
0.03
0.01
7.0E-03
4.1E-03
3.7E-03
3.5E-03
3.4E-03
3.3E-03
3.0E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .2E-04
9.1E-05
8.8E-05
8.2E-05
8.1E-05
6.1E-05
5.8E-05
5.7E-05
5.0E-05
4.9E-05
3.8E-05
3.5E-05
3.5E-05
3.0E-05
1 .3E-02
5.2E-03
3.1E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .3E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
5.5
4.1
5.8
4.7
4.3
3.3
5.5
2.8
2.5
3.4
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
315.3
141.9
141.8
66.9
57.0
49.5
99.0
64.2
45.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
23.9
10.0
5.9
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.5
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
83.9
70.0
65.9
63.5
63.1
63.0
62.8
62.8
62.5
July 2007
E-5 7
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1002013
1002017
1003010
0003090
0003091
1003022
0002015
0003094
1001017
9002031
1003005
9002022
9002014
9002013
9002020
9002016
1003003
9001009
1001016
0003058
9002007
1004043
0001010
0003054
0003053
0003064
0001011
0001018
9001015
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
1.8E-03
1 .6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
9.0E-04
8.9E-04
8.8E-04
8.7E-04
8.0E-04
8.0E-04
7.6E-04
7.6E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
9.6E-04
9.5E-04
9.3E-04
9.0E-04
8.1E-04
7.4E-04
6.9E-04
6.6E-04
6.2E-04
6.1E-04
5.9E-04
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
5.3E-04
5.3E-04
5.0E-04
4.5E-04
4.7E-04
4.1E-04
4.0E-04
3.9E-04
3.9E-04
3.5E-04
3.5E-04
3.4E-04
3.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
39.4
36.0
49.7
42.0
36.9
51.0
45.4
33.4
24.1
25.3
29.5
22.2
22.5
21.3
20.5
19.1
23.1
11.6
16.1
18.5
18.6
14.5
13.7
13.5
13.1
13.2
12.9
14.7
8.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
62.2
62.2
62.2
61.8
61.8
61.7
61.7
61.5
61.4
61.2
61.2
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.0
61.0
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
July 2007
E-58
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations
for the Secondary
in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001007
0003063
0003066
0001020
0003067
0003109
0003076
0001019
1004039
0003072
0001005
0003152
0003159
9004021
2001029
0003015
0003112
9003020
9003016
0003002
9003021
0003003
9003010
2001000
1004081
1004024
1004091
0003129
1004093
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.3E-04
7.3E-04
7.1E-04
7.1E-04
6.8E-04
6.8E-04
6.7E-04
5.8E-04
5.5E-04
5.3E-04
4.8E-04
3.8E-04
3.8E-04
3.5E-04
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.7E-04
2.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.3E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .8E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.3E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.4E-04
2.1E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
9.5E-05
9.3E-05
9.3E-05
8.5E-05
8.2E-05
8.3E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.7
10.8
10.9
14.7
10.3
15.2
12.5
12.9
8.8
10.6
8.2
8.0
6.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
4.8
2.8
2.7
4.4
2.6
4.3
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.1
3.7
2.3
3.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
July 2007
E-59
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-5. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Monthly) Scenario
for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004017
1004015
1004005
1004006
2001070
2001052
2001062
2001058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
9.8E-05
7.6E-05
7.4E-05
6.0E-05
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.2E-05
7.0E-05
5.3E-05
5.0E-05
4.4E-05
3.4E-05
3.3E-05
2.7E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
2.4
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other"
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
1 Recent air refers to contributions associated with recent outdoor ambient air.
' Other refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air).
July 2007
E-60
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9003026
9001004
0003048
2001012
1004004
1002001
9001007
0003040
2001009
0001002
0002023
9003043
9004000
2001037
9003012
1004092
1004014
0003121
2001005
9001011
0003061
2001004
0001023
1004031
0003080
9003051
2001039
2001001
9002026
0001000
Children
Ages 0 to 7
71
63
53
42
38
35
35
31
31
30
29
26
24
22
21
21
21
19
19
18
18
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
14
14
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .2E-04
2.6E-04
2.4E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
4.4E-04
2.2E-04
3.8E-04
5.0E-05
1 .7E-04
8.6E-04
1 .7E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
7.7E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
8.1E-05
5.0E-05
2.5E-04
1 .8E-04
5.0E-05
3.0E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
5.0E-05
5.5E-05
4.5E-04
1 .7E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.6E-05
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
2.2E-05
2.3E-05
2.0E-04
1 .OE-04
1 .7E-04
2.2E-05
7.4E-05
3.8E-04
7.7E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
3.6E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
3.6E-05
2.2E-05
1 .2E-04
8.1E-05
2.2E-05
1 .4E-04
8.0E-05
7.5E-05
7.6E-05
2.2E-05
2.5E-05
2.1E-04
7.6E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.1
14.9
17.8
1.3
2.7
28.2
14.4
29.7
1.4
11.4
79.6
11.1
1.4
1.4
5.1
3.7
3.0
6.0
2.2
16.2
14.8
2.0
25.4
10.7
14.1
11.5
1.0
2.8
25.2
10.5
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.04
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.05
0.4
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.1
60.2
60.2
60.0
60.0
60.4
60.2
60.3
60.0
60.1
60.7
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.1
60.0
60.2
60.2
60.0
60.3
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.4
60.1
July 2007
E-61
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0002024
0001015
2001068
1004068
0002027
1002015
0001029
1004041
2001026
1002014
1003025
0003051
9003023
2001010
0002038
0001026
1003000
1003006
0001009
9003041
1004050
1004036
0003068
0003007
1004025
1004098
9003003
0003089
1003008
9002023
Children
Ages 0 to 7
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.5E-04
2.9E-04
5.1E-05
2.6E-04
7.5E-04
5.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.0E-04
5.0E-05
5.9E-04
4.6E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .2E-04
5.0E-05
1.1E-03
3.9E-04
3.9E-04
3.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .5E-04
7.1E-05
5.8E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.4E-04
4.5E-04
3.3E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.3E-04
1 .3E-04
2.3E-05
1 .2E-04
3.4E-04
2.3E-04
1 .3E-04
9.0E-05
2.2E-05
2.7E-04
2.1E-04
7.0E-05
5.3E-05
2.2E-05
4.8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .OE-04
1 .OE-04
9.2E-05
8.0E-05
6.9E-05
3.2E-05
2.6E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.4E-04
2.1E-04
1 .5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
66.2
22.2
2.6
25.8
58.0
28.1
19.9
12.9
1.8
34.1
40.5
9.7
5.3
1.7
65.5
26.4
23.7
27.0
14.7
13.4
15.4
10.8
12.8
4.8
4.3
2.3
2.0
41.7
36.1
19.1
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.6
0.2
0.04
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.5
0.4
0.3
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.6
60.2
60.0
60.2
60.6
60.4
60.2
60.2
60.0
60.5
60.4
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.9
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.5
60.4
60.3
July 2007
E-62
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9002015
9001010
9001005
1004059
0003114
0003037
0003042
9003027
0003155
1004058
1004096
1004007
2001051
0002050
0002036
1003013
0002026
1003016
0003138
1002003
0003140
0003083
1003007
1004047
0001006
1004037
0003071
9004022
0003004
1004028
Children
Ages 0 to 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.1E-04
3.1E-04
2.6E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .4E-04
2.9E-03
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
1.3E-03
1.0E-03
9.8E-04
9.7E-04
7.8E-04
6.4E-04
6.1E-04
4.8E-04
4.8E-04
3.0E-04
2.3E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
8.0E-05
6.6E-05
6.1E-05
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .2E-04
8.5E-05
7.2E-05
6.3E-05
1.3E-03
7.6E-05
6.9E-05
6.2E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
5.6E-04
4.5E-04
4.4E-04
4.3E-04
3.5E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .OE-04
8.3E-05
6.6E-05
6.2E-05
3.7E-05
2.9E-05
2.8E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
21.7
15.5
17.5
16.0
10.1
10.1
256.0
9.7
11.5
11.2
2.4
2.0
0.6
101.5
65.1
57.6
91.1
45.1
69.5
35.3
53.5
49.0
23.8
15.6
11.9
9.0
11.3
3.8
4.5
3.7
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
62.5
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.0
61.1
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
July 2007
E-63
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004019
1004013
9003002
2001006
2001007
1002018
0002018
1002012
0002022
1003023
1002016
9002021
9002030
1003028
0003144
9002000
0001012
9002006
0003060
0003079
1004051
1004048
9001013
9001002
0003107
1004049
1004054
1004057
9003044
1004055
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.2E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
8.5E-04
6.3E-04
5.7E-04
5.1E-04
4.9E-04
4.8E-04
4.1E-04
3.9E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.6E-04
2.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .2E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.4E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
3.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.6E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1 .OE-04
9.8E-05
9.1E-05
8.6E-05
8.8E-05
8.7E-05
8.3E-05
7.8E-05
5.8E-05
5.8E-05
5.5E-05
5.2E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
3.3
3.5
1.9
1.6
1.4
51.9
47.6
34.9
36.4
49.5
26.7
25.6
27.8
28.8
27.7
14.5
15.6
15.0
16.3
17.7
13.4
12.9
8.3
9.8
10.6
12.8
8.0
9.1
7.6
7.6
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.7
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
July 2007
E-64
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003128
2001028
1004011
0002047
0002039
0002028
1002020
1002002
0003093
0003082
0002017
9002011
1003004
0001032
0001027
9002001
0003078
1003001
1004060
1004046
0001013
9001012
1004052
9001014
0003070
0003036
9004015
9004014
0003073
0001003
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1.1E-04
7.4E-05
5.0E-05
1.3E-03
1 .2E-03
9.3E-04
8.1E-04
5.0E-04
4.6E-04
4.3E-04
3.9E-04
3.8E-04
3.7E-04
3.7E-04
3.5E-04
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.5E-04
2.5E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .4E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.9E-05
3.3E-05
2.3E-05
5.7E-04
5.2E-04
4.1E-04
3.7E-04
2.2E-04
2.1E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1 .OE-04
9.9E-05
9.2E-05
8.4E-05
8.2E-05
7.3E-05
7.2E-05
6.8E-05
6.6E-05
6.1E-05
6.1E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.5
4.3
2.5
76.6
73.6
77.2
50.6
35.2
34.2
42.4
29.4
27.1
27.1
24.9
25.2
18.2
21.0
15.9
20.1
15.0
14.5
8.8
14.8
8.9
9.9
12.1
6.5
7.1
11.3
8.0
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.1
0.1
0.04
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.1
60.1
60.0
61.1
61.0
60.8
60.7
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
July 2007
E-65
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003115
9004016
1004072
1004056
9003017
9004017
9004006
0003020
9003013
0003006
9004008
1004089
2001011
2001008
1004100
2001013
1003012
1002019
0002025
0003087
1003009
0003088
0002019
9002029
0001035
0003085
0001025
9002012
0001031
9002017
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1 .OE-04
8.1E-05
7.8E-05
7.1E-05
7.1E-05
7.0E-05
6.7E-05
6.7E-05
6.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
8.4E-04
7.8E-04
7.6E-04
6.5E-04
6.0E-04
5.4E-04
5.3E-04
4.6E-04
4.4E-04
4.0E-04
3.8E-04
3.4E-04
3.3E-04
3.3E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.5E-05
5.2E-05
5.0E-05
4.7E-05
3.8E-05
3.6E-05
3.3E-05
3.2E-05
3.2E-05
3.0E-05
3.1E-05
2.7E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
3.8E-04
3.5E-04
3.4E-04
2.9E-04
2.7E-04
2.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.1E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.5
5.4
5.1
7.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
5.1
4.2
4.8
3.0
4.8
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.0
59.6
50.2
71.9
56.2
50.4
43.5
39.7
28.4
30.3
47.3
27.5
23.2
23.0
19.7
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
July 2007
E-66
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003142
0003077
0001024
0003055
0003056
9003042
9003050
0001008
1004045
0003065
0003052
1004033
1004040
0003050
1004038
0003069
0003049
0003031
9001001
9004018
0003122
0003123
0003160
1004030
9003033
0003110
2001031
2001027
9004023
0003127
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.9E-04
2.7E-04
2.7E-04
2.3E-04
2.3E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
1 .OE-04
1 .OE-04
9.7E-05
9.6E-05
8.8E-05
8.6E-05
8.2E-05
6.7E-05
6.6E-05
6.5E-05
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .OE-04
1 .OE-04
9.9E-05
9.9E-05
9.3E-05
9.1E-05
8.8E-05
8.4E-05
7.8E-05
7.3E-05
6.8E-05
6.7E-05
6.5E-05
6.4E-05
6.3E-05
5.6E-05
4.9E-05
4.7E-05
4.4E-05
4.3E-05
4.3E-05
4.1E-05
3.8E-05
3.7E-05
3.0E-05
3.1E-05
2.9E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
29.5
19.8
19.4
14.3
16.0
14.2
14.0
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.3
10.3
10.2
9.4
9.1
11.9
10.9
10.5
5.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
8.6
5.5
4.1
5.8
4.7
4.3
3.3
5.5
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
July 2007
E-67
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003001
1004094
1004018
2001002
1004010
2001038
1004000
1004003
2001036
2001042
2001047
2001053
2001059
0002042
0003046
0002041
0002029
0002037
1003014
0003137
1003011
1002007
1002013
1002017
1003010
0003090
0003091
1003022
0002015
0003094
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.1E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
7.1E-03
3.0E-03
1.8E-03
1.0E-03
9.3E-04
8.8E-04
8.4E-04
8.2E-04
7.4E-04
6.5E-04
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
5.4E-04
5.3E-04
5.2E-04
5.1E-04
4.6E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
3.1E-03
1.3E-03
7.8E-04
4.6E-04
4.1E-04
4.0E-04
3.8E-04
3.7E-04
3.3E-04
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.4E-04
2.4E-04
2.3E-04
2.3E-04
2.0E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
2.8
3.4
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.5
315.3
141.9
141.8
66.9
57.0
49.5
99.0
64.2
45.2
39.4
36.0
49.7
42.0
36.9
51.0
45.4
33.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
6.0
2.5
1.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
62.5
61.5
60.9
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
July 2007
E-68
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1001017
9002031
1003005
9002022
9002014
9002013
9002020
9002016
1003003
9001009
1001016
0003058
9002007
1004043
0001010
0003054
0003053
0003064
0001011
0001018
9001015
0001007
0003063
0003066
0001020
0003067
0003109
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.1E-04
3.7E-04
3.6E-04
3.4E-04
3.3E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
3.0E-04
2.9E-04
2.8E-04
2.7E-04
2.5E-04
2.5E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .7E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
1.1E-04
1 .2E-04
1 .OE-04
9.9E-05
9.8E-05
9.7E-05
8.9E-05
8.8E-05
8.5E-05
8.8E-05
8.2E-05
8.1E-05
7.9E-05
7.9E-05
7.6E-05
7.5E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
24.1
25.3
29.5
22.2
22.5
21.3
20.5
19.1
23.1
11.6
16.1
18.5
18.6
14.5
13.7
13.5
13.1
13.2
12.9
14.7
8.2
12.7
10.8
10.9
14.7
10.3
15.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
July 2007
E-69
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003076
0001019
1004039
0003072
0001005
0003152
0003159
9004021
2001029
0003015
0003112
9003020
9003016
0003002
9003021
0003003
9003010
2001000
1004081
1004024
1004091
1004093
1004015
1004017
0003129
1004005
1004006
2001070
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .7E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
9.6E-05
9.5E-05
8.8E-05
7.2E-05
7.1E-05
7.0E-05
7.0E-05
6.7E-05
6.0E-05
6.0E-05
6.0E-05
5.7E-05
5.3E-05
5.1E-05
5.1E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.4E-05
6.5E-05
6.2E-05
5.9E-05
5.3E-05
4.3E-05
4.2E-05
4.1E-05
3.2E-05
3.2E-05
3.1E-05
3.3E-05
3.1E-05
2.7E-05
2.8E-05
2.7E-05
2.6E-05
2.4E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
2.3E-05
2.3E-05
2.2E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.5
12.9
8.8
10.6
8.2
8.0
6.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
4.8
2.8
2.7
4.4
2.6
4.3
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.1
3.7
3.4
2.7
2.4
2.3
1.7
1.4
1.3
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
July 2007
E-70
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-6. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m Max-Monthly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
2001052
2001062
2001058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
5.0E-05
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
2.2E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
0.7
0.6
0.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.04
0.04
0.04
From Other b
60
60
60
Total
60.0
60.0
60.0
b
' Recent air refers to contributions associated with recent outdoor ambient air.
Other refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air).
July 2007
E-71
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9003026
9001004
0003048
2001012
1004004
1002001
9001007
0003040
2001009
0001002
0002023
9003043
9004000
2001037
9003012
1004092
1004014
0003121
2001005
9001011
0003061
2001004
0001023
1004031
0003080
9003051
2001039
2001001
9002026
Children
Ages 0 to 7
71
63
53
42
38
35
35
31
31
30
29
26
24
22
21
21
21
19
19
18
18
17
16
16
16
16
16
15
14
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
5.8E-04
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1 .6E-04
1 .8E-04
2.1E-03
1.1E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .3E-04
8.0E-04
4.1E-03
8.0E-04
2.4E-04
1 .4E-04
3.7E-04
2.2E-04
1 .9E-04
3.9E-04
2.0E-04
1 .2E-03
8.8E-04
2.0E-04
1 .5E-03
8.4E-04
8.1E-04
7.8E-04
1 .2E-04
2.6E-04
2.2E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.7E-04
5.8E-04
5.0E-04
7.0E-05
8.2E-05
9.6E-04
5.0E-04
8.1E-04
5.9E-05
3.6E-04
1.8E-03
3.7E-04
1.1E-04
6.3E-05
1.7E-04
9.8E-05
8.8E-05
1.7E-04
9.1E-05
5.5E-04
3.9E-04
8.8E-05
6.5E-04
3.8E-04
3.6E-04
3.6E-04
5.2E-05
1 .2E-04
1.0E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
7.1
14.9
17.8
1.3
2.7
28.2
14.4
29.7
1.4
11.4
79.6
11.1
1.4
1.4
5.1
3.7
3.0
6.0
2.2
16.2
14.8
2.0
25.4
10.7
14.1
11.5
1.0
2.8
25.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.9
1.5
0.1
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.2
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.2
1.8
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.5
61.0
61.0
60.1
60.2
61.8
60.9
61.5
60.1
60.7
63.5
60.7
60.2
60.1
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.3
60.2
61.0
60.7
60.2
61.2
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.1
60.2
61.8
July 2007
E-72
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001000
0002024
0001015
2001068
1004068
0002027
1002015
0001029
1004041
2001026
1002014
1003025
0003051
9003023
2001010
0002038
0001026
1003000
1003006
0001009
9003041
1004050
1004036
0003068
0003007
1004025
9003003
1004098
0003089
Children
Ages 0 to 7
14
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.1E-04
3.6E-03
1 .4E-03
2.4E-04
1 .2E-03
3.6E-03
2.4E-03
1 .4E-03
9.5E-04
1 .6E-04
2.8E-03
2.2E-03
7.6E-04
5.5E-04
1 .7E-04
5.2E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .6E-03
1.1E-03
1 .OE-03
9.7E-04
8.5E-04
7.4E-04
3.4E-04
2.8E-04
2.2E-04
1 .9E-04
2.6E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.6E-04
1.6E-03
6.1E-04
1.1E-04
5.6E-04
1.6E-03
1.1E-03
6.2E-04
4.3E-04
7.1E-05
1 .3E-03
9.9E-04
3.4E-04
2.6E-04
7.7E-05
2.3E-03
8.3E-04
8.4E-04
7.4E-04
5.0E-04
4.9E-04
4.4E-04
3.8E-04
3.3E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .OE-04
8.4E-05
1.1E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
10.5
66.2
22.2
2.6
25.8
58.0
28.1
19.9
12.9
1.8
34.1
40.5
9.7
5.3
1.7
65.5
26.4
23.7
27.0
14.7
13.4
15.4
10.8
12.8
4.8
4.3
2.0
2.3
41.7
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.7
3.0
1.2
0.2
1.1
3.0
2.1
1.2
0.8
0.1
2.4
1.9
0.6
0.5
0.1
4.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
2.2
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.7
63.0
61.2
60.2
61.1
63.0
62.1
61.2
60.8
60.1
62.4
61.9
60.6
60.5
60.1
64.4
61.6
61.6
61.4
61.0
60.9
60.8
60.7
60.6
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
62.2
July 2007
E-73
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1003008
9002023
9002015
9001010
9001005
1004059
0003114
0003037
0003042
9003027
0003155
1004058
1004096
1004007
2001051
0002050
0002036
1003013
0002026
1003016
0003138
1002003
0003140
0003083
1003007
1004047
0001006
1004037
0003071
Children
Ages 0 to 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.2E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .3E-03
9.0E-04
7.8E-04
6.8E-04
0.01
7.9E-04
7.4E-04
6.6E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
8.4E-05
6.0E-03
4.9E-03
4.7E-03
4.7E-03
3.7E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
1 .4E-03
1.1E-03
8.9E-04
7.0E-04
6.6E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.8E-04
7.4E-04
7.0E-04
6.9E-04
5.9E-04
4.1E-04
3.5E-04
3.0E-04
6.2E-03
3.7E-04
3.3E-04
3.0E-04
7.2E-05
6.8E-05
3.7E-05
2.7E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
6.5E-04
5.0E-04
4.0E-04
3.2E-04
2.9E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
36.1
19.1
21.7
15.5
17.5
16.0
10.1
10.1
256.0
9.7
11.5
11.2
2.4
2.0
0.6
101.5
65.1
57.6
91.1
45.1
69.5
35.3
53.5
49.0
23.8
15.6
11.9
9.0
11.3
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
11.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
5.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.1
2.6
2.5
1.9
1.9
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.8
61.3
61.3
61.3
61.1
60.8
60.7
60.6
71.9
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.1
60.1
60.1
65.1
64.1
64.0
63.9
63.1
62.6
62.5
61.9
61.9
61.2
60.9
60.8
60.6
60.6
July 2007
E-74
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
9004022
0003004
1004028
1004019
1004013
9003002
2001006
2001007
1002018
0002018
1002012
0002022
1003023
1002016
9002021
9002030
1003028
0003144
9002000
0001012
9002006
0003060
0003079
1004051
1004048
9001013
9001002
0003107
1004049
Children
Ages 0 to 7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.8E-04
3.2E-04
2.9E-04
2.5E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
4.1E-03
3.0E-03
2.7E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
9.6E-04
9.1E-04
9.1E-04
8.9E-04
8.9E-04
8.3E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .8E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1.1E-04
1 .OE-04
1 .OE-04
7.5E-05
7.1E-05
1 .8E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1 .OE-03
9.0E-04
8.7E-04
6.7E-04
6.2E-04
5.7E-04
5.2E-04
5.4E-04
4.8E-04
4.7E-04
4.3E-04
4.1E-04
4.2E-04
4.1E-04
3.9E-04
3.8E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
3.8
4.5
3.7
3.3
3.5
1.9
1.6
1.4
51.9
47.6
34.9
36.4
49.5
26.7
25.6
27.8
28.8
27.7
14.5
15.6
15.0
16.3
17.7
13.4
12.9
8.3
9.8
10.6
12.8
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
3.4
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
63.4
62.5
62.3
62.1
62.0
61.9
61.6
61.6
61.3
61.2
61.0
61.0
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.7
July 2007
E-75
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004054
1004057
9003044
1004055
0003128
2001028
1004011
0002047
0002039
0002028
1002020
1002002
0003093
0003082
0002017
9002011
1003004
0001032
0001027
9002001
0003078
1003001
1004060
1004046
0001013
9001012
1004052
9001014
0003070
Children
Ages 0 to 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
6.2E-04
6.1E-04
5.7E-04
5.6E-04
5.3E-04
3.5E-04
1 .9E-04
6.1E-03
5.5E-03
4.4E-03
3.9E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
9.5E-04
8.9E-04
8.5E-04
7.9E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.3E-04
1 .6E-04
8.5E-05
2.7E-03
2.5E-03
2.0E-03
1 .8E-03
1.1E-03
9.9E-04
9.2E-04
8.3E-04
8.4E-04
8.0E-04
7.8E-04
7.4E-04
6.2E-04
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
5.4E-04
5.0E-04
4.7E-04
4.4E-04
4.0E-04
3.9E-04
3.5E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
8.0
9.1
7.6
7.6
7.5
4.3
2.5
76.6
73.6
77.2
50.6
35.2
34.2
42.4
29.4
27.1
27.1
24.9
25.2
18.2
21.0
15.9
20.1
15.0
14.5
8.8
14.8
8.9
9.9
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
5.2
4.7
3.8
3.3
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.3
60.2
65.2
64.7
63.8
63.3
62.0
61.9
61.8
61.6
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.4
61.1
61.1
61.0
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
July 2007
E-76
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0003036
9004015
9004014
0003073
0001003
0003115
9004016
1004072
1004056
9003017
9004017
9004006
0003020
9003013
0003006
9004008
1004089
2001011
1004100
2001008
2001013
1003012
1002019
0002025
0003087
1003009
0003088
0002019
9002029
Children
Ages 0 to 7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
7.7E-04
7.0E-04
6.8E-04
6.6E-04
6.6E-04
5.9E-04
5.3E-04
5.3E-04
4.9E-04
3.9E-04
3.7E-04
3.4E-04
3.4E-04
3.3E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
2.9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
4.0E-03
3.7E-03
3.6E-03
3.1E-03
2.9E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.2E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.4E-04
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .7E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
7.9E-05
7.0E-05
6.7E-05
5.7E-05
1 .8E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1 .OE-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.1
6.5
7.1
11.3
8.0
7.5
5.4
5.1
7.1
4.5
3.7
3.2
5.1
4.2
4.8
3.0
4.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.0
59.6
50.2
71.9
56.2
50.4
43.5
39.7
28.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.4
3.1
3.1
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
63.4
63.1
63.1
62.6
62.4
62.2
62.1
61.9
July 2007
E-77
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001035
0003085
0001025
9002012
0001031
9002017
0003142
0003077
0001024
0003055
0003056
9003042
9003050
0001008
1004045
0003065
0003052
1004033
1004040
0003050
1004038
0003069
0003049
0003031
9001001
9004018
0003122
0003123
0003160
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.1E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .3E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
1 .OE-03
9.6E-04
9.5E-04
9.0E-04
8.3E-04
7.8E-04
7.3E-04
7.1E-04
7.0E-04
6.9E-04
6.8E-04
5.7E-04
5.1E-04
5.0E-04
4.8E-04
4.6E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
9.3E-04
8.6E-04
8.1E-04
7.6E-04
7.1E-04
7.3E-04
6.2E-04
5.7E-04
5.6E-04
4.9E-04
4.8E-04
4.8E-04
4.7E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.2E-04
4.0E-04
3.7E-04
3.5E-04
3.3E-04
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
3.1E-04
3.0E-04
2.7E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
2.1E-04
2.1E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
30.3
47.3
27.5
23.2
23.0
19.7
29.5
19.8
19.4
14.3
16.0
14.2
14.0
13.9
12.8
11.9
11.3
10.3
10.2
9.4
9.1
11.9
10.9
10.5
5.5
4.9
5.9
5.6
8.6
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
61.8
61.6
61.5
61.4
61.4
61.3
61.2
61.1
61.1
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.4
July 2007
E-78
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004030
9003033
0003110
2001031
2001027
9004023
0003127
0003001
2001002
1004094
1004018
1004010
2001038
2001036
1004000
1004003
2001042
2001053
2001047
2001059
0002042
0003046
0002041
0002029
0002037
1003014
0003137
1003011
1002007
Children
Ages 0 to 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
4.6E-04
4.2E-04
4.1E-04
3.9E-04
3.2E-04
3.2E-04
3.1E-04
2.5E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
2.1E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .OE-04
9.5E-05
9.4E-05
8.1E-05
0.03
0.01
8.4E-03
5.0E-03
4.4E-03
4.2E-03
4.0E-03
3.9E-03
3.5E-03
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .4E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
9.8E-05
9.7E-05
7.3E-05
6.9E-05
6.8E-05
6.0E-05
5.9E-05
4.5E-05
4.2E-05
4.2E-05
3.6E-05
1 .5E-02
6.3E-03
3.7E-03
2.2E-03
2.0E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .6E-03
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
5.5
4.1
5.8
4.7
4.3
3.3
5.5
2.8
2.5
3.4
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.5
315.3
141.9
141.8
66.9
57.0
49.5
99.0
64.2
45.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
28.6
11.9
7.1
4.2
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.0
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
88.6
71.9
67.1
64.2
63.8
63.5
63.4
63.3
63.0
July 2007
E-79
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1002013
1002017
1003010
0003090
0003091
1003022
0002015
0003094
1001017
9002031
1003005
9002022
9002014
9002013
9002020
9002016
1003003
9001009
1001016
0003058
9002007
1004043
0001010
0003054
0003053
0003064
0001011
0001018
9001015
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.1E-03
3.1E-03
3.1E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
2.4E-03
2.2E-03
1 .9E-03
1 .8E-03
1 .7E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .6E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .5E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .2E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1 .OE-03
9.5E-04
9.5E-04
9.1E-04
9.1E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .4E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .2E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
9.7E-04
8.8E-04
8.2E-04
7.8E-04
7.4E-04
7.3E-04
7.1E-04
7.0E-04
6.6E-04
6.4E-04
6.3E-04
5.9E-04
5.4E-04
5.6E-04
4.8E-04
4.7E-04
4.7E-04
4.6E-04
4.2E-04
4.2E-04
4.0E-04
4.2E-04
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
39.4
36.0
49.7
42.0
36.9
51.0
45.4
33.4
24.1
25.3
29.5
22.2
22.5
21.3
20.5
19.1
23.1
11.6
16.1
18.5
18.6
14.5
13.7
13.5
13.1
13.2
12.9
14.7
8.2
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
62.6
62.6
62.6
62.2
62.2
62.1
62.0
61.8
61.6
61.5
61.5
61.4
61.3
61.3
61.3
61.2
61.2
61.1
61.1
61.0
61.0
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
60.8
July 2007
E-80
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
0001007
0003063
0003066
0001020
0003067
0003109
0003076
0001019
1004039
0003072
0001005
0003152
0003159
9004021
2001029
0003015
0003112
9003020
9003016
0003002
9003021
0003003
9003010
2001000
1004081
1004024
1004091
0003129
1004093
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.8E-04
8.7E-04
8.5E-04
8.5E-04
8.2E-04
8.1E-04
8.0E-04
7.0E-04
6.6E-04
6.3E-04
5.7E-04
4.6E-04
4.6E-04
4.2E-04
3.5E-04
3.4E-04
3.4E-04
3.4E-04
3.2E-04
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.9E-04
2.7E-04
2.5E-04
2.5E-04
2.5E-04
2.3E-04
2.2E-04
2.2E-04
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
3.9E-04
3.9E-04
3.8E-04
3.8E-04
3.6E-04
3.6E-04
3.5E-04
3.1E-04
3.0E-04
2.8E-04
2.5E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
1 .9E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .6E-04
1 .5E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .3E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1.1E-04
1 .OE-04
9.8E-05
9.9E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
12.7
10.8
10.9
14.7
10.3
15.2
12.5
12.9
8.8
10.6
8.2
8.0
6.5
5.1
4.6
3.9
4.8
2.8
2.7
4.4
2.6
4.3
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.1
3.7
2.3
3.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.7
60.6
60.6
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
60.4
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
60.2
July 2007
E-81
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-7. Estimated Media Pb Concentrations in Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m Max-Quarterly)
Scenario for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Block ID
1004017
1004015
1004005
1004006
2001070
2001052
2001062
2001058
Children
Ages 0 to 7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Annual Average
Air
Concentration
(pg/m3)
1 .9E-04
1 .8E-04
1 .4E-04
1 .3E-04
1 .2E-04
9.1E-05
8.8E-05
7.2E-05
Annual Average
Inhalation
Exposure
Concentration
(pg/m3)
8.6E-05
8.4E-05
6.3E-05
6.0E-05
5.2E-05
4.1E-05
3.9E-05
3.2E-05
Scaled Soil
Concentration
(pg/g)
2.4
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.4
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations (pg/g)
From Recent Air a
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
From Other b
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Total
60.2
60.2
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
60.1
b
1 Recent air refers to contributions associated with recent outdoor ambient air.
Other refers to contributions from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources (including historical air).
July 2007
E-82
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-8. Comparison of Monitored to Modeled Air Pb Concentrations for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Monitor ID
Distance
from Main
Stack (km)
Five Year
Average
Modeled
Air Pb
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Average Monitored Pb Concentrations a
1997
Mean
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Ratio
Monitor to
Model
1998
Mean
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Ratio
Monitor to
Model
1999
Mean
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Ratio
Monitor to
Model
2000
Mean
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Ratio
Monitor to
Model
2001
Mean
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Ratio
Monitor to
Model
2002
Mean
Cone
(Mg/m3)
Ratio
Monitor to
Model
Sanders Pb Data
11090003
11090006
400
680
0.26
0.06
0.40
0.13
1.5
2.2
0.47
0.16
1.8
2.7
0.47
0.18
1.8
3.0
0.38
0.19
1.5
3.3
0.44
0.20
1.7
3.5
0.28
0.14
1.1
2.4
1 Annual averages were calculated from monthly composite U. S. AQS data and weighted by the number of days in a month.
July 2007
E-83
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-9. Input Parameters for Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Soil Model Calculations
Use in Model
Mixing
equation
parameters
Loss equation
meteorological
parameters
Loss equation
soil and
contaminant
properties
Parameter
Tydb
to
Zs
BD
My
1
Ev
RO
esw
Kds
SD
ER
Description
Yearly total deposition
rate of contaminant
Total time period over
which deposition
occurs
Soil mixing depth
Bulk density of soil
Rainfall
Irrigation
Evapotranspiration
Average annual
surface runoff
Volumetric soil water
content
Soil-water partitioning
coefficient
Sediment delivery
ratio
Contaminant
enrichment ratio
Value Used
Varies by block
(g/m -yr)
See Attachment
E-3 to E-7
37 years
1 cm
Varies (g/cm3)
(Average 1 .47)
136.7 cm/year
0
82.5 cm/yr
51.1 cm/yr
0.2 milliliter
(mL/)cm3
900 mL/g
0.18
1
Source and Reason a
AERMOD results - deposition at each
block was assumed constant for modeling
period.
Lifetime of the facility (1969 to present,
according to Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM)
(2006).
Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol (HHRAP)(USEPA, 2005);
California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (2000); and for
consistency with primary Pb smelter soil
samples.
From soil survey for Pike county (Alabama
National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), 2006) Soil type at each block
centroid was identified.
Annual normal precipitation from 1971 to
2000 for Troy, AL (National Climatic Data
Center (NCDC), 2002).
Assumption.
Midpoint of estimated evapotranspiration
for Alabama based on hydrologic budget of
the state (Hanson, 1991).
Value for the south east central United
States (McKone and Bodnar, 2001).
HHRAP default midpoint value.
HHRAP default for Pb.
MPE default.
HHRAP default.
July 2007
E-84
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment E-9. Input Parameters for Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Soil Model Calculations
Use in Model
Loss equation
Universal Soil
Loss Equation
(USLE)
additional
parameters
Parameter
R
K
LS
C
P
Description
Erosivity factor
Erodibility factor
Topographical or
slope-length factor
Cover management
factor
Supporting practice
factor
Value Used
350 yr'1
Varies (ton/acre)
(Average 0.18)
1.5
0.1
0
Source and Reason a
Estimated from U.S. Soil Conservation
Service Map in Schwab et al. (1993).
From soil survey for Pike county (NRCS,
2006). Soil type at each block centroid
was identified.
HHRAP default that represents a variety of
distance and slope conditions. Default was
selected because of the large area used
relative to the intended design of USLE.
HHRAP value for grass and agricultural
crops.
HHRAP conservative assumption that no
erosion prevention methods are in place.
1
2
aHHRAP refers to the U.S. EPA (2005) and MPE refers to the U.S. EPA (1998).
b Dyd (annual dry deposition) and Dyw (annual wet deposition) were pooled to create Tyd (annual total deposition).
July 2007
E-85
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix F: Pb in Outdoor Soil and Dust near Roadways
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents F-i
List of Exhibits F-ii
F. PB IN OUTDOOR SOIL AND DUST NEAR ROADWAYS F-l
F.I. INTRODUCTION F-l
F.2. PB CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL AND DUST NEAR ROADWAYS F-2
F.3. TRENDS IN PB LEVELS NEAR ROAD WAYS F-9
REFERENCES F-10
July 2007 F-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit F-l. Selected Data - Pb in Surface Soil and Dust Near Roadways and Related
Urban Measurements F-3
Exhibit F-2. Pb Concentrations Measured in Outdoor Soil and Dust Adjacent to United
States and Canadian Roadways F-8
July 2007 F-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 F. PB IN OUTDOOR SOIL AND DUST NEAR ROADWAYS
2 This appendix describes data on concentrations of lead (Pb) in outdoor soil and dust near
3 roadways. Section F. 1 briefly introduces this topic. Section F.2 summarizes measured Pb
4 concentrations in outdoor soil and dust near roadways, as reported in recent literature. Section
5 F.3 provides a summary of trends in Pb concentrations in outdoor soil and dust near roadways
6 based on this literature review.
7 Although dust was not an explicit search term in identifying publications for discussion
8 in this appendix, generally speaking, the surface layer of outdoor soil is sometimes referred to as
9 outdoor dust. Specifically, the phrase "outdoor dust" refers to particles deposited on any outdoor
10 surface, including, for example, roadways (as well as soil). That said, in summarizing literature
11 findings in Section F.2, the terms used are consistent with those used in the corresponding
12 publication.
13 F.I. INTRODUCTION
14 Elevated levels of Pb have been observed in roadside soils throughout the United States.
15 Although Pb concentrations in air decreased dramatically with the phase-out of Pb in gasoline,
16 the persistence and relative immobility of Pb in soils has resulted in elevated concentrations of
17 Pb in soils adjacent to roadways. Because the Pb in near-roadway soils is not easily transported
18 by erosion, runoff, or other advective processes, it can remain there for relatively long time
19 periods (USEPA, 2006). Correlations between current soil concentrations of Pb and air
20 concentrations of Pb from periods when leaded gasoline was in use have been observed (Sheets
21 et al., 2001). Studies in several cities in the late 1980s and 1990s found high concentrations in
22 central sections of each city where traffic and population density are greatest (USEPA, 2006).
23 The resuspension of Pb in near-roadway soil and dust is a potential source of airborne Pb
24 in some locations (USEPA, 2006). Young et al. (2001; 2002), for example, evaluated Pb levels
25 in roadside soils and surface soil samples near facilities to estimate the "potential suspension
26 yield" (i.e., the amount of Pb sorbed to particulate matter (PM) less than 10 micrometers (|im)
27 that is likely to be subject to resuspension due to wind erosion) and the enrichment ratio of
28 suspended Pb (i.e., concentration of Pb in suspended PM versus the measured Pb concentration
29 in surface soil). Based on their results, Pb-contaminated soils were found to be a potential source
30 of airborne Pb.
31 Mass-balance studies performed on urban and metropolitan scales support the hypothesis
32 that resuspension of Pb in soil is a source of current levels of airborne Pb. For example, in two
33 studies described in the Criteria Document (USEPA, 2006), mass-balance calculations were
July 2007 F-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 conducted for the air emissions of Pb in the California South Coast Air Basin near Los Angeles.
2 Lankey et al. (1998) estimated that 40 percent of Pb emitted to air was generated by the
3 resuspension of Pb previously deposited on roadways. This mass balance was calculated for
4 1989, when some leaded gas was still in use (the authors estimated that direct Pb emitted in car
5 exhaust also accounted for 40 percent of the total airborne Pb). Using data collected in 2001,
6 Harris and Davidson (2005) estimated that soil contamination subject to resuspension is the
7 source of 90 percent of the Pb emitted to air in southern California near Los Angeles. Although
8 these studies are based on generalized, mass-balance assumptions and the contribution of near-
9 roadway soils is uncertain, resuspension of soil-bound Pb particles and contaminated road dust is
10 considered to be a significant source of airborne Pb (USEPA, 2006).
11 F.2. PB CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL AND DUST NEAR ROADWAYS
12 Exhibit F-l presents a summary of published accounts ordered alphabetically by primary
13 author of measured Pb concentrations in outdoor soil and dust near roadways. This summary is
14 based on a literature search intended to identify recent studies of Pb in surface soil and dust
15 adjacent to roads. Only recent studies that conducted outdoor soil or dust measurements are
16 included here, with a focus on those published within the past decade. In many instances,
17 additional measurements were collected or investigators completed other analyses using the
18 results; these details are not included in this summary.
19 This snapshot of the literature reveals that concentrations of Pb in soils or dust near
20 roadways have been measured at a wide range of locations. For these studies, Pb levels range
21 from typical urban background levels to hundreds or thousands of milligrams per kilogram
22 (mg/kg) (Shinn et al., 2000; Sutherland et al., 2000; Turer and Maynard, 2003). Exhibit F-2
23 presents the general range of Pb concentrations reported in this subset of the literature for surface
24 soil and dust samples taken near United States and Canadian roadways. Note that this chart is
25 intended to convey only general information on the levels of total Pb reported in the literature in
26 soil and dust near roadways; it should not be interpreted as a representative or comprehensive
27 summary of surface soil data for the entire United States nor Canada.
July 2007 F-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit F-l. Selected Data - Pb in Surface Soil and Dust Near Roadways and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Chirenje et al., 2004
. Gainesville, Florida (relatively
undeveloped, low population/traffic
density) and Miami, Florida (developed,
high population/traffic density)
. Locations sampled according to land use
characterization as residential,
commercial, public parks, or public
buildings
. Sampling depths: 0 to 20 cm
(centimeters) in Gainesville; 0 to 10 cm in
Miami
In Miami, analyses showed concentrations
from 0 to 10 cm were no different than
concentrations from 10 to 20 cm
. Miami: median 98 parts per million
(ppm); 55 percent of samples were 51
to 200 ppm
. Gainesville: median 15 ppm; 87
percent of samples <50 ppm
Concluded lower Pb in Gainesville was
due to lower inputs (low industrial
activity, less traffic) but also increased
Pb mobility/low retention (lower pH,
organic carbon content, and clay
content versus Miami soils)
. Pb patterns with land use slightly
differed between Gainesville and
Miami
. Residential and commercial areas
generally had higher levels of Pb
Fakayode and Olu-
Owolabi, 2003
. Osogbo, Orun, Nigeria
. Samples taken at depths of 0 to 5 cm at
distances of 5, 15, 30, and 50 meters (m)
from edge of roads
. 39 sampling locations; divided into high,
medium, and low density traffic regions
For high traffic density roads: average
92ฑ21 ppm at 5 m from road;
reductions in Pb with distance: 37
percent at 10 m, 62 percent at 30 m,
81 percent at 50 m
. For medium traffic density roads: 64,
42, 27, and 13 ppm, respectively, at
distance of 5, 10, 30, and 50 m
. Authors concluded that vehicle Pb-
based emissions and gasoline-related
sources are major contributors to
elevated levels of Pb relative to
controls
Filippelli et al., 2005
. Indianapolis, Indiana
Sampled at several locations on transects
along urban and suburban roadways; 10
to 40 m from road
. Sampling depth: 0 to 5 cm
. Urban roadways: 400 to >900 ppm
Suburban roadways: 100 to <200 ppm
. Concentrations diminished with
increasing distance from roadside
. Also sampled at various urban
locations to investigate Pb from diffuse
(non-specific) sources
> Conducted predictive blood-Pb (PbB)
modeling using soil measurements
July 2007
F-3
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit F-l. Selected Data - Pb in Surface Soil and Dust Near Roadways and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Gillies et al., 1999
Urban locations near Reno, Nevada, and
surrounding non-urban areas
Sampled dust at surface of soil or paved
road
. Sampling locations included playas (dry
lake bed/salt flat), paved roads, and
construction sites
. Sampling depth: ~ top 1 cm of soil
. Reported relative abundance of Pb in
PM 2.5 by weight percent: playa and
construction site 0.001 to 0.01 percent;
paved road 0.01 to 0.1 percent
. Approximate enrichment factors of Pb
in PM2.5: playa -1 to 10; paved road
-30; construction site ~5 to 10
Pb enrichment factors slightly lower for
particles in between PM10 and PM2.5
for playa and paved road;
approximately same for construction
site
Results were used in source
apportionment analysis for
resuspended PM
Hafen and
Brinkmann, 1996
. Tampa, Florida
. Sampled 32 transects at roadways, 7
samples per transect; 3 cm to 220 cm
from road; sampling depth: 0 to 3 cm
224 samples total, 7 samples per transect
. Range: 40 to 3,360 ppm
Mean Pb concentrations by distance
from road were relatively tightly
clustered; means ranged from 200
ppm (>0.8 m) to 440 ppm (0.24 m)
Looked for trends in concentration with
distance and other factors on a near-
term scale (within 2.2 m of road); weak
negative correlation with distance from
roadway observed
Lejano and Ericson,
2005
i Pacoima, California, (near Los Angeles)
210 samples at transects along freeways
spaced about 1 kilometer (km) apart;
sampling depth: 0 to 2.54 cm; samples
collected from within 150 m of the
roadway
. Total range not presented; mean
concentrations of five roadways range
from 43 to 112 ppm (mean for one
road up to 232 ppm if one outlier
included)
. Mean concentrations for three "non-
vehicular" sample sites: 52, 67, and
111 ppm
. Concluded that historical vehicular
emissions appear to be primary and
most bioavailable source of Pb in soil
Li, 2006
. Burnaby, Canada
Three transects across highway; samples
at 0.1 m intervals from road
. 139 samples from 17 borehole locations;
sampling depth: 0 to 10 cm
Results for three transects: 7 to 1020
ppm (lower traffic/speed); 25 to 925
ppm; 303 to 1650 ppm
Sequential extractions were also
performed to check
sorption/bioavailability
Li and Preciado,
2004
. British Columbia, Canada, Highway 17
. Two transects along highway; 0 to 10 m
from road; 1 m intervals
. Sampling depth: 0 to 5 cm
Also sampled on-road dust and measured
Pb deposition rates adjacent to roadway
. Roadside soil results: -100 ppm for
samples 0 m from roadside; <50 ppm
for all samples 1 to 10 m from roadside
On-road dust: Pb content ranged from
51 to 181 mg/kg
. PM deposition adjacent to road
decreases by -1/2 within 10 m of
roadway
Pb deposition rates on soils within 12
m of roadway range from 1.5 to 5
micrograms per square meter per day
(ug/m2-day); no clear pattern versus
distance
July 2007
F-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit F-l. Selected Data - Pb in Surface Soil and Dust Near Roadways and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Sanchez-Martin et
al., 2000
. Two medium-sized Spanish cities
(Salamanca and Valladolid)
Samples taken at near-roadway, median,
urban, suburban, park, and natural
settings
. Sampling depth: 1 to 10 cm
Salamanca: 1 to 3 m from road: 33 to
353 ppm (mean 122 ppm); 10m from
road: 18 to 90 ppm (mean 48 ppm);
median strip 87 to 1480 ppm (mean
580 ppm)
. Valladodid: median strip 51 to 1117
ppm (mean 96 ppm)
. Statistically significant correlation
observed between Pb concentrations
and mean daily traffic intensity traffic in
samples from Salamanca
. Also measured soluble fraction
Sheets et al., 2001
. Springfield, Missouri
. Multiple sampling locations, including
three near heavy-traffic streets and two
more than 30 m from residential street
. Sampling depth: 0 to 1 cm
Averages for surface samples at five
roadside locations ranged from 18 to
179 ppm
Correlation was observed between soil
measurements taken in 1999 and
airborne Pb monitoring from 1979 to
1984 (when gasoline was leaded)
Shinn et al., 2000
. Chicago, Illinois
. Sampled bare soil in four-block urban
residential area and measured Pb
Developed surface plots of Pb levels via
kriging; analyzed patterns by reviewing
historical data for potential sources
. Sampling depth not specified
. Mean soil Pb: 2180 ppm; median:
1775 ppm; range: 175 to 7935 ppm
. Pb distribution in soil indicates non-
random distribution of Pb sources
. Pb surface soil patterns linked to
existing and previous potential sources
within study area, as well as nearby
street with high-traffic volume
Speiran, 1998
. Interstate 95 (I-95) north of Richmond,
Virginia (Exit 86 to a moderately traveled,
two-lane road)
. 59 soil samples from 19 sites
Varying distances from interstate and exit
ramp
. Sampling depth: 0 to 7.6 cm
Range: 46 to 1200 ppm
Spatial variations in concentrations
indicate that highway lanes were a
source of metals, including Pb
. Concentrations decrease with
increasing distance from roadside
July 2007
F-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit F-l. Selected Data - Pb in Surface Soil and Dust Near Roadways and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Sutherland and
Tolosa, 2001
. Manoa basin, Oahu, Hawaii
. Sampled two transects at low speed
roadways (near park and school) out to 50
m from road
. First sample (0 m) from "road deposited
sediment (RDS)" - curbside area at edge
of road
. Sampling depth: 0 to 2.5 cm
. Park transect: max of 375 ppm (5 m
from road); RDS 285 ppm
. School transect: max of 200 ppm in
RDS; all soil samples 25 to 50 ppm,
out to 50 m
Measurements for both transects drop
to <50 ppm within 5 to 10 m
i Local background soil concentrations
reported as 12 to 13 ppm
. Concluded that "urban architecture"
(sidewalks, grass, topography) impacts
Pb concentrations
. Pb concentration versus distance
plotted using data from 10 studies from
the 1970s to 1980s; relationship
generally linear when log of
concentration and distance are used
. Five supplemental soil samples
collected from grass-covered
recreational field >100 m from
roadway; 10 "control" locations
sampled from relatively undisturbed
areas
Sutherland et al.,
2000
. Manoa watershed, Oahu, Hawaii
Sampled road deposited sediment (in curb
at roadside) and roadside soils within 2 m
of road surface; 78 samples
. Daily traffic volumes: <3200 to 45,200
vehicles/day
. Sampling depth: 0 to 2.5 cm
Range of total Pb in roadside soil 10 to
4870 ppm
. Median Pb concentration 56 ppm
(includes road deposited sediment, but
highest levels seen in roadside soil)
. Enrichment ratios were calculated
based on the degree of anthropogenic
influence on Pb levels; Pb was the
most significantly enhanced metal
versus aluminum (Al), copper (Cu),
and zinc (Zn)
. Enrichment ratio for roadside Pb was
four to five times higher than in
background soils
July 2007
F-6
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit F-l. Selected Data - Pb in Surface Soil and Dust Near Roadways and Related Urban Measurements
Study Citation
Location and Sampling Scheme
Reported Pb Concentration(s)
(total Pb unless otherwise specified)
Other Relevant Information
Teichman et al.,
1993
. Alameda County, California, adjacent to
Interstate 880 (I-880)
. -200 samples were taken in residential
yards and parks/playgrounds in
communities adjacent to I-880 and within
1-mile radius of I-880
. Sampling depth: ranged from surface to
1.27 to 1.91 cm deep
. Residential soil measurements:
average 567.7 ppm; range 195 to 2026
ppm
. Parks and playgrounds
measurements: average 136.5 ppm;
range 6 to 565 ppm
"Gasoline emissions" cited as a likely
urban source
Turer and Maynard,
2003
Corpus Christi, Texas; two sampling sites;
one transect per site
. Site 1: city center (heavy traffic); 12
samples; 2 to 12 m from road; 12m from
road; sampling depth: 0 to 32.5 cm
Site 2: near oil refinery; 10 samples; 0.5 to
4 m from road; sampling depth: 0 and 0 to
2.5 cm
Sitel: 210 to 770 ppm; Site 2: 140 to
390 ppm
. Highest concentrations at both sites
were observed closest to roadway
(within 3.5 m)
> Results were compared to Cincinnati,
Ohio metal contamination in near-
highway soils, and organic matter was
determined to be the key to Pb mobility
Turer et al., 2001
. Cincinnati, Ohio Interstate 75 (I-75)
through city; 58 samples
Sampling conducted adjacent to highways
on median between lanes (within -50 m of
road)
. Sampling depth: 0 to 1 cm; also sampled
1 to 5 cm
Range for 0- to 1 -cm samples: 166 to
942 ppm; range for 1- to 5-cm
samples: 59 to 1073 ppm
. Some samples taken at depth of 10
to15 cm contained total Pb between
1000 and 2000 ppm
. Performed mass balance analysis to
determine fate of Pb (total emitted
historically in exhaust versus Pb
currently in soil); results suggest 60
percent of Pb has been lost from study
area (roadsides)
. Removal via wind-blown dust was
proposed as most likely remobilization
mechanism; surface runoff may be
lesser removal mechanism
Young et al., 2001
California highways; three locations (not
identified)
. Samples taken 1.5 m from roadway
. Sampling depth not specified
Pb concentration reported to be 38, 46,
and 322 ppm
. Pb content, potential PM10 yield, and
Pb emission potential via resuspension
measured for all samples
July 2007
F-7
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit F-2. Pb Concentrations Measured in Outdoor Soil and Dust Adjacent to
United States and Canadian Roadways
4
5
6
7
2500 -,
2000 -
"E
ฃ 1 500 -
Q.
I
ro
01
ra 1000 -
'o
500 -
0 -
ป .
max: 4,870
T
- J-
Teichman Li, 2006 Tureretal., Hafen and Turerand Filippelli et Speiran, Sutherland Young et Lejanoand Sheets et Sutherland Li and
etal., 1993 2001 Brinkmann, Maynard, al., 2005 1998 and Tolosa, al., 2002 Ericson, al., 2001 etal., 2000 Preciado,
1996 2003 2000 2005 2004
Note: This chart is intended to convey the range of total Pb measured in roadside soils in the United States and Canada in the cited
studies. For each study, the vertical line represents the approximate range of total Pb reported in surface soil samples taken from
roadside locations; surface sampling depth varies by study. The horizontal hash mark or box represents the "average" total Pb for all
samples in that study; this average may be either reported in the study or calculated based on reported data. In some cases, only the
average or median concentrations for selected study locations or sample categories were reported; these cases are represented by a
black box with no vertical line. Refer to cited publications for details on individual studies.
July 2007
F-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 F.3. TRENDS IN PB LEVELS NEAR ROADWAYS
2 Pb concentrations are typically higher in roadside soils located in highly developed
3 urban areas than in non-urban environments (Chirenje et al., 2004; Shinn et al., 2000; Turer and
4 Maynard, 2003). Generalizing beyond this observation, however, is difficult. Although Pb
5 concentrations in soils have been positively correlated with traffic volume on adjacent roadways
6 in some cases (see, e.g., Sanchez-Martin et al. [2000] and Fakayode and Olu-Owolabi [2003]),
7 other analyses have suggested that that relationship may be confounded by variables such as
8 microclimate turbulence, near-roadway topography, and human construction and landscaping
9 activities (Hafen and Brinkmann, 1996). Although Pb is generally higher in soils near heavily-
10 traveled roadways, determining the specific relationship with traffic volume can be difficult, in
11 part because traffic density for previous time periods can be difficult to determine. Also, other
12 site-specific factors can affect Pb mobility; for example, lower soil pH and organic carbon and
13 clay content have been correlated with increased Pb mobility (i.e., lower retention rates) in
14 roadside soils (Chirenje et al., 2004). Pb concentrations tend to be highest in the upper-most
15 layer of soil (i.e., first several cm). Some exceptions have been reported; for example, Turer et
16 al. (2001) observed concentrations of total Pb in soil adjacent to an interstate highway in
17 Cincinnati, Ohio of 1,000 to 2,000 mg/kg at a depth 10 to 15 cm (compared to concentrations up
18 to about 1,000 mg/kg in the top 5 cm of soil).
19 Substantial evidence indicates that Pb concentrations in surface soil decrease rapidly with
20 distance from the roadway. Sutherland and Tolosa (2001) reported that the relationship for
21 measurements taken adjacent to roadways (out to 50 m) in Hawaii is approximately linear when
22 the log of concentration is plotted against the log of distance from the roadway. Similarly,
23 Filippelli et al. (2005) have reported an exponential decay in Pb concentration with increasing
24 distance from the roadside based on transects at 10 and 40 m from roadways in Indianapolis,
25 Indiana. Hafen and Brinkmann (1996) surveyed results from several studies and observed a
26 generally exponential decrease in Pb concentration with distance from the road. Other
27 investigators have observed an overall decrease in Pb in surface soil but were unable to
28 determine a mathematical relationship (Li and Preciado, 2004; Shinn et al., 2000). In general,
29 however, based on the conclusions of these studies, Pb concentrations adjacent to roads appear to
30 decrease to local background levels within 50 m of the roadway.
31
32
July 2007 F-9 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Chirenje, T.; Ma, L. Q.; Reeves, M.; Szulczewski, M. (2004) Lead Distribution in Near-Surface Soils of Two
3 Florida Cities: Gainesville and Miami. Geoderma. 119(2): 113-120.
4 Fakayode, S. O.and Olu-Owolabi, B. I. (2003) Heavy Metal Contamination of Roadside Topsoil in Osogbo, Nigeria:
5 Its Relationship to Traffic Density and Proximity to Highways. Environmental Geology. 44: 150-157.
6 Filippelli, G. M.; Laidlaw, M. A.; Latimer, J. C.; Raftis, R. (2005) Urban Lead Poisoning and Medical Geology: An
7 Unfinished Story. GSA Today. 15(1): 4-11.
8 Gillies, J. A.; O'Connor, C. M.; Mamane, Y.; Gerler, A. W. (1999) Chemical Profiles for Characterizing Dust
9 Sources in an Urban Area, Western Nevada, USA. In: Livingstone, I., Ed. Aeolian Geomorphology: Papers
10 From the 4th International Conference on Aeolian Research 1998, Oxford, UK. Zeitschrift fuer
11 Geomorphologie. 116(S): 19-44.
12 Hafen, M. R. and Brinkmann, R. (1996) Analysis of Lead in Soils Adjacent to an Interstate Highway in Tampa,
13 Florida. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 18(4): 171-179.
14 Harris, A. R.and Davidson, C. I. (2005) The Role of Resuspension in Lead Flows in the California South Coast Air
15 Basin. Environ Sci Technol. 39: 7410-7415.
16 Lankey, R. L.; Davidson, C. L; McMichael, F. C. (1998) Mass Balance for Lead in the California South Coast Air
17 Basin: an Update. Environmental Research. A 78: 86-93.
18 Lejano, R. P.and Ericson, J. E. (2005) Tragedy of the Temporal Commons: Soil-Bound Lead and the Anachronicity
19 of Risk. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 48(2): 301-320.
20 Li, L. Y. and Preciado, H. (2004) Air, Runoff and Soil Monitoring of Highway Pollution by Metals Along Highway
21 Corridors. In Brebbia, C. A., ed. Air Pollution XII (Air Pollution 2004). United Kingdom: Wessex Institute
22 of Technology.
23 Li, L. Y. (2006) Retention Capacity and Environmental Mobility of Pb in Soils Along Highway Corridor. Water,
24 Air, and Soil Pollution. 170: 211-227.
25 Sanchez-Martin, M. J.; Sanchez-Camazano, M.; Lorenzo, L. F. (2000) Cadmium and Lead Contents in Suburban
26 and Urban Soils From Two Medium-Sized Cites of Spain: Influence of Traffic Intensity. Bulletin of
27 Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 64: 250-257.
28 Sheets, R. W.; Kryger, J. R.; Biagioni, R. N.; Probst, S.; Boyer, R.; Barke, K. (2001) Relationship Between Soil
29 Lead and Airborne Lead Concentrations at Springfield, Missouri, USA. Science of Total Environment. 271:
30 79-85.
31 Shinn, N. J.; Bing-Canar, J.; Cailas, M.; Peneff, N.; Binns, H. J. (2000) Determination of Spatial Continuity of Soil
32 Lead Levels in an Urban Residential Neighborhood. Environmental Research. 82 (Section A): 46-52.
July 2007 F-10 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Speiran, G. K. (1998) Selected Heavy Metals and Other Constituents in Soil and Stormwater Runoff at the Interstate
2 95 Interchange Near Atlee, Virginia, April 1993-May 1997. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-
3 4115, 39p. U.S. Geological Survey.
4 Sutherland, R. A.; Tolosa, C. A.; Tack, F. M. G.; Verloo, M. G. (2000) Characterization of Selected Element
5 Concentrations and Enrichment Ratios in Background and Anthropogenically Impacted Roadside Areas.
6 Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 38: 428-438.
7 Sutherland, R. A.and Tolosa, C. A. (2001) Variation in Total and Extractable Elements With Distance From Roads
8 in an Urban Watershed, Honolulu, Hawaii. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 127(4): 315-338.
9 Tiechman, I; Coltrin, D.; Prouty, K.; Bir, W. A. (1993) A Survey of Lead Contamination in Soil Along Interstate
10 880, Alameda County, CA. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 54(9): 557-559.
11 Turer, D.; Maynard, J. B.; Sansalone, J. J. (2001) Heavy Metal Contamination in Soils of Urban Highways:
12 Comparison Between Runoff and Soil Concentrations at Cincinnati, Ohio. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
13 132:293-314.
14 Turer, D. G. and Maynard, J. B. (2003) Heavy Metal Contamination in Highway Soils. Comparison of Corpus
15 Christi, Texas and Cincinnati, Ohio Shows Organic Matter Is Key to Mobility. Clean Technologies and
16 Environmental Policy. 4(4): 23 5-245.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006) Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). Volume I and II.
18 Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF.
19 Available online at: http://cfpub.epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid= 158823.
20 Young, T. M.; Heeraman, G.; Sirin, G.; Ashbaugh, L. (2001) Resuspension of Soil As a Source of Airborne Lead.
21 Contract No. 97-325. Final Project Report from Air Quality Group, Crocker Nuclear Lab to the Research
22 Division of the Air Resources Board; August.
23 Young, T. M.; Heeraman, G.; Sirin, G.; Ashbaugh, L. (2002) Resuspension of Soil As a Source of Airborne Lead
24 Near Industrial Facilities and Highways. Sci. Technol. 36: 2484-2490.
July 2007 F-ll Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix G: Approaches for Estimating Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents G-i
List of Exhibits G-iii
List of Attachments G-iv
G. APPROACHES FOR ESTIMATING INDOOR DUST PB CONCENTRATIONS ....G-l
G. 1. INDOOR DUST PB CONCENTRATION ALGORITHMS FOR DIFFERENT
CASE STUDIES G-l
G.I.I. General Urban Case Study G-l
G. 1.2. Point Source Case Studies G-2
G.l.2.1. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study G-2
G.I.2.2. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study G-3
G.2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDOOR
DUST PB AND AIR AND OTHER VARIABLES G-3
G.3. FOUNDATION FOR THE GENERAL URBAN CASE STUDY INDOOR DUST
ALGORITHMS G-7
G.3.1. Investigation of an Empirical Model for the General Urban Case Study G-7
G.3.1.1. Lanphear et al. 1996 Data Set for Rochester, New York G-7
G.3.1.2. HUD National Survey Data Set G-ll
G.3.2. Development of a Mechanistic Air Model for the General Urban
Case Study G-ll
G.3.2.1. Physical Processes and Derivation of an Equation for
Steady-state Pb Floor Loading G-ll
G.3.2.2. Input Values for the Mechanistic Model G-17
G.3.3. Combining the Mechanistic Air Model with Empirical Data to Derive an
Indoor Dust Pb Loading Estimate from Other Sources G-20
G.3.4. Converting Indoor Dust Pb Loadings to Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations G-21
G.3.4.1. Estimating Vacuum Pb Loadings from Wipe Pb Loadings G-22
G.3.5. Specification of the General Urban Case Study Indoor Dust Algorithms G-22
G.3.6. Performance Evaluation of the General Urban Case Study Indoor
Dust Models G-23
July 2007 G-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
G.3.7. Separating Pb Indoor Dust Concentrations into Recent Air and
Other Portions G-31
G.4. FOUNDATION FOR THE PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY INDOOR
DUST ALGORITHMS G-32
G.4.1. Site-specific Regression Model G-32
G.4.1.1. Overview of Methods G-33
G.4.1.2. Data Sources G-33
G.4.1.3. Data Manipulation G-34
G.4.1.3.1. Data Set Based on Spatial-temporal "Windows" G-35
G.4.1.3.2. Data Set Based on Indoor Dust Sampling Locations G-36
G.4.1.4. Results of the Statistical Analysis G-36
G.4.1.4.1. Exploratory Analysis G-36
G.4.1.4.2. Regression Modeling of Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations G-38
G.4.1.4.3. Comparison of Predicted to Observed Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations in Primary Pb Smelter Case Study G-41
G.4.1.5. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Indoor Dust Modeling Approach
Used Near Facility G-43
G.4.2. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Indoor Dust Modeling Approach Used at
Distance from Facility G-44
G.4.3. Separating Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations into Recent Air and
Other Portions G-45
G.5. FOUNDATION FOR THE SECONDARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
INDOOR DUST ALGORITHMS G-46
G.5.1. Separating Pb Indoor Dust Concentrations into Recent Air and Other
Portions G-46
REFERENCES G-47
July 2007 G-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit G-l. Correlation Coefficients, Number of Samples, and p Values for Variables
Significantly Correlated with Indoor Dust G-10
Exhibit G-2. Comparison of Housing Vintage Percentages in the Rochester Data and the HUD
National Survey G-ll
Exhibit G-3. Mechanistic Indoor Dust Model Schematic G-12
Exhibit G-4. Input Parameters Selected for the Mechanistic Model for Urban Environments G-l 8
Exhibit G-5. Comparison of the Hybrid Mechanistic-empirical Model and the Air-only
Regression-based Model Indoor Dust Pb Concentration Predictions for a Given
Ambient Air Pb Concentration G-23
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study
Models G-25
Exhibit G-7. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Summary of Pb Concentrations in Residential
Soil and House and Road Dust G-34
Exhibit G-8. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Relationship between Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations and Distance from Facility G-37
Exhibit G-9. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Relationship between Road Dust Pb
Concentrations and Nearby Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations G-3 8
Exhibit G-10. Indoor Dust Regression Models Tested and Summary of Regression Analysis
Results for the "Windows" Data Set G-39
Exhibit G-ll. Summary of Regression Analysis Results for the "House" Data Set G-41
Exhibit G-12. Comparison of Three Best "Windows" Models with EPA Air+Soil Regression-
based Model and "Windows" Data G-42
Exhibit G-13. Comparison of Best-fitting "House" Models with the EPA Air+Soil Regression-
based Model and the "Windows" Indoor Dust Data G-42
Exhibit G-14. Ratio of Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations Predicted by the H6 and Air+Soil
Regression-based Models versus Distance from the Facility G-44
July 2007 G-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment G-l. Method Used to Convert Indoor Pb Loadings to Concentrations G-50
July 2007 G-iv Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G. APPROACHES FOR ESTIMATING INDOOR DUST PB
2 CONCENTRATIONS
3 Indoor dust concentrations of Pb were estimated using empirically derived relationships
4 between indoor dust and other media concentrations, mechanistic models that directly model the
5 accumulation of indoor dust due to physical processes, or a combination of the two. The
6 following sections present an overview of the algorithms used to calculate indoor dust Pb
7 concentrations in each case study followed by a more detailed discussion of the development and
8 select!on of the algorithms.
9 G.I. INDOOR DUST PB CONCENTRATION ALGORITHMS FOR DIFFERENT CASE
10 STUDIES
11 Different approaches were used to calculate indoor dust concentrations of Pb for different
12 case studies. This section provides an overview of the equations used to calculate the indoor
13 dust concentrations in each case study. Justification for using these equations appears in the
14 subsequent sections.
15 G.I.I. General Urban Case Study
16 In recognition of the model uncertainty associated with this key analytical step of the risk
17 assessment, the general urban case study uses two different models to estimate indoor dust Pb
18 concentration given an ambient air concentration. The first is a hybrid model that relies on the
19 steady state solution for a mechanistic model to determine the ambient air-derived indoor dust Pb
20 loading and an empirical value for the indoor dust Pb loading from other sources (e.g, indoor
21 paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources including historical air). The mechanistic model
22 was developed using a mass-balance equation relating outdoor ambient air Pb to indoor air Pb
23 and deposition of Pb to indoor surfaces in typical residences. The indoor dust Pb loading from
24 other sources was derived using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
25 (HUD) National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing (USEPA, 1995) average indoor dust Pb
26 loadings and subtracting out the air-related indoor dust from the mechanistic model. Both pieces
27 of this hybrid model are described more fully in Section G.3. The equation for this model is:
28
29 where:
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (microgram [ug]
31 per gram [g])
32
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air
O O Q
(ug/cubic meter [m ])
July 2007 G-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The second indoor dust estimation algorithm for this case study uses a U.S. EPA
2 developed regression model (USEPA, 1989). For the general urban case study, the air-only
3 regression-based model is used:
4 PbDUST = 60 + (844 x PbAIR)
5 where:
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g),
PbAIR = concentration of in the ambient air (ug/m3)
8
9 G.1.2. Point Source Case Studies
10 G.l.2.1. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
11 The primary Pb smelter case study included a remediated zone, where measurements of
12 site-specific outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust Pb concentrations were available, and an
13 unremediated zone, where no Pb measurements were available. To best capture the outdoor
14 soil/dust and indoor dust Pb concentrations at this particular site, a site-specific regression
15 equation was developed for all U.S. Census blocks within 1.5 kilometer (km) of the facility (the
16 remediated zone):
17 \n(PbDUST) = 8.3884 + 0.73639 x \n(PbAIK)
18 where:
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m3)
21
22 For the remainder of the U.S. Census blocks, a U.S. EPA air+soil regression-based model
23 was used to estimate indoor dust Pb concentrations (USEPA, 1989). This equation was
24 developed using data from primary smelters, including the primary smelter included in this
25 assessment. The relationship specifies that:
26 PbDUST= 31.3 + (638 x PbAIR) + (0.364 x PbSOIL)
27 where:
28
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m3)
PbSOIL = concentration of Pb in outdoor soil/dust (mg/kg)
31
32 For a more complete discussion of the development and selection of these models, see
33 Section G.4.
July 2007 G-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G.l.2.2. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
2 Unlike the primary Pb smelter case study, no site-specific indoor dust concentration
3 observations were available for the secondary Pb smelter case study area. As a result, the
4 following air-only regression-based model was used to characterize indoor dust concentrations:
5 PbDUST = 60 + (844 x PbAIR}
6 where:
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g),
Q ,,
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m )
9
10 This model is further described in Section G.5.
11
12 G.2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDOOR
13 DUST PB AND AIR AND OTHER VARIABLES
14 Pb in indoor dust, which collects on surfaces and may be ingested by children, typically
15 has three major sources: (1) outdoor ambient air-suspended particles, which infiltrate the indoor
16 environment and become deposited as indoor dust; (2) outdoor soil/dust, which is tracked into
17 the home from the yard or from the wider community; and (3) interior Pb paints, which chip or
18 chalk and contribute to indoor dust (e.g., Adgate et al., 1998). Many literature studies have
19 examined one or more of these contributors to determine their absolute or relative contribution to
20 indoor dust Pb levels. However, this analysis is confounded by the fact that the outdoor ambient
21 air contains resuspended outdoor soil/dust that may have been transported over significant
22 distances, and that outdoor soil/dust contains signatures of other numerous sources, including
23 exterior Pb paint. Thus, determining the exact sources of Pb in indoor dust at a single location is
24 a complex exercise.
25 Published studies have examined indoor dust Pb loadings or concentrations in both point-
26 source and urban environments. In general, exposure to Pb near point sources includes both a
27 current component due to active emissions and a historical component due to the accumulation in
28 outdoor soil/dust of previously emitted Pb and Pb from Pb paint (Hilts, 2003). In point-source
29 environments where emission controls have been imposed, current emissions may be reduced,
30 but these environments will retain a higher signal of Pb in indoor dust relative to background
31 locations away from point sources due to the presence of previously contaminated outdoor
32 soil/dust (von Lindern et al., 2003). In a generalized urban environment away from any historic
33 Pb point-source emission source, increased Pb exposure is dominated by historical sources of Pb
34 only, including the past deposition of Pb in outdoor soil/dust from leaded gasoline, which was
July 2007 G-3 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 available until the 1980s, and by historic use of Pb paint (Mielke et al., 1997). Because of the
2 deposition of Pb from leaded gasoline, urban locations near historically congested roadways tend
3 to have higher outdoor soil/dust concentrations than those away from major roadways (see
4 Appendix F). In both urban and point-source locations, the residence time of Pb in outdoor
5 soil/dust can be up to 700 years in the absence of remediation (Laidlaw et al., 2005), indicating
6 that accumulated Pb in outdoor soil/dust can have a long temporal footprint on indoor dust.
7 Several studies have attempted to determine the relative contributions of ambient air,
8 outdoor soil/dust, and Pb paint to indoor dust Pb levels. Using an isotopic analysis of various
9 elements in particulate matter, Adgate et al. (1998) found that air contributed approximately 17
10 percent, Pb paint contributed approximately 34 percent, and outdoor soil/road dust contributed
11 approximately 49 percent to indoor dust Pb levels by mass. This study was conducted in an
12 urban environment in Jersey City, New Jersey. However, the homes in the study were all built
13 before 1960, and most of the homes were built prior to 1940 (Adgate et al., 1998); thus, the
14 portion of dust arising from Pb paint may be high compared with homes of a younger vintage
15 where Pb paint is not as prevalent. A similar study in Christchurch, New Zealand, found that 45
16 percent of indoor dust came from paint, three to five percent came from outdoor soil, 15 to 20
17 percent came from outdoor road dust, and 15 to 25 percent came from air-related sources
18 (Fergusson and Schroeder, 1985). Gwiazda and Smith (2000) found that, in children with the
19 highest blood Pb (PbB) levels in Santa Cruz county (> 15 ug/deciliter [dL]), indoor dust
20 exposure was usually due to paint ingestion or past exposure due to residing outside the United
21 States. Thus, while these studies are useful in suggesting that outdoor soil/dust and Pb paint are
22 the strongest contributors to indoor dust, the relative contributions are highly dependent on the
23 underlying media concentrations themselves; these factors can be applied only to an urban or
24 point-source environment if the underlying media concentrations are similar to those
25 encountered in the original study. In addition, because the ambient air may contain resuspended
26 outdoor soil/dust particles, the high outdoor soil/dust contribution may actually be delivered via
27 the ambient air infiltration, rather than during direct outdoor soil/dust-tracking events.
28 Other studies have attempted to develop direct regression relationships between indoor
29 dust and one or more of the underlying contributing media. For example, von Lindern et al.
30 (2003) developed a structured equation model relating the log-transformed indoor dust Pb and
31 outdoor soil/dust (community-wide and neighborhood-wide averages) and air concentrations.
32 While the resulting correlations were highly significant, outdoor soil/dust and air contributions
33 only accounted for approximately 20 percent of the indoor dust Pb variance. This result suggests
34 high house-to-house variability that is related to other confounding variables (cleaning habits,
35 carpet versus hard floor, parental occupation, etc.) rather than the media concentrations
July 2007 G-4 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 themselves. In the absence of regression relationships, other studies have provided
2 measurements of a combination of indoor dust, outdoor soil/dust, and air central tendencies in
3 urban or point-source environments. Again, both the regression study and the relative indoor
4 dust-outdoor soil/dust-air measurements provide a framework for understanding the
5 contributions of the underlying sources to Pb in indoor dust, but these data can be applied only
6 within the parameter space they define.
7 Physically-based mechanistic models offer a potential advantage over regression models
8 or empirical observations because they potentially can be used across a wider range of parameter
9 values, provided the inputs are selected carefully. No studies were identified that have attempted
10 to build a fully mechanistic Pb indoor dust model that simultaneously simulates the contribution
11 to Pb indoor dust from ambient air, outdoor soil/dust, and paint to indoor air and indoor floor
12 dust Pb levels. However, mass-balance models are available that model the infiltration of
13 ambient air into the indoor environment, including the loss of particles through deposition (e.g.,
14 Ferro et al., 2004; Nazaroff, 2004; Thatcher and Layton, 1995). These mass-balance models
15 have been used to infer air exchange rates (the rate at which outdoor air infiltrates the indoor
16 environment), penetration efficiencies (the fraction of particulate material that enters the indoor
17 environment in a given size class), deposition rates, and resuspension rates for generic particles
18 of given size ranges from measured indoor and ambient concentrations. These models may be
19 applied to Pb indoor dust in so far as the assumptions made in the modeling studies are relevant
20 to particles containing Pb.
21 Typically, authors have measured outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust, and ambient air
22 contaminant concentrations at a single home, assuming that the dominant influences on indoor
23 dust derive from the media in the immediate vicinity. However, some attempts have been made
24 to explore the spatial footprint across which media may influence indoor dust. For example, von
25 Lindern et al. (2003) calculated correlation coefficients between indoor dust and outdoor
26 soil/dust concentrations of Pb averaged over the yard, averaged over the neighborhood (defined
27 as within 200 foot [ft]), and averaged over the community (an entire town) in a remediation zone
28 near the Bunker Hill Superfund site. In general, indoor dust was most strongly correlated with
29 community-level outdoor soil/dust averages, indicating that outdoor soil/dust from a wide spatial
30 footprint affects indoor dust levels at a single location. This observation may reflect the fact that
31 outdoor soil/dust is tracked from wider areas than those adjacent to a home or that transport of
32 airborne outdoor soil/dust particles occurs across large distances.
33 In addition to spatial variations in indoor dust concentrations, Pb in indoor dust will also
34 vary temporally, particularly when remediation practices are used to reduce media (outdoor
July 2007 G-5 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 soil/dust or indoor dust) concentrations or when intervention occurs to educate home owners of
2 the dangers of Pb exposure. Hilts (2003) measured the changes in air, outdoor soil/dust, and
3 indoor dust concentrations after emissions reduction efforts at a Pb smelter in Trail, British
4 Columbia. Air and outdoor soil Pb concentrations both decreased (air from 1.1 ug/m3 to 0.03
5 ug/m3 and soil from 844 parts per million [ppm] to 750 ppm), and indoor dust concentrations
6 were observed to decrease as well (758 ppm to 580 ppm) from 1996 to 1999. In addition, von
7 Lindern (2003) traced the changes in soil and the concurrent changes in indoor dust after soil
8 remediation at the Bunker Hill smelter site. Geometric mean (GM) outdoor soil/dust
9 concentrations decreased from 1715 to 1507 ppm, and GM indoor dust concentrations also
10 decreased from 1435 to 897 ppm. In addition to changes in indoor dust due to intervention,
11 normal seasonal fluctuations in indoor dust are expected; Laidlaw et al. (2005) showed that
12 fluctuations in humidity and wind speed can be associated with changes in the mobilization of
13 Pb-containing outdoor soil/dust into the air. These changes were subsequently found to be
14 associated with changes in PbB concentrations. Thus, climatic variables may affect the amount
15 of Pb contained in the ambient air environment and the amount of Pb that subsequently infiltrates
16 the indoor environment.
17 Although indoor dust Pb concentrations are known to depend on ambient air, outdoor
18 soil/dust, and Pb paints, a high degree of uncertainty surrounds the physical processes that
19 govern this dependence. In particular, the importance of tracking outdoor soil/dust into a home
20 as a source of Pb contamination is poorly constrained by lack of studies in the literature. The
21 accumulation of outdoor soil/dust particles on doormats has been measured in several studies
22 (Thatcher and Layton, 1995; von Lindern et al., 2003), and these studies found similar overall
23 particulate matter accumulation rates in very different environments (urban versus rural).
24 However, little information is available about the relative amount that collects on a doormat
25 versus the amount that is subsequently tracked throughout the house. Also, the amount of
26 tracked dirt highly depends on the type of floor (hard floor or carpet), with carpeted sources
27 collecting more tracked material. The contribution of paint flaking is also poorly characterized.
28 Pb paints can have widely variable Pb concentrations, and in general the relative contribution of
29 paint to indoor dust Pb loading is the most variable among outdoor soil/dust, air, and paint
30 (Adgate et al., 1998). Finally, other practices in the home (e.g., cleaning practices), occupation,
31 socio-economic status, and other climatic variables (e.g., humidity, wind speed) tend to confound
32 the relationship between these media concentrations and the total Pb indoor dust, implying that
33 indoor dust concentrations will vary substantially in homes exposed to the exact same media
34 concentrations.
July 2007 G-6 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Because of the complex relationship among Pb in air, outdoor soil/dust, paint, and indoor
2 dust, regression models based on observed simultaneous measurements are useful tools in
3 predicting indoor dust Pb concentrations. However, these models will be relevant only if the
4 underlying study from which they were developed included homes similar to those for which
5 indoor dust Pb concentrations need to be modeled. Also, mechanistic models may be useful
6 tools in modeling the accumulation of dust in the indoor environment; in particular, the air
7 component has been relatively well-explored. However, as noted above, the processes governing
8 the contribution of paint and outdoor soil/dust to indoor dust have not been extensively studied in
9 the literature. Also, mechanistic models based on central tendency household and exposure
10 concentration values will not capture any household to household dust concentration variability
11 stemming from atypical household practices or exposure concentrations. For these reasons, the
12 various case studies rely on different indoor dust prediction techniques, depending on the
13 underlying data available in the literature and the extent to which a mechanistic model can be
14 reasonably applied. The following sections describe efforts to build indoor dust prediction
15 models for each case study.
16 G.3. FOUNDATION FOR THE GENERAL URBAN CASE STUDY INDOOR DUST
17 ALGORITHMS
18 G.3.1. Investigation of an Empirical Model for the General Urban Case Study
19 Attempts were made to generate an empirical model relating indoor dust Pb
20 concentrations or loadings to measurements of ambient air Pb concentrations, outdoor soil/dust
21 concentrations, and indoor paint concentrations for the general urban case study. Two data sets
22 were identified as candidates for this activity. The first was a study conducted by Lanphear et al.
23 (1996) in Rochester, New York. Data were provided for 205 children with simultaneous
24 measurements of indoor dust Pb loadings (in multiple areas of the house), indoor dust
25 concentrations (in multiple areas of the house), outdoor soil/dust concentrations (in both the play
26 yard and the dripline), and interior paint concentrations (in the form of X-ray fluorescence [XRF]
27 measurements), along with PbB measurements and potentially confounding socioeconomic and
28 other variables. The second data set included data from the HUD National Survey of Lead-
29 Based Paint in Housing (USEPA, 1995), which provided indoor dust Pb concentrations and
30 loadings and measurements of outdoor soil/dust and Pb paint for a sample of homes chosen to be
31 representative of the national population.
32 G.3.1.1. Lanphear et al. 1996 Data Set for Rochester, New York
33 The Lanphear et al. (1996) study data (hereafter referred to as the "Rochester data") were
34 collected in an urban environment and contain nearly all the primary variables of interest except
July 2007 G-7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 for site-specific ambient air Pb concentrations, which are an integral part of the risk assessment.
2 Attempts were made to find an appropriate spatial distribution of ambient air concentrations to
3 use with this data set to generate relationships between ambient air, outdoor soil/dust, exterior or
4 interior paint, and indoor dust, as described below. Unfortunately, no such appropriate spatial
5 distribution could be identified. While this data gap handicapped the ability to develop an
6 empirical model relating indoor dust Pb levels to ambient air Pb levels, the data set was analyzed
7 to examine relationships between indoor dust Pb and the other key variables that could be
8 applied to the general urban case study.
9 The data set was prepared to include both arithmetic and GM values for the entire house
10 (i.e., averaging across the different sampling rooms in the house: living room, bedroom, play
11 yard, and entry way) to provide single indoor dust Pb loading and concentration estimates for
12 each child's residence (205 children in all). The play yard and perimeter outdoor soil
13 concentrations, which typically differed by an order of magnitude, were analyzed separately to
14 determine which was most strongly correlated with the indoor dust concentrations.
15 To approximate the air Pb concentrations, data from three U.S. EPA Air Quality System
16 (AQS) air monitors were available that were within 50 km of the study homes (USEPA, 2007).
17 The first monitor, monitor 360550014 (Monitor 1), measured Pb in total suspended particles
18 (TSP) and is an average of 37 km from the homes included in the study. The other two monitors,
19 monitors 360556001 (Monitor 2) and 360551007 (Monitor 3), are PM2.5 monitors (for which the
20 Pb concentration is available) and are located an average of 2.8 km and 4.5 km from the homes
21 in the study, respectively. In general, the Pb measurements from the TSP monitors are an order
22 of magnitude higher than those from the PM2 5 monitors. Data provided for Monitor 1 spanned
23 January 1993 to June 1996, which includes the time the Rochester data were collected. Monitor
24 2 data spanned May 2004 to November 2006 and Monitor 3 data spanned January 2001 to March
25 2004. All three monitors have distinct latitude and longitude coordinates.
26 Because the TSP and PM2.5 monitors measure the Pb content in different particle size
27 ranges, all three monitors could not be combined. Indoor dust Pb concentrations likely reflect
28 the total Pb content of atmospheric particles, rather than a specific size range, since all size
29 ranges appear to penetrate at least to some degree into the indoor environment ((e.g., Layton and
30 Thatcher, 1995). However, in order to create a spatial distribution of air Pb concentrations that
31 correspond to the study homes, at least two monitors were needed, implying the PM2.5 monitors
32 had to be used as a proxy for total Pb content in the ambient air. To create this spatial
33 distribution, the air concentrations at each of the PM2.5 monitor locations were averaged over the
34 longest possible measuring time that included full annual cycles (the data were averaged only
July 2007 G-8 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 over full years to avoid any artificial variations due to seasonal cycles). The Rochester data
2 included zip code information, and these zip codes were converted to latitudes and longitudes
3 using the centroid for each zip code area. Then, the distances between the two PM2 5 monitors
4 and the zip code of the home in question were calculated, and the two monitor concentrations
5 were distance-weighted-averaged. Unfortunately, the two monitors did not take measurements
6 during overlapping time periods, so this analysis implicitly assumes that no major emission or
7 climatological shifts occurred between the two time periods. These air data were then combined
8 with the indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust data in the Rochester data to build a regression model.
9 In doing this, however, it was recognized that there were limitations of the spatial coverage for
10 this measurement and that the PM2.s-Pb underestimates Pb that may contribute to indoor dust Pb.
11 To investigate the correlations among the different study variables, correlation
12 coefficients between both the arithmetic and GM of indoor dust concentrations measured on the
13 floor and other variables in the data set were calculated. The following variables were explored:
14 the exterior XRF paint concentrations, the interior XRF paint concentrations, the play yard soil
15 concentrations, the house perimeter soil concentrations, the first-draw water concentrations,
16 exterior dust concentrations, porch concentrations, arithmetic and GM window sill
17 concentrations, arithmetic and GM window well concentrations, two hand-wipe samples from
18 each child, air concentrations, and housing vintage.
19 Of these variables, only those shown in Exhibit G-l were significantly correlated with the
20 GM indoor floor dust concentrations, where significance was set at p<0.05. The number of
21 points used in each correlation (N) is different for each variable due to missing values. In
22 general, the arithmetic means tended to have weaker correlations, so the GM across rooms in
23 each house was selected as the primary indoor dust metric. Play yard outdoor soil/dust is weakly
24 correlated with indoor dust, although house perimeter soil is not significantly correlated. All
25 correlation coefficients are weak, suggesting that variability in other house-to-house practices
26 significantly influence the indoor dust load. Correlations (r) between the natural log (In) of the
27 dust concentrations and each of these variables were also calculated, along with correlations
28 between the dust concentrations and the natural log of each variable. These calculations were
29 designed to identify non-linear relationships between the variables, but the correlations did not
30 significantly improve under either of these efforts.
July 2007 G-9 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit G-l. Correlation Coefficients, Number of Samples, and p Values for Variables
2 Significantly Correlated with Indoor Dust
GMof
Window Sill
Pb
Concentration
(H9/9)
r=0.314
N=194
p=<0.0005
Exterior Paint
XRF Reading
(milligram
[mg] per
square foot
[ft2])
r=0.2498
N=200
p=<0.0005
Average
Interior Paint
XRF Reading
(mg/ft2)
r=0.2808
N=204
P=<0.0005
Average Play
Yard Soil
Concentration,
ppm
r=0.252
N=86
p=.019
Exterior Dust
Concentration
(H9/9)
r=0.1724
N=143
p=.040
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Porch Dust
Concentration
(H9/9)
r=0.1944
N=122
p=.032
Window Well
Dust
Concentration
(H9/9)
r=0.1698
N=187
p=.020
Hand Wipe 1
(H9)
r=0.2199
N=196
p=.002
Hand Wipe 2
(M9)
r=0.1703
N=195
p=.017
Housing
Vintage
(year)
r=-0.1566
N=204
p=.025
As expected given the inadequate characterization of airborne Pb near the study residences, no
correlation was found between air Pb concentrations and indoor dust Pb concentrations.
The most significant correlations were found between the window sill Pb concentrations,
which likely have similar sources to the indoor dust concentrations, and the exterior and interior
paint XRF measurements. Outdoor soil is also significantly correlated with indoor dust
concentration, although the low correlation coefficient suggests limited predictive power. The
fact that paint correlations with indoor dust Pb concentration are significant suggests that paint is
playing a major role in determining indoor dust concentrations.
To understand why paint may be contributing so strongly to indoor dust, Exhibit G-2
compares the percentage of study homes in each housing vintage in the Rochester data compared
with the HUD National Survey. More than 85 percent of the homes are in the oldest vintage in
the Rochester data, compared with only 27 percent in the HUD survey. These older homes have
a higher tendency to contain Pb paint and the indoor dust Pb loadings may retain a larger paint-
derived fraction than in a typical urban environment. Because (1) Pb in ambient air near study
residences could not be adequately characterized; (2) the correlations among outdoor soil/dust,
paint, and indoor dust are weak; and (3) because the Rochester data are likely influenced more
strongly by the presence of Pb paint than in typical urban environments, no empirically derived
model was obtained from this data set.
July 2007
G-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit G-2. Comparison of Housing Vintage Percentages in the Rochester Data and the
HUD National Survey
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Rochester Data
HUD National Suney
Pre 1940
1940 to 1959
Housing Vintage
1960 to 1979
G.3.1.2. HUD National Survey Data Set
Data from the HUD National Survey of Lead in Housing (USEPA, 1995) were also
evaluated to examine relationships among ambient air Pb concentrations, outdoor soil/dust and
indoor dust Pb concentrations, and indoor dust Pb loading. The methods and results of this
analysis are described in detail in Attachment G-l and are not discussed further here.
G.3.2. Development of a Mechanistic Air Model for the General Urban Case Study
G.3.2.1. Physical Processes and Derivation of an Equation for Steady-state Pb Floor
Loading
The mechanistic model captures the physical transfer of Pb from one medium to another,
rather than capturing the interaction between the media in a statistical relationship. As discussed
in Section G.2, the accumulation of indoor dust depends on the relative contributions of outdoor
ambient air, outdoor soil/dust, and Pb paint to the interior environment. The tracking of outdoor
soil/dust and the flaking/chipping of interior Pb paint are both highly variable and poorly studied
processes. However, the infiltration of outdoor ambient air into the indoor environment and the
subsequent settling of particles have been extensively studied and have been characterized in
mass-balance physical models (e.g., Ferro et al., 2004; Nazaroff, 2004; Thatcher and Layton,
July 2007
G-ll
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 1995). For this reason, a mechanistic model was derived for the contribution of Pb in outdoor
2 ambient air to Pb in dust in the interior environment; then, a non-air component was empirically
3 derived, as described in Section G.3.3.
4 Exhibit G-3 shows a schematic of the mechanistic indoor dust model. Two separate Pb
5 "compartments" accumulate Pb over time: the indoor air Pb compartment and the indoor dust Pb
6 compartment. Mass balance dictates that in both of these compartments, the change in Pb mass
7 over time depends on the flux of Pb mass into the compartment minus the flux of Pb out of the
8 compartment:
9 = Flux of Mass In - Flux of Mass Out
10 where:
d[Mass]/dt = change over time of the Pb mass (ug/hour [h])
12
Flux of Mass In = flux of Pb into the compartment (ug/h)
13
Flux of Mass Out = flux of Pb out of the compartment (ug/h)
14
15 Exhibit G-3. Mechanistic Indoor Dust Model Schematic
Ceiling Height
*r Pb -
Settling
Indoor Dust Pb
i
Cleaning
16
17 For the indoor air compartment (INAIR\ the fluxes include penetration of air and
18 particles from outdoors, ventilation of indoor air back to the outdoor environment, deposition of
19 Pb out of the air, resuspension of accumulated Pb on the floor back into the air, and filtration
20 associated with re-circulating air due to the presence of an HVAC system:
21 = Penetration Flux - Ventilation Flux - Deposition Flux + Re- suspension Flux - Filtration Flux
dt
22 where:
July 2007 G-12 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
= change in time of the indoor air Pb mass (ug/h)
= penetration of air containing particles from outdoors (ug/h)
= ventilation of indoor air back to the outdoor environment (ug/h)
= deposition of Pb out of the air (ug/h)
= resuspension of accumulated Pb on the floor back into the air
dINAIR/dt
Penetration Flux
Ventilation Flux
Deposition Flux
Resuspension Flux
Filtration Flux = filtration associated with re-circulating air due to the presence of
an HVAC system (ug/h)
Each flux is parameterized as the mass of the "donor" compartment multiplied by the rate
(expressed in reciprocal time) of the physical exchange process. In some cases, an efficiency
factor is also included to account for any filtration of Pb associated with the process:
Penetration Flux = AERxPxPbAIRx V
where:
Penetration Flux
AER
P
PbAIR
V
= penetration of air containing particles from outdoors (ug/h)
= air exchange rate (h"1)
= penetration efficiency (unitless)
= concentration of Pb in ambient air (ug/m3)
= volume of the house (m3)
Because the air exchange rate (AER) specifies the number of times the indoor air is
replaced by outdoor air in a given hour, it represents both the rate of penetration in and
ventilation out. The ventilation flux out of the house is equal to the AER multiplied by the
indoor mass of Pb in air (INAIR):
where:
Ventilation Flux = AER x INAIR
Ventilation Flux = ventilation of indoor air back to the outdoor environment (ug/h)
AER = air exchange rate (h"1)
INAIR = indoor mass of Pb in air (ug)
July 2007
G-13
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The deposition flux {Deposition Flux) is defined as the amount of Pb in the air times a
deposition rate:
where:
Deposition Flux = D x INAIR
Deposition Flux = deposition of Pb out of the air (ug/h)
D = deposition rate (h"1)
INAIR = indoor mass of Pb in air (ug)
For resuspension, the amount of resuspended material depends on the total available mass
of Pb on the floor. Because the current model only traces air-derived floor Pb (and other sources
of Pb not transported via outdoor to indoor air), resuspension cannot be accurately modeled. In
addition, resuspension rates have not been extensively studied in field studies. Thus, similar to
other mass balance models, resuspension is neglected in the current mechanistic model (Riley et
al., 2002); this assumption will tend to underestimate the Pb in the air compartment and
overestimate the Pb in the floor compartment.
Finally, the presence of an HVAC system will tend to re-circulate indoor air, passing the
air through a filter with each circulation. This system will tend to remove Pb from the indoor
environment (both in the air and on the floor). Because many urban families do not have HVAC
systems and because the circulation rate and filtration efficiency of such systems has not been
comprehensively described in the literature, removal of Pb during recirculation is not included in
the mechanistic model.
So, using the penetration, ventilation, and deposition fluxes, the equation for the change
in time of the indoor air Pb mass is:
dINAIR
~dt
= AER xPx PbAIR xV- AER x INAIR -Dx INAIR
(Equation 1)
where:
dINAIR/dt = change in time of the indoor air Pb mass (ug/h)
AER = air exchange rate (hour1)
P = penetration efficiency (unitless)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in ambient air (ug/m3)
V = volume of the house (m3)
D = deposition rate (h"1)
INAIR = indoor mass of Pb in air (ug)
July 2007
G-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For the indoor floor dust compartment (FLOOR), the fluxes include deposition of Pb
from the air onto the floor, resuspension of Pb from the floor into the air, and removal of Pb due
to routine cleaning:
dFLOOR
dt
= Deposition Flux - Resuspension Flux - Cleaning Flux
where:
= change in time of the indoor floor dust Pb mass (ug/h)
= deposition of Pb out of the air onto the floor (ug/h)
= resuspension of Pb from the floor into the air (ug/h)
= removal of Pb due to routine cleaning
dFLOOR/dt
Deposition Flux
Resuspension Flux
Cleaning Flux
The deposition flux (Deposition Flux) retains the same form as in the INAIR equation,
and the resuspension flux (Resuspension Flux) is again neglected. The cleaning flux (Cleaning
Flux) is parameterized assuming a cleaning efficiency (CE) and cleaning frequency (CF) and
multiplying these by the mass of Pb on the floor (FLOOR):
where:
Cleaning Flux
CE
CF
FLOOR
Cleaning Flux = CExCFx FLOOR
= removal of Pb due to routine cleaning (ug/h)
= cleaning efficiency (unitless)
= cleaning frequency (cleanings/h)
= mass of Pb on the floor (ug)
In this parameterization, discrete cleaning episodes occurring with a given frequency are
assumed to be captured by assuming continuous cleaning with the same frequency (rate) and
efficiency. Combining the floor fluxes then gives:
July 2007
G-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
(Equation 2)
2 where:
T
dFLOOR/dt = change in time of the indoor floor dust Pb mass (ug/h)
D = deposition rate (h"1)
INAIR = indoor mass of Pb in air (ug)
CE = cleaning efficiency (unitless)
Y
CF = cleaning frequency (cleanings/h)
8
9 FLOOR = mass of Pb on the floor (ug)
10
11 To obtain the steady-state solution for each compartment, the derivative terms are set to
12 zero, so that nothing is changing in time. Using equations (1) and (2) and rearranging gives:
13 (D + AER) x INAIR = AER xPx PbAIR x V
14 CExCFx FLOOR = Dx INAIR
15
16 The ambient air concentration (PbAIR), is known, so the upper equation can be solved for
17 INAIR to give:
18 INAIR =AERxPxVx PbAIR
(D + AER)
19
20 Then, substituting into the second equation gives:
CSxCFx (D + AER)
July 2007 G-16 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Thus, this equation yields the mass of Pb on the floor, and the Pb loading can be found by
2 dividing by the floor area and noting that the house volume divided by the floor area is the
3 ceiling height (H):
D x A FR x P x H
4 FLOOR LOADING = x 0.09 x PbAIR nrซ,,ซ,*5nn ^
CExCFx(D + AEK) (Equations)
5 where:
6 FLOOR LOADING = Pb loading on the floor (ug/ft2)
D = deposition rate (h"1)
o .
AER = air exchange rate (h" )
P = penetration efficiency unitless)
H = ceiling height (meter [m])
CE = cleaning efficiency (unitless)
12
CF = cleaning frequency (cleanings/h)
-jO
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m )
14
15 The 0.09 term is included in the equation to change the loading units from ug/m2 to ug/ft2
16 (where PbAIR is in ug/m3). This final equation gives the floor Pb loading accumulated under
17 steady-state conditions from air-derived sources, assuming that none of the underlying ambient
18 air concentrations or process rates varies over time. In reality, the AER will vary seasonally
19 (especially if windows are open), cleaning rates likely are not constant, and other rates may vary;
20 in addition, several of the parameters (e.g., deposition rate and penetration efficiency) may vary
21 by particle size. Thus, the steady-state solution represents the average floor loading if the inputs
22 are selected to be representative of time-averaged and particle-size-averaged rates and
23 concentrations.
24 G.3.2.2. Input Values for the Mechanistic Model
25 To implement the mechanistic model for the general urban case study, representative
26 input parameters applicable to urban environments had to be specified. Exhibit G-4 gives the
27 input parameter values chosen and the source of the values.
July 2007 G-l7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit G-4. Input Parameters Selected for the Mechanistic Model for Urban
Environments
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Variable
D
/\ฃR
P
H
CE
CF
Variable
Name
Deposition
Rate
Air
Exchange
Rate
Penetration
Efficiency
Ceiling
Height
Cleaning
Efficiency
Cleaning
Frequency
Units
h1
h1
unitless
m
unitless
cleanings/h
Value
1.11
0.5
1
2.44
0.25
0.003
Source
(Layton and Thatcher, 1995)
(USEPA, 1997; Riley et al.,
2002; Vetteetal., 2001)
(Layton and Thatcher, 1995)
(USEPA, 1997)
(Battelle Memorial Institute,
1997)
Professional Judgement
The deposition rate (D) was set to 1.11 h"1. This value was derived from the only Pb-
specific estimate of deposition velocity that was found in the literature, obtained from a mass-
balance modeling analysis of homes near a Pb smelter in Arnhem, Netherlands (Layton and
Thatcher, 1995). The deposition velocity was converted to a deposition rate by dividing the
velocity by the assumed ceiling height (8 ft, or 2.44 m). This value tended to be within the range
of literature values reported for generic particles of differing size distributions (e.g., Riley et al.
(2002) Figure 3]: 0.04 to 7.2 h"1 for 0.1 to 10 micrometer [urn]; Vette et al. (2001) Figure 7: 0.5
to 4 h"1 for 0.01 to 2 urn).
TheAER values were consistently reported to have central tendency values near 0.5
exchanges per h (USEPA, 1997; Riley et al., 2002; Vette et al., 2001). For example, Table 17-10
of the Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997) indicates a GM near 0.5 for all regions of the
country, with only the north central region having a somewhat lower AER (0.39).
The penetration efficiency (P) has been modeled for particles of various size classes and
has been measured in a few field studies to be less than one (e.g., Dockery D.W. and Spengler
J.D., 1981; Freed et al., 1983; Liu and Nazaroff, 2001). However, unlike the above studies, in a
field study that simultaneously controlled for penetration and deposition, the penetration
efficiency (P) was found to be near 1 for all size classes (Thatcher and Layton, 1995); a similar
result was also reported for PM2.5 for homes in California (Ozkaynak et al., 1996). Thus, the
penetration efficiency (P) was set to 1 for the mechanistic model. The ceiling height (H) was set
to 8 ft (2.44 m) based on the typical ceiling height in the United States (USEPA, 1997).
July 2007
G-18
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The two cleaning variables (efficiency and frequency) likely represent the most poorly
2 characterized parameters. Cleaning efficiency (CE) has been found to vary according to the type
3 of flooring (carpeting versus hard floor) and the total amount of Pb on the floor (lower
4 efficiencies for very low Pb loadings, due to electrostatic forces attracting the particles to the
5 floor or burial of Pb deep into carpet, and higher efficiencies for higher Pb loadings). The
6 Environmental Field Sampling Study (EFSS), Volume I: Table 8D-3 (Battelle Memorial
7 Institute, 1997) provides pre- and post-cleaning Pb loading estimates from a house with hard
8 floors that was subject to a renovation activity and post-activity cleaning. Thus, these estimates
9 likely are higher than routine cleaning efficiencies in a house where no renovation (and no
10 associated elevated Pb loading) has occurred. The selected value for CE (25 percent removal
11 with each cleaning) is typical of the cases in the lowest Pb loading range in the study. These
12 values are similar to values found by Ewers et al. (1994) and Clemson Environmental
13 Technologies Laboratory (2001) for cleaning efficiencies on a carpeted floor after a renovation
14 activity and after three previous cleaning iterations (so that much of the renovation-related Pb
15 loading had already been removed and the cleaning was similar to a routine cleaning).
16 The cleaning frequency (CF) is expected to be highly variable from household to
17 household, and no information could be located in the literature for urban houses. A
18 representative value of one cleaning every two weeks (0.003 cleanings per h) was selected using
19 professional judgment.
20 Based on these inputs, the final equation for the steady-state air-derived indoor dust Pb
21 loading is:
22 FLOOR LOADING = 104.2 x PbAIR (Equation 4)
23 where:
24 FLOOR LOADING = Pb loading on the floor (ug/ft2)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m3)
26
27 This equation is meant to capture all Pb mass that falls on the floor from air-derived
28 sources, so it is more consistent with wipe-based Pb loading measurements rather than vacuum-
29 based Pb loading measurements. This steady-state answer applies to the extent to which the
30 inputs can be assumed to represent time averages. With the given inputs, solving this equation
31 dynamically indicates that the modeled system will require one year to reach steady-state
32 conditions (although the modeled floor Pb loading is within 90 percent of the steady-state
33 solution after 129 days).
July 2007 G-19 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G.3.3. Combining the Mechanistic Air Model with Empirical Data to Derive an Indoor
2 Dust Pb Loading Estimate from Other Sources
3 Equation (4) gives the estimated steady-state indoor dust Pb loading from recent air-
4 derived sources. This value must be combined with another estimate of indoor dust Pb loading
5 that incorporates all other sources of Pb to indoor dust (e.g, indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and
6 additional sources including historical air). To do so, the median indoor dust Pb loading value
7 from the HUD National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing (USEPA, 1995) was selected as
8 a representative total indoor dust Pb loading. The HUD survey selected study homes such that
9 the overall survey estimates are weighed by population to be nationally representative. Although
10 the survey does not focus on urban homes, these homes are likely dominating the signal because
11 urban areas represent the population centers in the country. The median wipe indoor dust Pb
12 loading in the survey was 5.32 ug/ft2.
13 In order to derive the "other" component from the HUD median Pb loading value, the
14 associated recent air component was estimated using an air Pb concentration derived to
15 correspond to the HUD survey indoor dust survey. The HUD survey was conducted during late
16 1989 and early 1990. To derive a representative air Pb concentration, data for all U.S. EPA AQS
17 air monitors operating in 1989 and 1990 were averaged into a single air concentration estimate of
18 0.04 ug/m3 (USEPA, 2007). This average was calculated separately using all monitors and using
19 only those monitors in urban locations, but the differences in the concentrations estimated by the
20 two methods was minimal; so the all monitors value was used. This air value was then
21 substituted into the mechanistic model to give a recent air-derived Pb loading of 4.17 ug/ft2. By
22 subtracting this recent air-derived portion from the total background Pb loading, a Pb indoor dust
23 loading estimate of 1.15 ug/ft2 was derived for other source contributions. Thus, the final hybrid
24 mechanistic-empirical model equation is:
25 TOTAL FLOOR LOADING = \04.2xPbAIR + 1.15 (Equations)
26 where:
27 TOTAL FLOOR LOADING = total Pb loading on the floor (ug/ft2)
28 3
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m )
29
30 The HUD survey was selected because it is the same data set that was used to derive the
31 indoor dust Pb loading to indoor dust Pb concentration conversion equation (see Section G.3.4).
32 Because the HUD survey was conducted in 1989 and 1990, it has the potential to introduce an
33 upward bias in estimating contributions from sources other than recent air to indoor dust Pb
34 levels for the current housing stock. Reductions in Pb paint and outdoor soil/dust Pb
July 2007 G-20 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 concentrations may have occurred since 1990, due to education about the dangers of indoor Pb
2 exposure and because some of the more heavily contaminated older homes have been
3 demolished. Furthermore, household habits may have changed (e.g., cleaning behavior) due to
4 increased education.
5 The picture is less clear for Pb in outdoor soil/dust. As discussed above, in the absence
6 of direct remediation, the half-life of Pb in outdoor soil may be up to 700 years (Laidlaw et al.,
7 2005), suggesting that the outdoor soil levels probably have not dropped significantly since the
8 HUD survey. One last limitation of the HUD survey is that it focuses on homes built before
9 1980 and does not include any built between 1990 and the present. However, because the focus
10 of the hybrid model is on urban homes that tend to be of earlier vintage, using the HUD survey
11 data as the basis for estimating background indoor dust loading allows for reasonable estimates
12 of overall indoor dust Pb loading to be generated that are typical of current urban housing stock.
13 This indoor dust estimate is applicable in "typical" urban environments with outdoor soil and
14 paint contributions to indoor dust Pb loading which do not differ strongly from those observed in
15 the HUD survey data. For situations with high paint or outdoor soil signals, or atypical
16 household habits, the model may not adequately capture the total indoor dust Pb loadings.
17 G.3.4. Converting Indoor Dust Pb Loadings to Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
18 Once the indoor dust Pb loadings are calculated, indoor dust concentrations must be
19 estimated from these loadings for input into the PbB model. To do so, a regression equation was
20 developed based on empirical data. Data on the relationship between indoor dust Pb loading and
21 concentration were gathered as part of the HUD National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in
22 Housing (USEPA, 1995).
23 The equation for the concentration to loading regression was found to be:
24 \n(PbCONC) = 4.92 + 0.52 x \n(PbVAC)
25 where:
r\ s~
PbCONC = indoor dust concentration (ug/g)
27 2
PbVAC = vacuum indoor dust Pb loading (ug/ft)
28
29 For more information on the derivation of this equation, see Attachment G-l. Because this
30 model was derived using log-transformed variables, small changes in the slope or intercept
31 transfer to large changes in the predicted dust concentration; thus, this conversion introduces
32 considerable uncertainty into the dust model.
July 2007 G-21 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G.3.4.1. Estimating Vacuum Pb Loadings from Wipe Pb Loadings
2 The equation that converts dust Pb loading to dust Pb concentration (see Section G.3.4)
3 requires that the dust Pb loading estimates be for vacuum Pb loading . This section describes the
4 equation used to convert wipe Pb loadings (from the hybrid model) to vacuum Pb loadings. To
5 do so, the following equation developed to convert wipe samples to blue nozzle vacuum samples
6 for hard floors is used (USEPA, 1997):
7 PbVAC = 0. \85xPbWIPE0921
8 where:
9 2
PbVAC = vacuum indoor dust Pb loading (ug/ft)
1 ฐ Pb WIPE = indoor wipe Pb loading (ug/ft2)
11
12 G.3.5. Specification of the General Urban Case Study Indoor Dust Algorithms
13 Converting the hybrid model wipe Pb loading to vacuum Pb loadings and using the
14 conversion equation to convert from Pb loading to concentration gives the final form of the
15 hybrid model for the general urban case study:
16 PbDUST = EXP[4.92 + 0.52 x ln(o. 185 x (104.2 x PbAIR +1.15)ฐ931)] (Equation 6)
17 where:
18 PbDUST = indoor dust Pb loading (ug/ft2)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m3)
20
21 In contrast, the air-only regression-based model is:
22 PbDUST = 60 + 844 x PbAIR (Equation 7)
23 where:
24 PbDUST = indoor dust Pb loading (ug/ft2)
25 3
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m )
26
27 Exhibit G-5 shows a comparison of indoor dust Pb concentrations estimated using the
28 hybrid model and the air-only regression based model for a given ambient air Pb concentration.
29 The two models have similar intercepts at zero air Pb concentrations. The air-only regression-
30 based model is linear and tends to predict higher indoor dust Pb concentration than the hybrid
31 model for air Pb concentrations between 0 and 0.3 ug/m3. The average difference between the
32 models in this range of air concentrations is 20 percent. Above 0.3 ug/m3, the slope of the hybrid
July 2007 G-22 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 model decreases, and the air-only regression-based model then predicts higher indoor dust Pb
2 concentrations for a given ambient air level (with an average difference of 61 percent between
3 0.3 and 1.5 ug/m3).
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The hybrid mechanistic-empirical model and the air-only regression-based model
represent two distinct options for converting ambient air concentrations to indoor dust
concentrations, one that is strictly empirical and one that combines empirical background
measurement with a mechanistic air-dust model. Indoor dust calculations are performed using
both models for the general urban case study to allow for the characterization of uncertainty
associated with the selection of the indoor dust modeling approach.
Exhibit G-5. Comparison of the Hybrid Mechanistic-empirical Model and the Air-only
Regression-based Model Indoor Dust Pb Concentration Predictions for a Given Ambient
Air Pb Concentration
1000
O)
c
O
900 -
800 -
700 -
t 600 -
o>
o
o
O
o
o
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0
-Hybrid Mechanistic -
Empirical Model
Air-Only Regression-Based
Model
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 O.
Ambient Air Pb Concentration (jig/m3)
G.3.6. Performance Evaluation of the General Urban Case Study Indoor Dust Models
Various data sources are available to evaluate the performance of the mechanistic portion
of the model, the full hybrid model, and the air-only regression-based model in urban or smelter
environments. Evaluations that have been performed are shown in Exhibit G-6. In general, no
data set provides the ideal set of data for performance evaluation, which would include
July 2007
G-23
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 simultaneous measurements of ambient air concentrations, indoor air concentrations, indoor dust
2 wipe Pb loadings, indoor dust vacuum Pb loadings, and indoor dust Pb concentrations in multiple
3 houses in multiple urban environments. However, the available data do provide insights into the
4 performance of the models in specific urban environments.
July 2007 G-24 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study Models
Study
Location
and Year of
Study
Study Parameters
Relevant to Model
Evaluation
Evaluation Performed
Results of Evaluation
Conclusions
Air-only Regression-based Model Deposition Fluxes
Caravanos et
al., 2006
Manhattan,
New York
City, New
York; 2003
to 2005
Median Pb deposition
flux on a glass plate near
a window open 1 inch
(in); Upper limit of
deposition flux on a glass
plate near a closed
window. Glass plates
were located in a
stairwell with no Pb paint
and no foot traffic, so the
deposition is due to air
contributions only.
Compare Pb deposition
fluxes to weekly deposition
flux in the mechanistic air-
only model; mechanistic
model is run without
cleaning and at an air
exchange rate of 0.5
exchanges per h
(appropriate for a closed-
window environment);
ambient air is assumed to be
consistent with the 2005
national value of 0.025
ug/m3.
Caravanos, window open
1 in: 4.8 ug/ft2/week;
Caravanos, window
closed: < 1.6 ug/ft2/week;
Mechanistic model: 0.35
ug/ft2/week.
The mechanistic model gives deposition
fluxes lower than the measured rate with
the window open but is consistent with
the case with a window closed.
Ratio of Indoor Air and Ambient Air Pb Concentrations
Roy et al.,
2003
NHEXAS
Region 5:
Minnesota,
Wisconsin,
Michigan,
Illinois,
Indiana, and
Ohio
25th Percentile, Median,
and 75th Percentile
indoor and ambient air
Pb concentrations.
Compare the ratio of indoor
to ambient air
concentrations in each
percentile to the ratio in the
air-only mechanistic model
run with an air exchange
rate of 0.5.
Roy, 0.62, 0.73, 0.93
(25th, Median, 75th
Percentile); Mechanistic
Model: 0.31.
Assuming that the 25th percentile indoor
and ambient concentrations correspond
to the same house (and similarly for the
median and 75th Percentile), the Roy
study indicates that the indoor to outdoor
ratio increases for increasing ambient air
concentrations. In the mechanistic
model, this ratio is constant with
increasing ambient air concentrations.
The mechanistic model gives lower
ratios, potentially due to the absence of
resuspension. Also, the ventilation
pattern in each of the study homes is
unknown; open windows increase the air
exchange rate and increase the indoor to
ambient air concentration ratio.
July 2007
G-25
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study Models
Study
Riley et al.,
2002
Location
and Year of
Study
Modeled
Study Parameters
Relevant to Model
Evaluation
Modeled indoor air to
ambient air
concentrations created
by combining empirical
data and a mass balance
model.
Evaluation Performed
Compare the range of
predicted ratios with the air-
only mechanistic model,
where both models use the
same air exchange rate.
Results of Evaluation
Riley: 0.2 to 0.8 for urban
scenarios with typical
ventilation (the range is
for different particle size
classes); Mechanistic
Model: 0.31.
Conclusions
The modeled indoor/outdoor ratio is
consistent with the range for other urban
mass balance models; the 0.31 value is
closer to the modeled value for the
coarse mode particles (2.5 urn to 10 urn).
Particles less than 2.5 urn and greater
than 10 urn tend to have higher ratios in
the Riley study.
Percent Contribution ofAirPb to Indoor Dust Pb
Adgate et al.,
1998
Jersey City,
New Jersey;
1992to
1994
Mean percent
contribution from air,
paint, and crustal
materials to indoor dust;
these are ascertained
using isotopic ratios of
multiple elements and
assuming the indoor dust
is comprised of Pb from
these three sources only.
Compare the percent
contribution from air in the
study to the percent
contribution in the hybrid
mechanistic-empirical model
and in the air-only
regression-based model,
concentration of 0.04 ug/m3
(consistent with national air
values in 1 990)
Adgate: 17.2 percent
from air; Hybrid Model:
78 percent from air; Air-
only Regression-based
Model: 36 percent from
air.
Both the hybrid model and the air-only
regression-based model predict higher
percentage air contributions at the
assumed air concentration than were
seen in the Adgate study; these
percentages tend to decrease with
decreasing ambient air concentrations in
both the air-only regression-based model
and hybrid model The Adgate study
estimate of air contribution is likely
biased low since the homes tend to be
largely < 1940 homes with strong Pb
paint dust contributions. This air
contribution is also highly dependent on
the outdoor soil/dust concentrations,
which may also be elevated due to the
historical presence of exterior Pb paint in
these older homes.
Loading to Concentration Regression
Tang et al.,
2004
Manhattan,
New York
City; 2002
Mean vacuum Pb
loadings and
concentrations,
assuming the non-
detects are 0 (ND=0) and
the non-detects are the
detection limit (ND=DL).
Compare the actual
concentrations with the
concentrations predicted
using the loading to
concentration regression
equation with the mean Pb
loadings.
Vacuum Loadings: 0.5
and 3 ug/ft2; Measured
Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations: 130 and
130 ug/g; Predicted
Concentrations: 96 and
243 ug/g (ND=0 and
ND=DL).
The indoor dust Pb concentrations
predicted with the hybrid model (upper
and lower bounds, assuming Pb loading
non-detects are either zero or the
detection limit) bound the actual
measured mean concentration.
July 2007
G-26
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study Models
Study
Roy et al.,
2003
Location
and Year of
Study
NHEXAS
Region 5:
Minnesota,
Wisconsin,
Michigan,
Illinois,
Indiana, and
Ohio
Study Parameters
Relevant to Model
Evaluation
25th Percentile, Median,
and 75th Percentile
vacuum Pb loadings and
wipe Pb concentrations.
Evaluation Performed
Compare the actual
concentrations with the
concentrations predicted
using the Pb loading to
concentration regression
equation for each percentile.
Results of Evaluation
Vacuum Loadings: 4.77,
10.44, 22.86ug/ft2;
Measured
Concentrations: 68, 129,
303 ug/g; Predicted
Concentrations: 309,
464, 697 ug/g (25th,
Median, and 75th
Percentile).
Conclusions
In general, the Pb loading to
concentration equation predicts higher
indoor dust concentrations than the
measured values at all percentiles
(where the assumption is made that the
25th percentile Pb loading corresponds
to the 25th percentile concentration, and
similarly for the median and 75th
percentile). This result suggests that the
exposure media concentrations and/or
the relative importance of the
contributing media (outdoor soil/dust, air,
and paint) are different in the NHEXAS
study compared to the HUD survey, from
which the regression was derived.
Predicted Indoor Dust Pb Loadings in the Hybrid Mechanistic-empirical Model
Tang et al.,
2004
Manhattan,
New York
City, New
York; 2002
Mean wipe and vacuum
Pb loadings and mean
indoor air Pb
concentrations.
Compare the predicted total
Pb loadings from the hybrid
model with the mean wipe
and vacuum Pb loadings;
the empirical model is run
using indoor air
concentrations provided in
the study. Thus, the model
equations are altered to
solve for the floor Pb loading
as a function of indoor air
instead of ambient air. Two
cases are analyzed: one
assuming the Pb loading
and indoor air Pb
concentration non-detects
are zero (ND=0) and one
assuming the Pb loading
and indoor air Pb
concentration non-detects
are the detection limits
(ND=DL).
Tang Indoor Air
Concentrations: 0.002
and 0.05; Tang Wipe
Loadings: 0.5 and 1.0
ug/ft2; Tang Vacuum
Loadings: 0.9 and 3.0
ug/ft2; Hybrid Model
Loading: 1.8 and 17.8
ug/fr(ND=Oand
ND=DL).
The hybrid model gives estimates that
should be consistent with wipe Pb
loadings. The hybrid model predicts
higher indoor dust Pb loading than
observed in both the ND=0 and ND=DL
cases, although the predicted value is
close the actual value when comparing
wipe Pb loadings and predicted Pb
loadings for the ND=0 case. The study
likely includes high-rise buildings where
outdoor soil/dust tracking and ambient air
Pb levels may be lower than those in
ground-floor homes. Also, the measured
vacuum Pb loadings are higher than the
wipe Pb loadings, contrary to
expectations.
July 2007
G-27
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study Models
Study
Location
and Year of
Study
Study Parameters
Relevant to Model
Evaluation
Evaluation Performed
Results of Evaluation
Conclusions
Roy et al.
2003
NHEXAS
Region 5:
Minnesota,
Wisconsin,
Michigan,
Illinois,
Indiana, and
Ohio
25th Percentile, Median,
and 75th Percentile wipe
Pb loadings and ambient
air concentrations.
Compare the hybrid model
Pb loadings using the
measured ambient air
concentrations to the
measured wipe Pb loadings.
Roy Ambient Air:
0.00599, 0.00863
0.0123 ug/m3; Roy Wipe
Loading: 1.5,5.35, 17.73
ug/ft2; Predicted Loading:
1.77, 2.05, 2.43 ug/ft2
(25th, Median, 75th
Percentile).
The hybrid model overpredicts the Pb
loading at low air concentrations and
underpredicts the Pb loading at higher
air concentrations, assuming that the
25th percentile air measurements
correspond to the 25th percentile Pb
loadings (and similarly for the median
and 75th percentiles). The higher Pb
loading percentiles likely contain higher
than average outdoor soil/dust, paint,
and/or household-specific contributions
to indoor dust, which are not captured in
the empirical portion of the hybrid model
(which assumes median conditions from
the HUD survey).
Lanphear et
al., 1996
Rochester,
New York;
1993
GM indoor dust Pb
loadings (wipe) averaged
over all surfaces.
Compare the predicted total
Pb loadings from the hybrid
model with the measured
indoor dust Pb loading,
assuming an ambient air Pb
concentration of 0.04
(nationally representative
1990 value)
Lanphear indoor Pb dust
loading; 106 ug/ft2;
hybrid model loading: 5.3
The hybrid model gives a very low indoor
dust Pb level compared with the
measured Pb loading; however, over 85
percent of the study homes in Rochester
were constructed before 1940,
suggesting a very strong paint signal that
is not captured in the hybrid model. The
Lanphear value is higher than typical
urban indoor dust Pb loadings seen in
other data sources, such as the HUD
survey.
July 2007
G-28
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study Models
Study
Location
and Year of
Study
Study Parameters
Relevant to Model
Evaluation
Evaluation Performed
Results of Evaluation
Conclusions
Predicted Concentrations in the Hybrid Mechanistic-Empirical Model and Air-only Regression-based Model
Tang et al.,
2004
Manhattan,
New York
City, New
York; 2002
Mean Pb indoor dust
concentrations and mean
indoor air Pb
concentrations.
Compare the predicted
concentrations using the
hybrid model with the
measured indoor air
concentrations to the actual
indoor dust concentrations;
compare the air-only
regression-based model
predicted concentrations
assuming that ambient air =
indoor air to the measured
indoor dust concentrations.
Cases using the air
concentrations assuming the
non-detects are zero (ND=0)
and the non-detects are the
detection limit (ND=DL) are
both analyzed.
Tang Indoor Air
Concentrations: 0.002
and 0.05 ug/m3; Tang
Indoor Dust
Concentrations: 130 and
130 ug/g; Hybrid Model
Indoor Dust
Concentrations: 76 and
226 ug/g; Air-only
Regression-based Model
Indoor Dust
Concentrations: 62 and
102 ug/g (ND=0 and
ND=DL).
The hybrid model indoor dust
concentrations using the ND=0 and
ND=DL cases bound the actual
measured concentration of 130 ug/g; the
air-only regression-based model cases
both predict lower indoor dust Pb
concentrations than the measured value.
The ambient air concentrations are set
equal to indoor air concentrations for the
air-only regression-based model, so the
ambient air concentrations are lower
than likely actual values introducing a
low bias to the air-only regression-based
model predictions in this case.
Rasmussen
etal., 2001
Ottawa,
Canada;
1993
Arithmetic mean, GM,
median, minimum,
maximum, 90th
percentile and 95th
percentile indoor dust
concentrations.
Compare the hybrid model
indoor dust concentrations
and the air-only regression-
based model concentrations
using an ambient air
concentration consistent
with national values in the
United States in 1990 with
the measured indoor dust
concentrations.
Rasmussen Indoor Dust
Concentrations: 406,
233, 222, 50, 3226, 969,
1312 ug/g (arithmetic
mean, GM, median,
minimum, maximum,
90th percentile, 95th
percentile); Hybrid Model
Indoor Dust
Concentration: 128 ug/g;
Air-only Regression-
based Model Indoor Dust
Concentration: 94 ug/g.
Assuming the ambient air concentration
is representative of Ottawa in 1993, the
hybrid model and the air-only regression-
based model both tend to under predict
the mean and median indoor dust
concentration. This result suggests that
the background United States
concentration used to derive the
empirical portion of the model does not
adequately capture the indoor dust
concentrations in Ottawa.
July 2007
G-29
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-6. Summary of Performance Evaluation Performed on General Urban Case Study Models
Study
Location
and Year of
Study
Study Parameters
Relevant to Model
Evaluation
Evaluation Performed
Results of Evaluation
Conclusions
Hilts 2003
Trail, British
Columbia
(smelter
site); 1996to
1999
GM ambient air
concentrations and
indoor dust
concentrations in 1999
(after the opening of a
new Pb smelter, which
reduced ambient air
levels in the community).
Compare the hybrid model
indoor dust concentrations
and the air-only regression-
based model concentrations
using the measured ambient
air concentrations to the
measured Pb
concentrations.
Hilts Ambient Air
Concentration: 0.3
ug/m3; Hilts Measured
Indoor Dust
Concentration: 583 ug/g;
Hybrid Model Indoor
Dust Concentration: 301
ug/g; Air-only
Regression-based Model
Indoor Dust
Concentration: 313 ug/g.
The ambient air concentration used in
this study is close to the air concentration
where the hybrid model and the air-only
regression-based model cross, so they
give very similar estimates of indoor dust
concentration. Both of these estimates
tend to somewhat underpredict the
indoor dust concentrations; this is likely
due to the fact that elevated outdoor
soil/dust concentrations in the vicinity of
the smelter are playing a larger role in
determining the indoor dust
concentrations than in a typical urban
environment.
Adgate et al.
1998
Jersey City,
New Jersey;
1992to
1994
Mean Pb indoor dust
concentration for the
coarse size fraction
(particle size of 2.5 urn to
10 urn).
Compare the indoor dust
concentration in the hybrid
model and in the air-only
regression-based model,
assuming an air
concentration of 0.04 ug/m3
(consistent with national air
values in 1990).
Adgate: 857 ug/g; Hybrid
Model: 128 ug/g; Air-only
Regression-based
Model: 94 ug/g.
Both the hybrid model and the air-only
regression-based model under predict
the actual mean indoor dust
concentration. This may be due to the
fact that the Jersey City homes included
in the Adgate study tend to be of older
vintage and include a strong paint signal
that was not captured in the HUD survey
empirical data or in the data from which
the air-only regression-based model was
derived.
July 2007
G-30
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The different studies mentioned above allow testing of various portions of the hybrid
2 mechanistic-empirical model and the air-only regression-based model. Comparison of the ratio
3 of ambient air Pb concentrations to indoor Pb concentrations in the mechanistic portion of the
4 hybrid model indicate that the hybrid model ratios are lower than those in the Roy et al. (2003)
5 study; however, this ratio will vary depending on whether windows are open or closed, and no
6 such information is available for the Roy et al. (2003) study. In addition, the portion of indoor
7 dust Pb arising from ambient air contributions is lower in the hybrid model than in the Adgate et
8 al. (1998) study. However, most of the Adgate et al. (1998) study homes were built before 1940,
9 indicating that Pb paint likely plays a larger role in setting the dust Pb loading than in an urban
10 environment including homes from a later vintage. The equation for converting Pb loadings to
11 Pb concentrations was tested using both the Tang et al. (2004) study and the Roy et al. (2003)
12 study. In general, the Pb concentrations estimated from the Pb loadings were within range for
13 the Tang et al. (2004) study, but biased high for the Roy et al. (2003) study, indicating the Roy et
14 al. (2003) study may include data that differs significantly from the HUD study from which the
15 conversion equation was derived. The final predicted concentrations from the hybrid model
16 were compared with the Pb concentrations measured in Manhattan, New York City, New York
17 in the Tang et al. (2004) study, and the predicted values bounded the measured mean value. The
18 hybrid values underpredicted the indoor dust Pb concentrations in the Hilts (2003) study and the
19 Adgate et al. (1998) study. However, the Hilts (2003) study was performed at a Pb smelter site
20 and the Adgate et al. (1998) study included homes built before 1940, both of which suggest these
21 homes are different from a typical urban home. In general, the hybrid model predicts Pb
22 concentrations within the wide range of values available in the literature for urban (and Pb
23 smelter) environments.
24 G.3.7. Separating Pb Indoor Dust Concentrations into Recent Air and Other Portions
25 Once the Pb indoor dust concentrations have been estimated using both the hybrid model
26 and the air-only regression-based model, these estimates are also separated into the portion of Pb
27 in indoor dust derived from recent air and the portion derived from other sources (e.g, indoor
28 paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources including historical air). For the air-only
29 regression-based model, the concentration equation is linear with respect to the air Pb
30 concentration. Thus, the recent air-derived portion of Pb in indoor dust is the air slope multiplied
31 by the air concentration, and the proportion of indoor dust Pb from the "other sources" portion is
32 equal to the intercept.
July 2007 G-31 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 For the hybrid model, the Pb indoor dust concentration equation is non-linear with
2 respect to the air concentration. Conversely, the loading equation (including both recent air-
3 derived and other sources) is linear with respect to the air concentration and has the format:
4 PbDustLoading = a + b* PbAir
5 The fraction of total indoor dust from recent air-derived sources is then equal to
r 7 b* PbAir
6 Air - Dust Loading =
a + b* PbAir
1 This fraction is then applied to the total Pb indoor dust concentration to give the recent
8 air-derived portion of total indoor dust. The "other sources" portion is then the remaining Pb
9 indoor dust concentration after subtracting the recent air portion.
10 G.4. FOUNDATION FOR THE PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY INDOOR
11 DUST ALGORITHMS
12 For estimating indoor dust concentrations for residences in the primary Pb smelter case
13 study, two indoor dust prediction models were used:
14 For locations within 1.5 km of the facility: a site-specific regression model; and
15 For receptors more than 1.5 km away from the facility: a pooled analysis model (referred
16 to as the air+soil regression-based model) identified from the literature, which predicts Pb
17 indoor dust concentrations given outdoor soil/dust and ambient air Pb levels based on
18 data from a variety of industrial and urban studies (USEPA, 1989).
19
20 The site-specific model is based on data collected within the residential remediation zone
21 characterizing yard outdoor soil/dust Pb levels (post-remediation) and indoor dust levels. The
22 air+soil regression-based model, or non-site-specific model, was selected for zones outside of the
23 remediation area because available outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust Pb data did not extend to
24 these more distant areas and the site-specific model derived for the remediated zone was deemed
25 not representative for the non-remediated zone.
26 G.4.1. Site-specific Regression Model
27 The objective of the indoor dust analysis for the primary Pb smelter case study was to
28 derive a statistical model that could be used to estimate Pb concentrations in indoor dust from Pb
29 concentrations in other media at locations where the media concentrations had not been directly
30 measured. The models derived were used to estimate indoor dust Pb concentrations for the U.S.
31 Census blocks closest to the primary Pb smelter.
July 2007 G-32 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G.4.1.1. Overview of Methods
2 The primary approach taken in this analysis was to derive regression-type models that
3 describe the relationships among the environmental media concentrations at the primary Pb
4 smelter case study location. This approach was informed by previous analysis completed by
5 EPA and other researchers with similar data. More complex approaches (e.g., structural equation
6 modeling) might also be used to explore and/or confirm the relationships among the variables
7 examined. Based on preliminary analyses of the data, however, the regression analyses were
8 best justified by the quality and quantity of available data.
9 G.4.1.2. Data Sources
10 All data used in the analyses were obtained electronically from the U.S. EPA Region 7
11 (USEPA, 2006) and are presented in Appendix B. Pb concentrations in residential outdoor soil
12 and indoor and road dust were obtained from samples taken by EPA contractors as part of
13 Superfund investigations conducted in the area around the primary Pb smelter from March 2003
14 to May 2006 (see Exhibit G-7). The data set also contained Pb loading information related to
15 indoor floor dust, dust obtained from wipe samples, and total dust.
16 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates were provided for all of the samples
17 and were used in the analysis of the spatial patterns of soil and dust contamination. From March
18 2002 to May 2006, concentrations of Pb in both indoor dust and residential soil were measured at
19 only 17 locations (homes) near the primary Pb smelter. Pb concentrations in residential soil only
20 were measured at 12 other residential locations, for which no accompanying Pb indoor dust
21 measurements were available (see Exhibit G-7). Note that the soil measurements were taken
22 post-remediation; thus, the effect of the historic facility operations on soil Pb concentrations
23 (from stack emissions or road dust) are expected to be greatly attenuated compared to the soil Pb
24 concentrations that existed prior to remediation.
July 2007 G-33 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit G-7. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Summary of Pb Concentrations in
Residential Soil and House and Road Dust
Data Field
Indoor Dust
Residential
Outdoor Soil
Road Dust
Sampling
Locations a
17
17
21 c
Sampling
Dates
March 2002 to
May 2006
March 2002 to
May 2006
May 2002 to
April 2006
Samples per
Location Mean
(Range)
9
(3 to 20)
13
(4 to 23)
42
(14 to 139)
Total
Samples
159
215
891
Distances to
Main Stack
Mean (Range)
(m)b
898
(395 to 1,594)
898
(395 to 1,594)
609
(161 to 1,693)
Pb Concentration
Mean (Range)
mg/kg
1,544
(348 to 3,81 2)
81
(31 to 139)
28,300
(1,570 to 11 1,000)
4
5
6
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
a Number of locations includes both indoor dust and residential outdoor soil Pb data.
b The main stack location is included as a point of reference only (not intended to imply it is the main contributor to
the observed Pb concentrations).
0 Sampling locations with the same UTM coordinates were combined.
Anecdotal evidence suggested that road dust may be a major source of Pb in the air and
in indoor dust at residences around the primary Pb smelter; therefore, an analysis was performed
to identify the relationships between road dust Pb concentrations and indoor dust Pb
concentrations. EPA contractors analyzed almost 900 road dust samples from May 2002 to April
2006. The road dust samples were taken from 21 locations ranging from 161 to about 1,700 m
from the main stack. Pb sampling locations for road dust differed from the residential outdoor
soil and indoor dust sample locations; the distance between road dust sampling locations and the
17 residential soil and indoor dust sampling locations ranged from 52 to 1328 m (average 280
m).
In the absence of residence-specific ambient air Pb concentration monitoring data, the
indoor dust Pb levels were fit to modeled air concentrations developed as part of the pilot
assessment. Long-term average air Pb concentrations predicted in the Industrial Source
Complex (ISC-PRIME) current NAAQS scenario runs for U.S. Census block and block group
centroids located near the residential indoor dust sampling locations were used (ICF, 2006). The
centroids were not precisely co-located with any of the indoor dust sampling locations.
G.4.1.3. Data Manipulation
Developing indoor dust prediction models for the primary Pb smelter case study
presented a number of challenges. Primary among these challenges was that the indoor dust,
residential outdoor soil, and road dust measurements were not taken at the same time. Also, as
noted above, the road dust and air modeling input data were spatially removed from the
July 2007
G-34
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 residential indoor dust sampling locations. For these reasons, two approaches were taken to
2 develop data sets for the regression analyses.
3 G.4.1.3.1. Data Set Based on Spatial-temporal "Windows"
4 The first approach involved identifying observations from each of the various
5 environmental media that were "close" together in time and space, and using these data to create
6 composite data points. Each data point represented the arithmetic or GM value of all
7 observations in each medium within defined spatial and temporal "windows" of the nearest
8 residential indoor dust observation. The indoor dust observations were used as the centers of the
9 "windows" because fewer observations were available for indoor dust than for any other medium
10 (and because indoor dust was the "dependent" variable for which values were being predicted).
11 The dimensions of the windows were defined for two purposes:
12 Maintain, to the extent possible, the temporal and spatial relationships between the indoor
13 dust measurements and the measured/estimated concentrations in the other media; and
14 Include as many input data points as possible per window.
15
16 After looking at a number of possible approaches to stratify the data, window
17 "dimensions" were chosen with the following spatial and temporal boundaries:
18 Indoor dust measurements from the same location occurring within ฑ30 days of each
19 other.
20 Residential soil measurements within ฑ30 days of the nearest indoor dust sampling date
21 for the same residence (soil and indoor dust measurements were taken from the same
22 locations, so no spatial window was necessary).
23 Road dust Pb measurements from all of the sampling locations within 300 m, or the
24 closest road dust sampling location, taken within ฑ 60 days of the indoor dust sample. If
25 no road dust sampling location within 300 m was available, the measurements from the
26 nearest road dust sampling locations were used. For five homes, no road dust samples
27 were taken within approximately 60 days of any indoor dust sampling events. In these
28 cases, all road dust results from within 300 m, or from the closest road dust sampling
29 location, were averaged as above, and associated with the indoor dust sampling dates in
30 the database.
31 Average long-term air Pb concentrations estimated for U.S. Census block centroids
32 within 200 m of each indoor dust Pb measurement (ICF, 2006). Most indoor dust
33 sampling locations had several centroids less than 200 m away, but averaging the air Pb
34 levels within 200 m produced the highest correlations with the indoor dust samples.
35 Because no specific date is associated with the estimated air Pb concentrations, the same
36 air concentration values were used for all "windows" for each indoor dust location.
July 2007 G-35 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2 The resulting data set contained 125 records comprised of ambient air, residential outdoor
3 soil, and indoor and road dust data, along with several other auxiliary variables relating to
4 location, distance from the main stack (as a surrogate location for the facility), and sampling
5 dates.
6 G.4.1.3.2. Data Set Based on Indoor Dust Sampling Locations
7 The number of samples (and therefore the amount of information) combined into the
8 observations for the individual "windows" varied greatly. The "house" data set, which combines
9 all data for each indoor dust sampling location, was developed to avoid giving undue weight to
10 points with few observational data. The "house" data set includes 17 values for each variable.
11 Each value corresponds to the arithmetic mean or geometric mean of all values for that variable
12 for all "windows" associated with a given indoor dust sampling location. As described below,
13 the modeling results obtained using the "windows" and the "house" data sets are quite similar.
14 G.4.1.4. Results of the Statistical Analysis
15 G.4.1.4.1. Exploratory Analysis
16 Several exploratory analyses were conducted to confirm the general relationships within
17 the data set, and to rule out the potential for omitted variables to affect the regression analysis
18 results. The exploratory analyses included graphical summaries and calculation of simple
19 correlation coefficients among the variables and their log-transformed values.
20 For House 3, two indoor dust Pb measurements (5,230 and 23,640 milligram per
21 kilogram [mg/kg]) differed markedly from other measurements taken at that house (mean =
22 1,190 mg/kg, 15 samples). The two measurements were the last two samples taken at House 3
23 (in April and October 2005). The two measurements were omitted from the analysis on the
24 grounds that some factor maybe have been affecting indoor dust Pb concentrations during this
25 period that had not been operating previously. After removing these two data points, the indoor
26 dust Pb concentrations in the "windows" data set were well-represented by a lognormal
27 distribution, and thus both the untransformed and log-transformed indoor dust Pb values were
28 included in the regression analyses, as discussed below.
29 As expected, average indoor dust Pb concentrations were found to be highly (inversely)
30 correlated with distance to the main stack, when the "windows" data set was used (see Exhibit
31 G-8). Pb in air is believed to be a major contributor to indoor dust Pb levels, and thus these
32 results are to be expected. A weak, but significant, inverse correlation between indoor dust Pb
33 concentrations and residential soil Pb was found. The reason for this correlation was not clear,
July 2007 G-36 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
and the significance of the correlation declines in some, but not all, regression models when
measures of air Pb are also included. Average and log-transformed road dust Pb concentrations
were weakly correlated with similarly expressed indoor dust Pb statistics, but the correlations
lost significance when residential soil and air Pb were included in the models (see Exhibit G-9).
Exhibit G-8. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Relationship between Indoor Dust Pb
Concentrations and Distance from Facility
7
8
9
6,000
S 5,000
s
o
o
sง
Q- 5
t/!
3
o
o
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
300
600 900 1,200
Distance from the Main Stack (m)
1,500
1,800
Note: The main stack location is included as a point of reference only (not intended to imply it is the main
contributor to the observed Pb concentrations).
July 2007
G-37
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Exhibit G-9. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Relationship between Road Dust Pb
Concentrations and Nearby Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
o
w
I
0)
u
0 3?
ฃ1
a.
g
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Road Dust Pb Concentration (|Jg/g)
50,000
G.4.1.4.2. Regression Modeling of Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
A systematic search for multiple regression models was conducted to maximize the
proportion of explained variance (R2) in indoor dust (DustPb) and the log-transformed indoor
dust (InDustPV) values. Forwards and backwards stepwise regression methods were used, with
contribution to the F-statistic as the inclusion/removal criterion for untransformed and log-
transformed variables. Residential soil and road dust Pb were "forced" back into well-fitted
models to determine their effects on R2 and on the coefficients for other variables. Probability
plots of residuals and other diagnostics were used to evaluate the quality of the fit and to
determine failures in assumptions required to produce unbiased estimates. Results of the best
regressions derived from the "windows" data set are summarized Exhibit G-10.
July 2007
G-38
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-10. Indoor Dust Regression Models Tested and Summary of Regression
Analysis Results for the "Windows" Data Set
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
Model a
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
W7
W8
Independent
Variable b
DustPb
DustPb
DustPb
DustPb
LnDustPb
LnDustPb
LnDustPb
LnDustPb
Dependent
Variable(s)
Intercept
AIR_200
Intercept
SoilAvg
AIR_200
Intercept
lnAIR200
Intercept
SoilAvg
lnAIR200
Intercept
AIR_200
Intercept
SoilAvg
AIR_200
Intercept
lnAIR200
Intercept
SoilAvg
lnAIR200
Estimated
Values (m)
685.7
1625.2
1012.5
-4.699
1687.2
2285.6
791.0
2863.2
-6.317
874.7
6.4540
1.2361
6.6725
-0.0031
1.2777
7.7366
0.6520
8.1506
-0.0045
0.7120
Coefficient p-
Value(s)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Adjusted R2
0.322
0.367
0.343
0.426
0.268
0.294
0.336
0.395
a Models labeled "W" were developed considering media concentrations within a particular spatial distance
and temporal period of the nearest indoor dust observation.
b Abbreviations: DustPb = Pb concentration in indoor dust; LnDustPb = log-transformed value; AIR_200 =
ambient air concentration within 200 m of indoor dust sampling locations; lnAIR200 = log-transformed
concentration; and SoilAvg = average residential soil Pb concentration.
For all of the regressions, variables representing ambient air Pb concentrations at
monitors within 200 m of indoor dust sampling locations (AIR200, lnAIR200} accounted for the
bulk of explained variance in indoor dust Pb levels (see Exhibit G-10). The only other variable
related to environmental concentrations that retained significance and/or resulted in increases in
July 2007
G-39
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 explained variance was the average residential soil Pb (SoilAvg). Surprisingly, the sign of the
2 coefficient for residential soil Pb was consistently negative in those regressions where it was
3 statistically significant. When the natural log of indoor dust Pb concentration (LnDustPb) was
4 used as the "independent" variable, the R2 values for regressions including air and residential soil
5 Pb levels were reduced slightly compared to the results obtained for the analogous regressions
6 using the untransformed DustPb values. However, the pattern of regression residuals was
7 considerably improved (more nearly normal) when the log-transformed (as opposed to
8 untransformed) indoor dust values were fit. No variables representing road dust Pb
9 concentration were found to retain statistical significance when air-related variables were
10 included in the regression models.
11 Similar results were found when regressions were fit using the "house" data set, as shown
12 in Exhibit G-l 1. Similar coefficient values are observed for analogous regressions based on the
13 two data sets. One difference from the results obtained using the "windows" data was that, when
14 Air200 was included in the regression, SoilAvg became statistically insignificant. Residential
15 soil was significant in the other variants of the model shown in Exhibit G-11. As with the
16 "windows" data set, the road dust Pb was never a significant predictor of indoor dust Pb levels.
17 Also, patterns of residuals were again superior when the models were fit to LnDustPb, rather
18 than DustPb. The results (coefficients and significance) did not significantly change when
19 regressions were conducted that were weighted by the numbers of observations at each house,
20 rather than uniformly weighted.
July 2007 G-40 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit G-ll. Summary of Regression Analysis Results for the "House" Data Set
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Model a
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
Independent
Variable b
DustPb
DustPb
DustPb
LnDustPb
LnDustPb
LnDustPb
Dependent
Variable(s)
Intercept
Air200
Intercept
LnAir200
Intercept
SoilAvg
LnAir200
Intercept
Air200
Intercept
LnAir200
Intercept
SoilAvg
LnAir200
Estimated
Values (m)
701.2
1573.1
2447.1
883.4
3313.2
-11.349
946.9
6.3928
1.2185
7.7892
0.7200
8.3884
-0.0079
0.7639
Coefficient p-
Value(s)
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.045
0.000
Adjusted R2
0.489
0.609
0.722
0.447
0.625
0.701
a Models labeled "H" were created considering all of the data for each indoor dust sampling
location.
b Abbreviations: DustPb = Pb concentration in indoor dust; LnDustPb = log-transformed value;
AIR_200 = ambient air concentration within 200 meters (m) of indoor dust sampling locations;
LnAIR200 = log-transformed concentration; and SoilAvg = average residential soil Pb
concentration.
G.4.1.4.3. Comparison of Predicted to Observed Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations in Primary
Pb Smelter Case Study
To evaluate potential approaches for estimating indoor dust Pb levels in the primary Pb
smelter case study, the estimated indoor dust Pb concentrations derived using several of the
better fitting models (as judged by adjusted R2 values) were compared based on the "windows"
data (see Exhibit G-12).
July 2007
G-41
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit G-12. Comparison of Three Best "Windows" Models with EPA Air+Soil
Regression-based Model and "Windows" Data
ป
ง
&
2 4,000 -
o
u
ฐ 3,000 -
JD
Q.
8 2,000 -
Q
fe
g 1,000 -
o
'o 0 -
o
, ^^
^<^<<* *
* ^^^ป**^
* * -^^^^^
^* _^^^^*
ป * *J^^*^ *
** . ^^^^ . * ^^ *
*i>Hr -^- "**""""
* &M; I * -^""" ^^
[ [ [
Model W4
Model W8
- - - .Model W2
Air+Soil Reg.-
Based Model
ป "Windows" Data
ฃ 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Ambient Air Pb Concentration (|Jg/m3)
4
5
6
7
9
10
Exhibit G-13 shows the indoor dust concentrations predicted by the three best fitting
models derived using the "house" data. For models that included coefficients for residential soil
Pb (all except H5), the assumed residential soil Pb concentration was held constant at its mean
value. In both cases, the predictions are compared to those derived using EPA's air+soil
regression-based model (USEPA, 1989).
Exhibit G-13. Comparison of Best-fitting "House" Models with the EPA Air+Soil
Regression-based Model and the "Windows" Indoor Dust Data
11
5,000 T-
1
I
5 4,000
s.
.0
Q_
on
Q
3,000
2,000
ฃ 1,000
o
o
u
Model H3
-Model H6
"Windows" Data
Air+Soil Reg.-
Based Model
- - - . Model H5
0.5 1.0 1.5
Ambient Air Pb Concentration (ng/m3)
2.0
July 2007
G-42
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The models derived from the "windows" and "house" data sets have generally the same
2 form. The relationships were highly curved, and negative indoor dust values were predicted at
3 low air concentrations, when the models were fit to untransformed indoor dust data (W4, H3).
4 For the "windows" models, predicted indoor dust Pb concentration values were very similar
5 when the model was fit using untransformed air concentrations (W2) or log-transformed values
6 (W8.) Also, predicted indoor dust Pb levels were very similar for the two log-log "house"
7 models when soil concentration was included (H6) or excluded (H5) from the model.
8 All models predicted substantially higher indoor dust Pb concentrations than the air+soil
9 regression-based model. Also, the air+soil regression-based model predicts indoor dust levels
10 that are far below the observed values.
11 G.4.1.5. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Indoor Dust Modeling Approach Used Near
12 Facility
13 The availability of site-specific indoor dust and residential soil concentration data from
14 the primary Pb smelter case study location led to the development of a site-specific model as
15 described above. Soil and indoor dust samples from which the site-specific models were
16 developed were available only to a distance of about 1,600 m from the facility's main stack,
17 leading to greater uncertainty associated with use of the site-specific model to predict indoor dust
18 Pb concentrations at greater distances. Thus, the site-specific H6 model was used to predict
19 indoor dust Pb concentrations at centroids to a distance of 1.5 km from the site, and the air+soil
20 regression-based model was used to predict indoor dust Pb levels for centroids at greater
21 distances. The format for the H6 model is:
22 \n(PbDUST) = 8.3884 + 0.73639 x \n(PbAIR)
23 where:
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g)
25
PbAIR = concentration of Pb modeled in the ambient
26 air (ug/m3)
27
28 As shown in Exhibit G-14, the H6 model predicted much higher indoor dust
29 concentrations at centroids closer to the facility than the air+soil regression-based model, but at
30 longer distances, the predictions became more similar. For centroids around 1,500 m (1.5 km)
31 from the facility, the average H6 model predicted indoor dust Pb concentrations of 310 |ig/g,
32 while the average air + soil regression-based model prediction was approximately 270 |ig/g. At
33 5,000 m (5 km), the average predictions from the two models were 120 |ig/g and 80 |ig/g,
34 respectively.
July 2007 G-43 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit G-14. Ratio of Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations Predicted by the H6 and Air+Soil
2 Regression-based Models versus Distance from the Facility
3
4
5
6
7
01
O 50
1
m 4.0 -
il
ง c
ฃ 1 30-
a t/i
3
5? 2.0-
,= g
< -o
c
S 1-0-
X
O
's n n
t-
ป *ป
* * *
* *
ป ป *
ป ซ t* * *ซ*ป *4V *
^J^^^^4**%^ 4Jfc ^ A 4ft A^ ^ *
^ ^H>^* A ^ ^ 4-A * * A
ซ
02 0 5,000 10,000 15,000
U.S. Census Block Centroid Distance from the Main Stack (m)
Note: The main stack location is included as a point of reference only (not intended to imply it is the main
contributor to the observed Pb concentrations).
G.4.2. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Indoor Dust Modeling Approach Used at Distance
from Facility
For the portion of the study area outside the 1.5 km radius from the primary Pb smelter,
the pooled analysis air+soil regression-based model based on data collected in the past at several
active primary Pb smelters, including the primary smelter analyzed here, was used (USEPA,
1989). The air+soil regression-based model predicts indoor dust Pb based on both outdoor
soil/dust and ambient air Pb levels. The model is appropriate for the non-remediation portion of
the primary Pb smelter case study area because this area has not been subjected to extensive
remediation and is therefore likely to resemble the locations included in the pooled analysis used
in deriving this model (i.e., areas not having undergone extensive outdoor soil remediation).
Furthermore, because the non-remediation portion of the study area is likely to have outdoor
surface soil Pb gradients reflecting long-term atmospheric deposition of Pb, indoor dust would
likely be partially dependent on outdoor soil Pb. Therefore, the air+soil regression-based model
presented here was selected for this portion of the study area:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 where:
July 2007
PbDUST= 31.3 + (638 x PbAIR) + (0.364 x PbSOIL)
G-44
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in ambient air (ug/m3)
O
PbSOIL = concentration of Pb in outdoor surface soil (mg/kg).
4
5 GAS. Separating Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations into Recent Air and Other Portions
6 As in the general urban case study, the total indoor dust concentrations were separated
7 into the component associated with recent air and that associated with other sources (e.g, indoor
8 paint, outdoor soil/dust and additional sources including historical air). For the air+soil
9 regression-based model (used for blocks and block groups more than 1.5 km from the facility),
10 the equation is linear with respect to the air concentration; thus, the recent air-derived indoor dust
11 Pb portion is simply that outdoor ambient air concentration multiplied by the outdoor ambient air
12 slope, and the portion assigned to other sources is the remainder (outdoor soil/dust and intercept
13 contributions) of the Pb indoor dust concentration. However, the site-specific H6 model is
14 nonlinear with respect to outdoor ambient air concentration. In the general urban case study
15 hybrid model, the loadings fractions (which are linear with respect to outdoor ambient air
16 concentrations) were used to derive the outdoor ambient air Pb contribution, and this fraction
17 was applied to the concentration. However, for the H6 model, no such loading information is
18 available. In addition, the equation is log-log and has the general format:
19 PbDust = exp[a + b * \n(PbAir)]
20 To approximate the contribution from "other sources," the Pb indoor dust concentration
21 is calculated for all sites in the remediation zone using the above equation for each NAAQS
22 scenario. In each of the air quality scenarios, the block or block group with the lowest resulting
23 indoor dust Pb concentration is assumed to have zero contribution from outdoor ambient air, so
24 the indoor dust concentration is completely composed of the "other sources" fraction. This
25 concentration is then used as the "other sources indoor dust concentration" for all the blocks in
26 the remediation zone, and the recent air-derived component is found by subtracting this
27 concentration from the total concentration. This method likely underestimates the outdoor
28 ambient air contribution for the blocks and block groups in the remediation zone, since in reality
29 the lowest indoor dust concentration includes both recent air-derived and "other sources" of
30 indoor dust, rather than merely the "other sources" as assumed.
July 2007 G-45 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G.5. FOUNDATION FOR THE SECONDARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY INDOOR
2 DUST ALGORITHMS
3 Indoor dust sampling data were not available for the secondary Pb smelter case study,
4 necessitating the use of modeling to characterize indoor dust Pb levels within the study area.
5 The air+soil regression based model (USEPA, 1989) that uses ambient air Pb levels for
6 predicting indoor dust levels was chosen. This model is similar to the one used for the primary
7 Pb smelter case study at distances greater than 1.5 km from the source; however, in the case of
8 the secondary Pb smelter, an "air-only" version of the model was used reflecting the reduced
9 overall confidence associated with soil characterization for this case study.
10 The air-only regression-based model does reflect (implicitly) some consideration for the
11 soil-to-indoor dust mechanism in the air signal. Specifically, the larger air factor for the air-only
12 model (relative to the air+soil regression model's air factor) reflects the fact that, in this version
13 of the model, air measurements are used to represent both the direct loading of indoor dust Pb
14 from air and the loading of outdoor soil/dust Pb by air with subsequent impacts of that outdoor
15 soil/dust on indoor dust through other mechanisms (USEPA, 1989). The air-only regression-
16 based model used for the secondary Pb smelter was based on a number of studies focusing
17 mainly on primary Pb smelters. This introduces uncertainty into the indoor dust predictions
18 generated using this model associated with potential differences between primary and secondary
19 Pb smelters that may affect indoor dust Pb loading (e.g., particle size profiles and nature of the
20 entrained Pb compounds). The air-only regression-based model used in this analysis is presented
21 below:
22 PbDUST = 60 + (844 x PbAIR)
23 where:
PbDUST = concentration of Pb in indoor dust (ug/g)
PbAIR = concentration of Pb in the ambient air (ug/m3)
26
27 G.5.1. Separating Pb Indoor Dust Concentrations into Recent Air and Other Portions
28 The total Pb indoor dust concentration was separated into the component associated with
29 recent air and that associated with other sources (e.g, indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and
30 additional sources including historical air). The Pb indoor dust concentration equation is linear
31 with respect to air Pb concentration, so the recent air contribution to indoor dust Pb concentration
32 is the slope multiplied by the air concentration, and the other sources contribution is the
33 intercept.
July 2007 G-46 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Adgate, J. L.; Willis, R. D.; Buckley, T. I; Chow, J. C.; Watson, J. G.; Rhoads, G. G.; Lioy, P. J. (1998) Chemical
3 Mass Balance Source Apportionment of Lead in House Dust. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(1): 108-114.
4
5 Battelle Memorial Institute. (1997) Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities:
6 Environmental Field Sampling Study Volume I: Technical Report. EPA 747-R-96-007: 1-204.
7 Washington, DC: prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
8
9 Caravanos, J.; Weiss, A. L.; Jaeger, R. J. (2006) An Exterior and Interior Leaded Dust Deposition Survey in New
10 York City: Results of a 2-Year Study. Environmental Research. 100: 159-164.
11
12 Clemson Environmental Technologies Laboratory (CETL). (2001) A Comparison of Post-Renovation and
13 Remodeling Surface Cleaning Techniques. USEPA Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics; December
14 14.
15
16 Dockery D.W.and Spengler J.D. (1981) Indoor-Outdoor Relationships of Respirable Sulfates and Particles.
17 Atmospheric Environment. 15:335-343.
18
19 Ewers, L.; Clark, S.; Menrath, W.; Succop, P.; Bornschein, R. (1994) Clean-Up of Lead in Household Carpet and
20 Floor Dust. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 55(7): 650-657.
21
22 Fergusson, J. E.and Schroeder, R. J. (1985) Lead in House Dust of Christchurch, New Zealand: Sampling, Levels
23 and Sources. Sci. Total Environ. 46: 61-72.
24
25 Ferro, A. R.; Kopperud, R. J.; Hildemann, L. M. (2004) Source Strengths for Indoor Human Activities That
26 Resuspend Particulate Matter. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(6): 1759-1764.
27
28 Freed, J. R.;, C. T.; Christie, W. N.; Carpenter, C. E. (1983) Methods for Assessing Exposure to Chemical
29 Substance (Volume 2). EPA 560/5-l;3-015: 70-73. USEPA, Office of Toxic Substances.
30
31 Gwiazda, R. H.and Smith, D. R. (2000) Lead Isotopes As a Supplementary Tool in the Routine Evaluation of
32 Household Lead Hazards. Environ. Health Perspect. 108(11): 1091-1097.
33
34 Hilts, S. R. (2003) Effect of Smelter Emission Reductions on Children's Blood Lead Levels. Sci. Total Environ.
35 303(1-2): 51-58.
36
37 ICF International. (2006) Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments and Ecological Risk Assessment for
3 8 Selected Areas, Pilot Phase. External Review Draft Technical Report. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of
39 Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). December.
40
41 KleinbaumD.G.; KupperK.L.; MullerK.E.; and Nizam N. 1998. Applied Regression Methods and Other
42 Multivariate Methods. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove California, 3rd ed.
43
44 Laidlaw, M. A.; Mielke, H. W.; Filippelli, G. M.; Johnson, D. L.; Gonzales, C. R. (2005) Seasonality and Children's
45 Blood Lead Levels: Developing a Predictive Model Using Climatic Variables and Blood Lead Data From
46 Indianapolis, Indiana, Syracuse, New York, and New Orleans, Louisiana (USA). Environ. Health Perspect.
47 113(6): 793-800.
48
49 Lanphear, B. P.; Weitzman, M.; Winter, N. L.; Eberly, S.; Yakir, B.; Tanner, M.; Emond, M.; Matte, T. D. (1996)
50 Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Urban Children's Blood Lead Levels. Am. J. Public Health. 86(10):
51 1416-1421.
52
53 Layton, D. W. and Thatcher, T. L. (1995) Movement of Outdoor Particles to the Indoor Environment: An Analysis
54 of the Arnhem Lead Study. 95-MP4.02. San Antonio, TX: prepared for The Annual Meeting of the Air and
55 Waste Management Association; June.
July 2007 G-47 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2 Liu, D. L.and Nazaroff, W. W. (2001) Modeling Pollutant Penetration Across Building Envelopes. Atmospheric
3 Environment. 3 5: 4451 -4462.
4
5 Mielke, H. W.; Dugas, D.; Mielke, P. W., Jr.; Smith, K. S.; Gonzales, C. R. (1997) Associations Between Soil Lead
6 and Childhood Blood Lead in Urban New Orleans and Rural Lafourche Parish of Louisiana. Environ.
7 Health Perspect. 105(9): 950-954.
8
9 Nazaroff, W. W. (2004) Indoor Particle Dynamics. Indoor. Air. 14 Suppl 7: 175-183.
10
11 Ozkaynak, H.; Xue, I; Spengler, J.; Wallace, L.; Pellizzari, E.; Jenkins, P. (1996) Personal Exposure to Airborne
12 Particles and Metals: Results From the Particle TEAM Study in Riverside, California. J. Expo. Anal.
13 Environ. Epidemiol. 6(1): 57-78.
14
15 Rasmussen, P. E.; Subramanian, K. S.; Jessiman, B. J. (2001) A Multi-Element Profile of Housedust in Relation to
16 Exterior Dust and Soils in the City of Ottawa, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 267(1-3): 125-140.
17
18 Riley, W. J.; McKone, T. E.; Lai, A. C.; Nazaroff, W. W. (2002) Indoor Paniculate Matter of Outdoor Origin:
19 Importance of Size-Dependent Removal Mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(2): 200-207.
20
21 Roy, A.; Georgopoulos, P. G.; Ouyang, M.; Freeman, N.; Lioy, P. J. (2003) Environmental, Dietary, Demographic,
22 and Activity Variables Associated With Biomarkers of Exposure for Benzene and Lead. J. Expo. Anal.
23 Environ. Epidemiol. 13(6): 417-426.
24
25 Tang, K. M.; Nace, C. G., Jr.; Lynes, C. L.; Maddaloni, M. A.; LaPosta, D.; Callahan, K. C. (2004) Characterization
26 of Background Concentrations in Upper Manhattan, New York Apartments for Select Contaminants
27 Identified in World Trade Center Dust. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(24): 6482-6490.
28
29 Thatcher, T. L.and Layton, D. W. (1995) Deposition, Resuspension, and Penetration of Particles Within a
30 Residence. Atmospheric Environment. 29(13): 1487-1497.
31
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1989) Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
33 Lead: Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation. EPA-450/2-89-011. Research Triangle Park, NC:
34 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; June.
35
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995) Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in
3 7 Housing: Appendix I: Design and Methodology. EPA 747-R95-004. Office of Pollution Prevention and
38 Toxics.
39
40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Adjustments to the HUD National Survey Dust Data for
41 Section 403 Analyses. Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics. EPA 747-R-96-011.
42
43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1997a) Conversion Equations for Use in Section 403
44 Rulemaking. EPA 747-R-96-012. Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics. Available online at:
45 http://www.epa.gov/oppt/lead/pubs/es_con.htm.
46
47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1997b) Exposure Factors Handbook Vol. Ill: Activity Factors.
48 1-74. USEPA; August.
49
50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998) Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint,
51 Dust, and Soil. Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics. EPA 747-R-97-006.
52
53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007) Air Quality System (AQS) Database. Available online at:
54 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebwarning.htm.
55
July 2007 G-48 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Vette, A. F.; Rea, A. W.; Lawless, P. A.; Rodes, C. E.; Evans, G.; Highsmith, V. R.; Sheldon, L. (2001)
2 Characterization of Indoor-Outdoor Aerosol Concentration Relationships During the Fresno PM Exposure
3 Studies. Aerosol Science and Technology. 34(1): 118-126.
4
5 von Lindern, L; Spalinger, S. M; Bero, B. N.; Petrosyan, V.; von Braun, M. C. (2003) The Influence of Soil
6 Remediation on Lead in House Dust. Sci. Total Environ. 303(1-2): 59-78.
7
July 2007 G-49 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 ATTACHMENT G-l. METHOD USED TO CONVERT INDOOR PB
2 LOADINGS TO CONCENTRATIONS
3 This attachment describes the method used to convert Pb loadings to concentrations for
4 the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model in the general urban case study. Section G-l.l describes
5 the data used to derive the indoor dust loading-indoor dust concentration models. Sections G-l .2
6 and G-l.3 describe data and correlation analyses. Section G-l.4 discusses the types and design
7 of the regression models, and Section G-l.5 discusses the limitations of the data set used and
8 uncertainties in the indoor dust Pb concentration models. Section G-l.6 provides detailed
9 regression results.
10 G-l.l. SOURCE OF INDOOR DUST PB LOADING AND INDOOR DUST
11 CONCENTRATION DATA
12 Data on the relationship between indoor dust Pb loading and concentration were gathered
13 as part of the HUD National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing conducted between
14 November 1989 and 1990 (USEPA, 1995). This survey provides the largest data set the
15 document's authors are aware of that contains simultaneous measurements of indoor dust loading
16 and indoor dust concentration from the same households. In addition, the survey was designed
17 to include a nationally representative sample of houses of varying age, and thus could be used to
18 evaluate temporal trends in Pb occurrence and concentration.
19 The goal of the survey was to obtain information on the presence and condition of Pb-
20 based paint, Pb in soil, indoor dust Pb loadings, and concentrations as well as other household
21 data, from a representative national sample of 300 private homes and 100 public housing
22 facilities (USEPA, 1995). The data used to derive relationships between indoor dust loading and
23 Pb concentration in this approach came from the 284 private households that were ultimately
24 sampled during the survey. The data are tabulated in Appendix C of EPA's 1998 "Section 403"
25 risk analysis (USEPA, 1998). The data elements include:
26 Building construction date (vintage) in three ranges (<1940, 1940 to 1959, and 1960 to
27 1979);
28 Vacuum [Blue Nozzle (BN)] floor indoor dust Pb loading, micrograms (jig) per square
29 feet (ft2);
30 Blue nozzle indoor dust Pb concentration, jig per gram (g);
31 Vacuum window sill indoor dust loading, |ig/ft2;
32 Average yard outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration, |ig/g; and
33 Maximum interior and exterior X-ray fluorescence (XRF) Pb concentration, milligrams
34 (mg) per square centimeter (cm2).
35
July 2007 G-50 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The data set also included a set of sampling weights developed by EPA designed for
2 extrapolation of the survey sample results to United States private residences as a whole. Floor
3 indoor dust Pb loading and concentration values were household averages, generally of three
4 samples taken at different locations in the sampled household. The Pb concentration values in
5 samples with low tap weights (indoor dust loading derived using sampling weights) were
6 corrected for systematic bias (USEPA, 1995); this correction affected relatively few samples.
7 Because wipe samples have become the preferred technique to measure Pb indoor dust
8 loading, EPA also calculated equivalent wipe sample loading estimates for each household based
9 on the vacuum sample results. The conversion was accomplished using regression results
10 derived from several previous studies of relative sampling method performance (USEPA,
11 1997a). Owing to the added level of uncertainty introduced by the vacuum-wipe sample
12 conversion, the wipe sample results were not used in this analysis. Instead, as described below,
13 regression models were developed that related the vacuum indoor dust loading results from the
14 HUD National Survey to indoor dust Pb concentrations.
15 G-1.2. PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS
16 Data analyses were focused primarily on vacuum indoor dust Pb loading and Pb
17 concentration data, but other variables were also examined for possible correlations with indoor
18 dust Pb concentration. Data from the 1998 Risk Analysis were imported into Excel 2003 and
19 Statistica Version 7. Reported values for individual variables were examined graphically (e.g.,
20 histograms, stem-and-leaf plots) for outliers and discrepant values. Probability plots and
21 goodness-of-fit tests were used to test individual variable distributions for normality.
22 As is commonly the case with environmental sampling data, the distributions of indoor
23 dust Pb loading and Pb concentrations were both highly skewed (Attachment G-l-1 and
24 Attachment G-l-2). Normal probability plots of the log-transformed data appeared to be
25 approximately normal (Attachment G-l-3 and Attachment G-l-4), except that there appeared to
26 be outliers in both the low and high "tails" of the log-transformed indoor dust Pb concentration
27 data (Attachment G-l-3). As discussed below, the majority of observations in the tails came
28 from houses constructed between 1960 and 1979.
July 2007 G-51 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Attachment G-l-1. Distribution of Pb Concentration Data,
HUBNationalHmisingSurvey
280
240
200
O
1
(A
.a
O
*-
o
6
160
120
1000
2000 3000 4000 5000
Dust Lead Concentration (LNPBCONQ,
6000
7000
Note: One data point was omitted at 50,400 ug/g.
Source: USEPA, 1995
Goodness-of-fit tests suggested that the log-transformed Pb loading and concentration
data from the data set taken as a whole were nearly, but not perfectly, lognormal. The relatively
less sensitive single-sample Kolgmorgorov-Smirnov (K-S) test tended to give p-values indicating
consistency with the normal distribution of the log-transformed indoor dust loading and Pb
concentration data; however, the more sensitive Lilliefors and Shapiro-Wilks W tests gave low
p-values, indicating the lack of a good "fit" to the normal distribution (Attachment G-l-5, top
panels).
July 2007
G-52
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
Attachment G-l-2. Distribution of Vacuum Dust Pb Loading,
HUD National Housing Survey
280
240
200
ป
s
1 160
o
d
80
40
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vacuum Dust Lead Loading (VAC),
Source: USEPA, 1995
Attachment G-l-3. Normal Probability Plot of Log-Transformed
Dust Pb Concentration Data
-2
-3
-4
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Log of Dust Lead Concentration, ug/g (LHPBCOHC)
12
Jw/y 2007
G-53
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Attachment G-l-4. Normal Probability Plot of Log-Transformed
Vacuum Dust Pb Loading Data
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
O 0
1
1-1
-2
-3
-4
-3-2-1 D 1 2 3 4
Log of Vacuum Dust Lead Loading, ugffi3, (LHVAC)
The distributions of the indoor dust loading and indoor dust concentration data were also
evaluated separately by vintage because of the possible differences in the distributions of indoor
dust loading and indoor dust concentration data across the three building vintage strata. Of the
284 valid observations, 77 were obtained from houses constructed prior to 1940, 87 came from
houses constructed between 1940 and 1959, and 120 came from houses constructed between
1960 and 1979.
It can be seen from the goodness-of fit test results in the lower panels of Attachment G-l-
5 that stratifying the data resulted in more normal distributions of both log-transformed indoor
dust Pb concentration and indoor dust loading. Some of the apparent improvement is due to the
smaller number of observations in the stratified data sets. However, the improvement in
normality is also apparent in the increased linearity of the probability plots of the two variables.
Removal of the two extreme (outlying) values from the Pb concentration data sets (the very low
value from the prior to 1940 data and the very high value from the 1960 to 1979 stratum) also
resulted in additional improvements to the normality of the data (see Attachment G-l-6). These
values were, however, retained in the following evaluation of multivariate correlations.
July 2007
G-54
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
Attachment G-l-5. Goodness-of-Fit Test Results (p-values) for Log-Transformed
Dust Loading and Dust Concentration Data
4
5
6
Variable
K-S
Lilliefors
Shapiro-
Wilks W
Combined Data
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
<0.10
>0.20
<0.01
0.01
0.000
Combined Data (minus outlying values)
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
<0.20
>0.20
<0.01
0.03
0.02
<1940
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
<0.20
>0.20
<0.01
0.66
0.000
<1940 (minus outlying value)
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
>0.20
>0.20
>0.20
0.69
0.71
7940 - 7959
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
>0.20
>0.20
>0.20
0.75
0.35
7960 to 7979
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
>0.20
>0.20
<0.01
0.04
0.000
7960 to 7979 (minus outlying value)
LNVAC
LNPBCONC
>0.20
>0.20
>0.20
<0.15
0.17
0.000
Note: Low p-values indicate poor fit to the normal (Gaussian) distribution.
July 2007
G-55
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Attachment G-l-6. Probability Plots of Log-Transformed Pb Concentration Data for the
Three Building Vintage Strata (Outliers Removed)
23i567591DD123iS6T
AGE: -*194D AGE: 19iD-19S9
1D
2 3 i 5 6 T
AGE: 196D-1979
1D
Observations on other variables (window sill vacuum indoor dust loading, outdoor soil
Pb concentration, and interior and exterior XRF results) also tended to be skewed, and were
therefore log-transformed prior to exploration of multivariate correlations.
G-1.3. CORRELATION ANALYSIS
In preparation for model building, correlations between potential explanatory variables
and indoor dust Pb concentration were examined. While the intent was to construct a model that
predicts indoor dust Pb concentrations from indoor dust loading, it is important to know if any
other variables in the data are also highly correlated with indoor dust concentration or loading.
Attachment G-l-7 summarizes the simple product moment correlation coefficients seen in the
combined data set with indoor dust Pb concentration and log-transformed indoor dust Pb
concentration.
July 2007
G-56
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Attachment G-l-7. Correlations Between Potential Explanatory Variables, Dust Pb
Concentration (PBCONC), and Log-Transformed Dust Concentration (LNPBCONC)
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Variable
AGEGRP
Pb paint
VAC LOAD
LNVAC
SILLVAC
LNSVAC
YARD
LNYARD
INTXRF
LNINTXRF
EXTXRF
PBCONC
0.00
0.05
0.49*
0.26*
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
-0.02
0.02
LNPBCONC
-0.34*
0.24*
0.54*
0.66*
0.15*
0.32*
0.32*
0.45*
0.34*
0.36*
0.28*
Note: A* indicates simple correlation coefficients significant at
p < 0.05. See text for explanations of variable names.
It is clear that a number of variables, in addition to vacuum indoor dust loading
(VACLOAD), are highly correlated with indoor dust Pb concentration when the data set is
examined as a whole. The correlations are generally much higher when the log-transformed
variables are used. This is to be expected, since log-transformation reduces the impact of the
skew in the variables as described earlier, and allows underlying relationships to be more clearly
seen.
It is important to note that building vintage (AGEGRP) is negatively correlated with
indoor dust Pb concentration, as would be expected if the extent of Pb paint usage decreased, and
the overall state of repair improved, with more recent construction. A dummy variable for the
observed presence of Pb paint, log-transformed sill vacuum indoor dust Pb loading (LNSVAC),
log-transformed average yard soil Pb concentration (LNYARD), and interior and exterior XRF
readings were also found to be correlated with house indoor dust Pb concentration. These latter
variables were also highly correlated with housing vintage, raising the question as to whether
there was actually an independent effect of building age that was not already captured by
differences in sill indoor dust loadings, soil Pb concentrations, and XRF readings.
Omitting the extreme high and low indoor dust Pb concentration values from the data set
resulted in a substantial increase in the magnitude of the correlation coefficient between the log-
transformed Pb indoor dust concentration (LNPBCONC) and building vintage (AGE GRP) from
-0.34 to -0.47. Omitting these outlying values also slightly increased the magnitude of the
correlations between LNPBCONC and most of the other variables in Attachment G-l-7. The
correlation between LNPBCONC and log-transformed vacuum indoor dust loading (LNVAC)
July 2007
G-57
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
remains strong within each of the individual building vintage strata (Attachment G-l-8). Most of
the other variables retain their significant correlations to the log-transformed Pb concentration
within the individual vintage strata, but the magnitude of the correlations varies. Correlations
with LNPBCONC are generally weaker in the 1960 to 1979 data than in the other strata.
Attachment G-l-8. Correlations with Log-Transformed Pb Concentration (LNPBCONC)
Variable
Pb paint
VAC
LOAD
LNVAC
SILLVAC
LNSVAC
YARD
LNYARD
INTXRF
LNINTXRF
EXT XRF
<1940
0.04
0.45*
0.62*
0.16
0.30*
0.24
0.41*
0.30*
0.35*
0.15
1940to
1959
0.24*
0.54*
0.70*
-0.12
0.23*
0.36*
0.45*
0.36*
0.27*
0.42*
1960to
1979
0.20*
0.58*
0.57*
0.08
0.25*
0.15
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.14
Note: A * indicates simple correlation coefficients significant at p < 0.05.
Removing the low value from the <1940 Pb indoor dust concentration data increases the
magnitude of the correlation between LNVAC and LNPBCONC (from 0.62 to 0.73). Removing
the high Pb concentration value from the 1960 to 1979 data, in contrast, reduces this correlation
from 0.57 to 0.49.
G-1.4. REGRESSION MODELING
Correlation coefficients between log-transformed indoor dust Pb concentration and log-
transformed vacuum indoor dust loading (Attachment G-l-9) suggested that a linear regression
model (in this case, log-log) might provide a good fit to the data. Data for the three building
vintage strata cluster fairly tightly, with data from newer age strata having slightly lower values
of both LNPBCONC and LNVAC than the data from <1940 houses. Pb concentration values
from the newer houses (1960 to 1979) also appear to be somewhat more variable than the values
for the other age strata.
July 2007
G-58
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Attachment G-l-9. Correlation Coefficients between Log-Transformed Dust Pb
Concentration and Log-Transformed Vacuum Dust Pb Loading
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Variable
Pb paint
VAC
LOAD
LNVAC
SILLVAC
LNSVAC
YARD
LNYARD
INTXRF
LNINTXRF
EXT XRF
<1940
0.04
0.45*
0.62*
0.16
0.30*
0.24
0.41*
0.30*
0.35*
0.15
1940to
1959
0.24*
0.54*
0.70*
-0.12
0.23*
0.36*
0.45*
0.36*
0.27*
0.42*
1960to
1979
0.20*
0.58*
0.57*
0.08
0.25*
0.15
0.16
0.13
0.13
0.14
Note: A * indicates simple correlation coefficients significant at p < 0.05.
As noted above, it has already been demonstrated that two values in the Pb concentration
data set (at the upper right and lower left corners of Attachment G-l-9) appear to be "outliers,"
that is, they seem to fall outside the distribution of the other Pb concentration values. As part of
the model development, these (and other) data points were tested to determine if these would be
disproportionately influential in determining the results of a linear regression.
In a univariate regression of LNPBCONC on LNVAC, the two outlying data points
appeared to be quite influential; Cook's distances for these data points were 0.20 and 0.19,
respectively, more than three times the next highest value, compared to a median value across
the data points of 0.003. However, these values are not extreme in and of themselves; Cook's
distances greater than 1.0 are generally considered to be an indication of undue influence of
single data points (Kleinbaum et al., 1998).
When the data are stratified, however, the low and high outlying points are found to be
very influential in determining regression results. In a LNPBCONC - LNVAC linear regression
for the <1940 data, the Cook's distance for the lowest Pb indoor dust concentration value was
1.05, compared to a next highest value of 0.05. In the univariate regression on the 1960 to 1979
data, the calculated Cook's distance for the highest indoor dust Pb concentration data point was
1.19, compared to a next highest value of 0.19. These results indicate that in both cases the
overall result of the regression is being strongly influenced by the outlying values. Thus, these
data points are omitted from the regressions discussed below.
July 2007
G-59
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G-4.1.1 Univariate Models
2
3
4
5
6
7
Log-log regression models were first run in which LNPBCONC was fit to LNVAC only.
Models were run for the combined data set and for the stratified data sets. Results of the models
are summarized in Attachment G-l-10. Detailed regression outputs are provided in Section G-
1.6.
Attachment G-l-10. Univariate Regression Results: LNPBCONC
as a Function of LNVAC
Model
Data Set
All
Vintages
Combined
<1940
1940 to
1959
1960 to
1979
Variable
Intercept
LNVAC
Intercept
LNVAC
Intercept
LNVAC
Intercept
LNVAC
Coefficient
5.37
0.49
6.34
0.45
5.30
0.44
4.74
0.35
SE
Coefficient
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
t-
statistic
111.2
15.2
127.4
14.5
104.2
13.3
102.6
9.37
P-
value
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
F-Statistic, p-
level
F(1,272) = 230.40
p<0.000
F(1,187)=210.06
p<0.000
F(1,189)=175.82
p<0.000
F(1,344)=87.771
p<.000
Adjusted
V
0.46
0.53
0.48
0.20
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Note: Regressions were performed using the national weight values from the HUD survey data (USEPA
LNVAC (log-transformed vacuum Pb loading) values were centered at their means.
1998);
In all cases, the regression results (F-statistics) are highly significant. The LNVAC
coefficients are likewise significant. Both the intercept and LNVAC coefficients decrease with
newer building vintages. The 1960 to 1979 model explains a considerably smaller proportion of
the variance in LNPBCONC (R2 of 0.20) than the models derived from older houses and from
the data set as a whole (R2 on order of 0.5). This suggests a weaker and less consistent
relationship between indoor dust loading and concentration in newer houses, perhaps because of
a decreased contribution from interior Pb paint and higher contributions from exterior sources.
G-4.2.1 Multivariate Models
A number of multivariate models were also tested to determine which, if any, of the other
variables in the data set might also explain significant proportions of the variance in the log-
transformed indoor dust Pb concentration data. Forward and backward stepwise procedures
were used to identify variables for which regression coefficients retained significance in the
presence of other covariates, and which appeared to explain appreciable proportions of the
variance in LNPBCONC in multivariate models. The results of these analyses are summarized
in Attachment G-1 -11.
July 2007
G-60
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Attachment G-l-11. Multivariate Regression Results: LNPBCONC
as a Function of LNVAC and Other Variables
Model/Data
Set
All Vintages
Combined
<1940
1940 to
1959
1960 to
1979
Variable"
Intercept
LNALL CNT
LNYARD
LNINTXRF
Intercept
LNV1 CNT
LNYARD
LNINTXRF
Intercept
LNV2CNT
LNYARD
Intercept
LNV3 CNT
LNYARD
Coefficient
4.43
0.39
0.20
0.12
5.00
0.45
0.19
0.22
4.03
0.39
0.28
4.24
0.34
0.14
SEof
Coefficient
0.17
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.25
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.19
0.03
0.04
0.17
0.04
0.05
t-
statistic
26.6
11.9
5.71
2.30
20.1
17.3
4.92
6.59
21.0
12.3
6.84
24.34
9.15
2.98
P-
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
F-Statistic, p-
level
F(3,257)=108.17
p<0.0000
F(3,177)=132.13
p<0.0000
r(2,1 80)-134.08
p<0.0000
h(2,343)-49.323
p<0.0000
Adjusted
V
0.55
0.69
0.59
0.22
3
4
5
6
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Note: Regressions were performed using the national weight values from the HUD survey data (USEPA 1998).
a Variables: LNALL CNT = centered LNVAC for combined data set, LNYARD = log-transformed average yard soil
Pb concentration (ug/g); LNINTXRF = log-transformed interior paint XRF Pb concentration (mg/cm2); LNV1(2,3)
CNT = centered LNVAC for each building vintage stratum.
When analyzing the combined data set, the inclusion of two additional variables (log-
transformed yard soil Pb and log-transformed interior XRF Pb concentration) results in an
increase in R2 to 0.55, compared to 0.46 for the model containing vacuum indoor dust loading
alone. Similar increases in R2 are achieved with the inclusion of additional variables into the
models for the stratified data. The R2 value for the <1940 model increases from 0.53 to 0.69
when log-transformed soil Pb and interior XRF readings are included. In the 1940 to 1959
regression, only log-transformed outdoor soil retains significance when LNVAC is also included,
resulting in an increase in R2 from 0.48 to 0.59. Including LNYARD in the regression on the
1960 to 1979 data increases R2 only from 0.20 to 0.22, and no other variable retains significance
in this model.
These results are consistent with a situation where both outdoor soil Pb levels and indoor
Pb paint concentrations influence the observed indoor dust Pb concentrations in the HUD survey
data, where the influence of indoor Pb paint concentration is weaker in homes built more
recently. As always, however, care should be taken in drawing causal inferences from this type
of analysis. The physical mechanisms responsible for the observed correlations cannot be
inferred with any degree of certainty based on the regression analysis alone.
July 2007
G-61
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 G-4.3.1 Selection of Models for the Prediction of Dust Pb Concentrations
2 The preceding analyses provide the basis for selecting indoor dust Pb concentration
3 model(s). The question arises as to whether the univariate (indoor dust loading only) or
4 multivariate models should be used. Arguably, the multivariate models explain a larger
5 proportion of the variance in Pb concentration, and could thus, in theory, provide more reliable
6 and precise predictions. However, to use the multivariate models, it is necessary to have
7 information not only on the indoor dust Pb loading levels, but also to have values for the other
8 variates (soil Pb concentrations and, for the two older strata, maximum interior XRF readings).
9 Estimates of these values are not available from the data sources used to derive indoor dust
10 loading estimates in the approach. While it would be defensible to use the mean values of the
11 missing variates (from the HUD survey data) when generating predictions, doing so might (1)
12 introduce additional bias into the indoor dust concentration estimates and/or (2) provide a
13 deceptively precise estimate of indoor dust Pb concentration, since the statistical prediction
14 limits for the multivariate models are narrower than those for the univariate models.
15 G-4.4.1 Dust Pb Concentration Model Equations and Prediction Limits
16 Attachment G-l-12 summarizes the prediction equations and their coefficients derived
17 from the HUD National Survey data. The models predict LNPBCONC based solely on LNVAC.
18 For each data set (combined, <1940, 1940 to 1959, and 1959-1970), coefficients are provided for
19 predicting the geometric mean indoor dust Pb concentration and for estimating the upper and
20 lower 95 percent statistical prediction limits. The prediction limits provide an estimate of the
21 expected precision of the predicted indoor dust Pb concentrations, given the assumptions
22 embodied in the regression models. Note that the coefficients in Attachment G-l-12 are
23 different from those in Attachment G-l-10 because the regressions in Attachment G-l-10 were
24 conducted using centered Pb loading data.
July 2007 G-62 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Attachment G-l-12. Dust Pb Concentration Prediction Equations and Prediction Limits
2
3
4
5
6
7
Building
Vintage
Combined
Data Set
Pre-1940
1940-1959
1960-1979
Estimate
Predicted Dust Concentration
95% Upper Prediction Limit
95% Lower Prediction Limit
Predicted Dust Concentration
95% Upper Prediction Limit
95% Lower Prediction Limit
Predicted Dust Concentration
95% Upper Prediction Limit
95% Lower Prediction Limit
Predicted Dust Concentration
95% Upper Prediction Limit
95% Lower Prediction Limit
Model Coefficients3
Intercept
4.92
6.58
3.26
5.51
6.87
4.16
4.93
6.33
3.54
4.70
6.40
3.01
Slope
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.35
0.35
0.35
a Prediction equation: LNPBCONC, ug/g = Intercept + Slope * LNVAC, ug/ft.
While the prediction equations are linear in "log-space," they are not linear in terms of
the predicted concentration of indoor dust Pb as a function of indoor dust Pb loading.
Attachment G-l-13 shows the prediction equations derived from the combined data and from
each age stratum.
Attachment G-l-13. Predicted Geometric Mean Dust Pb Concentrations as a Function of
Dust Pb Loading; Models Derived from Different Building Vintage Strata
10
11
o
CD
o
o
o
T3
CO
CD
O
T3
CD
T3
CD
1,500
1,000
500
10
20 30
Vacuum Dust Loading, ug/ft2
40
50
July 2007
G-63
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
It can be seen that the range of indoor dust Pb concentration predictions generated by the
different models becomes increasingly divergent with increasing indoor dust Pb loading. For an
indoor dust loading of 5 ug/ft2, the predicted indoor dust concentrations range from 195 ug/g
(1960 to 1979 data) to 515 ug/g (<1940 data). For an indoor dust loading input of 55 ug/ft2, the
range of predicted indoor dust concentrations is 440 to 1450 ug/g, with the models derived from
the newest and oldest subsets of the data again generating the lowest and highest predictions,
respectively.
Statistical prediction limits provide another indication of the expected degree of
uncertainty associated with the indoor dust Pb concentration estimates. Note that in all cases
(Attachment G-l-12) the log-transformed models and their prediction limit equations have the
same slope, and differ only in their intercepts. That is, the width of the log-transformed
prediction limits is constant, as shown in Attachment G-l-14. This is equivalent to saying that
the ratio of the upper to lower prediction limits remains constant across the range of indoor dust
loading inputs.
Attachment G-l-14. Prediction Equation and Prediction Limits Derived from the
Combined HUD Survey Data (USEPA 1995) (Log-Transformed)
O
PBCO
og of Dust Lead Concent
-3-2-1 0 1 2 3 4
Log of Vacuum Dust Loading i4J,1ts (LNVAC)
Because of the log-transformation of the data, the width of the prediction limits (upper
minus lower limit) varies with the input indoor dust loading concentrations. At low indoor dust
July 2007
G-64
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 loading, the indoor dust Pb concentration limits are relatively narrow, increasing at higher indoor
2 dust loading (Attachment G-l-15).
3 Attachment G-l-15. Dust Concentration Prediction Limits As a
Function of Dust Loading (ug/g)
Data Set
All Vintages
Combined
<1940
1940 to 1959
1960 to 1979
Prediction
Limit
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Dust Loading, [jg/ft2
0.14
257
11
NAa
NAa
232
14
298
10
0.37
416
18
617
40
358
22
423
14
1.0
674
29
965
64
556
34
601
20
2.7
1,096
47
1,515
101
866
54
858
29
7.4
1,786
76
2,384
159
1,351
84
1,229
41
20.1
2,918
123
3,763
250
2,116
129
1,766
58
54.6
4,780
199
5,955
392
3,325
200
NAa
NAa
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
These values provide a rough guide for judging the uncertainty associated with estimates
of indoor dust concentrations from indoor dust loading. Ratios of the upper to lower prediction
limits range from about 15 (<1940 vintage) to approximately 30 (1960 to 1979 vintage),
reflecting the varying level of variability in the data used to derive the models. Another way of
expressing the width of the prediction limits is to say that the upper and lower limits are within
approximately 3.9- to 5.4-fold of the predicted geometric mean indoor dust concentrations
depending upon which subset of data are included.
Note that the prediction limits do not capture all of the uncertain in the indoor dust
loading-concentration models. As discussed below, the overall uncertainty in the indoor dust Pb
concentration predictions also depends on assumptions regarding the quality and
representativeness of the data.
G-1.5. LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY IN DUST PB CONCENTRATION
MODELS
G-5.1.1 Limitations of the Data Set
As noted at the beginning of this appendix, the HUD National Survey provides the largest
publicly available data set containing simultaneous measurements of vacuum indoor dust loading
and indoor dust Pb concentration, along with other environmental Pb measurements, from a
nationally representative sample of private residences. There are enough (284) observations to
support the development of indoor dust loading-concentration models both for the data set as a
whole and for the individual building vintage strata <1940, 1940 to 1959, and 1960 to 1979 (77,
87, and 120, respectively). Sample collection and analysis techniques were consistent across the
July 2007
G-65
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 survey, and laboratory quality assurance procedures were stringent and fully documented.
2 Potential biases in indoor dust Pb concentration measurements in "low tap weight" samples were
3 identified and suspect samples were eliminated from the data set (USEPA, 1996). Nonetheless,
4 the data set has some limitations as the basis for predicting indoor dust Pb concentrations.
5 Potential uncertainties associated with the representativeness of the data cannot be
6 quantified, but may be substantial. There is no guarantee that the Pb hazard characteristics of
7 current urban houses will necessarily be the same as those in the HUD survey. For example, the
8 HUD survey was conducted in 1989 to 1990, and the physical characteristics of houses with Pb
9 paint hazards surviving to the present may be different from those surveyed 18 years ago
10 (perhaps a result of better upkeep and maintenance). In addition, there may be other (unknown)
11 reasons why the characteristics of current urban houses are systematically different from those in
12 the 30 counties sampled by HUD. On the other hand, there is no reason to suspect that such
13 differences would substantially bias the relationship between indoor dust Pb loading and
14 concentration.
15 As noted above, the technical quality of the data set appears to be quite good. The data
16 on the whole are reasonably "well-behaved," in that log-transformation results in symmetric,
17 near-Gaussian distributions for most variables. Two observations, one with a very low indoor
18 dust Pb concentration (0.1 ug/g) and one with a very high value (50,400 ug/kg) were identified
19 as "outliers" and were found to be unduly influential in the regression models for the <1940 and
20 1960 to 1979 data sets, respectively. These observations were omitted from the regression
21 models, which had the effect (in both cases) of reducing the estimated regression coefficients for
22 LNVAC by about 10 percent, while improving the regularity of the regression residuals.
23 The issue of potential errors in the measurements of indoor dust loading has been raised
24 in past analyses of indoor dust Pb sampling studies (USEPA, 1997a). If measurement errors are
25 significant, there is the potential that the estimated regression coefficients and standard errors
26 may be biased and inaccurate. While there are a number of approaches that can be used to
27 address errors in variables, it was not necessary to employ any special methods in this approach.
28 The major justification for not doing so is the assumption that the indoor dust loading for the
29 general urban case study will be subject to roughly the same errors as the loading estimates on
30 which the regression models were based. To the extent that the errors in these two sets of
31 measurements are systematically different, then the regression coefficients may be biased.
32 G-5.2.1 Limitations and Uncertainties in Dust Pb Models
33 The most important choices with regard to model design were the decisions to log-
34 transform the variables and employ log-log regression as the primary analytical technique. As
July 2007 G-66 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 noted above, log-transformation resulted in much more symmetrical, nearly Gaussian
2 distributions for all (non-categorical) variables. The least well-behaved of the important
3 explanatory variables was LNPBCONC, where there appeared to still be a slight deviation from
4 (log) normality in the extreme "tails" of the data.
5 No other simple model form was found that provided better qualitative or quantitative fits
6 to the indoor dust loading-concentration data than the log-log multiple regression approach.
7 Plots of regression residuals (Section G-1.6) showed little evidence of deviations from linearity
8 or heteroscedasticity (non-uniformity of residual variance). The coefficient of determination
9 (R2) values were quite high (>0.46) for all of the univariate regressions, except that derived from
10 the 1960 to 1979 subset of the data (0.20).
11 All of the models are sufficient to develop reasonably reliable estimates of indoor dust
12 concentration from indoor dust loading inputs, although the statistical confidence limits for these
13 predictions are quite wide. A higher degree of scatter in the data from buildings built between
14 1960 and 1979 is reflected in broader prediction limits for that regression. Also, the statistical
15 confidence limits do not capture the full extent of uncertainty associated with potential non-
16 representativeness of data or other data limitations.
17 Detailed model outputs and residuals plots are provided in Attachment G-l-16 through
18 G-l-19 in Section G-1.6.
19 G-1.6. DETAILED REGRESSION RESULTS
July 2007 G-67 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Attachment G-l-16. Regression Results for Combined Data Set
Combined Data Set Dust Loading Only, Weighted
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: LNPBCONC (New HUD Data
With Weights.sta)
R = 0.694371 1 9 R2= 0.4821 51 35 Adjusted R2 = 0.481 43609
F(1,724)=674.09 p<0.0000 SE of estimate: 0.84431
Intercept
LNVAC
Beta
0.694371
SEof
Beta
0.026744
B
4.920573
0.517568
SEofB
0.034640
0.019935
t(280)
142.0480
25.9633
p-level
0.00
0.00
3
2
1
D
yfi
i
% -1
01
LL
-2
-3
-4
-5
3
Predicted IE. Residual Stores
Combined Data Set. Dust Lnadng On! IK Wieig hied
-
:
Q
O
ซJ
-
D 5
v*V.lf^-^Vฐ 1 *
& jl s -
-<*- 0- f - n"
5 " *'
e
0
0
9V ^v?S?i^ t- 15 v ^
s^* ^^ *0<ฃ
-------
1
2
3
4
Distribution of Residuals, Combined Data Set
220
-5D -45 -4.0 -35 -3D -2.5 -2.0 -15 -1D -0.5 00 05 1.0 15 2fl 25
Obsened Values IE. Residuals
Combined Data Sa. Dust [flaring Onl \( Vteig hted
-2
-3
-4
-5
4 S I
QbseruedVflues
10
^^9511 confidence
Jw/y 2(9(97
1- Do Not uote or Cite
-------
Attachment G-l-17. Regression Results for <1940 Data
<1 940 Data, Weighted
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: LNPBCONC (New HUD Data
With Weights.sta)
R = 0.72734822 R2 = 0.52903543 Adjusted R2 = .52651690
F (1,1 87) = 210.06 p
-------
1
2
Predi cted us. Qbserued Values
Pre-194) Houses
5.5
6.0 6.5
Predated Values
X 9510 confidence
Distribution erf Residuals, Pre-1940 Data
20 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4-12 -1D -D.8-D.6 -0.4 -02 D.D 0.2 D.4 OJ6 OJ3 1D 1.2 1.4 1J6 1S 2D
Jw/y 2007
G-77
wote or Cite
-------
Attachment G-l-18. Regression Results for Data from 1940 to 1959
1940 to 1959 Data, Weighted
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: LNPBCONC (New HUD Data
With Weights.sta)
R = 0.69421417 R2 = 0.48193331 Adjusted R2 = 0.47919222
F (1,1 89) = 175.82 p<0.0000 SE of estimate: 0.70271
Include condition: v2 = 2
Intercept
LNVAC
Beta
0.694214
SEof
Beta
0.052355
B
4.930233
0.443382
SEofB
0.058076
0.033438
t(189)
84.89214
13.25963
p-level
0.000000
8.49E-29
3
4
2D
15
1fl
05
Oil
VI
1 -ฐ*
v
cc
-1fi
-15
-If)
-25
-3J
3
Predicted^. Residual Stores
1 94)- 1959 Houses
D ฐ
0
~~~V~-ฐ---
D
i
0
0 ฐ :f ^ D^ *
5 t e o o ฐ
f - - -^ - - -a^- --o- t *-*-
50^
J
^.
D
_ -TJ--
150
*0 *"
*
<
' fl *._....ซ
ฐฐc
a C
5
D
n
5 4.D 45 5fl 5.5 6.0 65
Predicted VBues
a Q
- - T> '
j
7fl 7.5
""^QS"^ confidence
Jw/y 2007
G-72
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
I
2
Observed 'values IE. Residuals
19*-1959 Houses
215
1.5
1D
05
OD
-ฐfj
-1D
-1.5
-2D
-25
-3D
Observed Values
X 9510 confidence
Distribution of Resi duals, 1940-1959 Data
Jw/y 2007
G-73
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
3
4
Attachment G-l-19. Regression Results from 1960 to 1979 Data
1960 to 1979 Data, Weighted
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: LNPBCONC (New HUD Data
With Weights. sta)
R = 0.45086819 R2 = 0.20328213 Adjusted R2 = 0.20096609
F (1,344) = 87.771 p<.00000 SE of estimate: 0.86020
Include condition: v2 = 3
Intercept
LNVAC
Beta
0.450868
SEof
Beta
0.048125
B
4.704796
0.354631
SEofB
0.046407
0.037853
t(344)
101.3816
9.3686
p-level
0.000000
0.000000
3
1
1
in 0
g
tf
a
"-1- - 1
-2
-3
-4
3
Predicted is. Residual Scores
1960- 1979 Houses
tt
a 0
S
ฐ
.
G-
: :
; : :
D
C"_5i_ _
ป rf
o
a
0 0
D 0 D P
o ฐ a
j Pi^H 7I7*C
^ i^s^ "sa"ฐ D ฐ
"ฐ ฐ . ซ a
%
.
ฐ
b
D
0
a
.
6 3 J3 4.0 42 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 52 5 .4 5.6 53 6.0 62
Predicted Values
I "i.. 95% confidence
July 2007
G-74
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
I
2
3
4
Qbsened Values IE. Residuals
1960-1979 Houses
w D
g
-2
-3
-4
345
Observed Values
951> confidence
Distribution of Residuals, 1960-1979 Data
-40 -35 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -15 -10 -05 0.0 0.5 1fl 15 20 25
July 2007
G-75
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix H: Blood Lead (PbB) Prediction Methods, Models, and Inputs
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents H-i
List of Exhibits H-iii
List of Attachments H-iv
H. BLOOD PB PREDICTION METHODS, MODELS, AND INPUTS H-l
H.I. OVERVIEW OF BLOOD PB ESTIMATION APPROACH H-l
H.2. DESCRIPTION OF BLOOD PB MODELS H-3
H.2.1. The IEUBK Model H-3
H.2.1.1. Exposure and Uptake Modules of the IEUBK Model H-3
H.2.1.2. Biokinetic Module of the IEUBK Model H-4
H.2.2. Leggett Model H-6
H.2.3. LanphearModel H-8
H.3. APPLICATION OF BLOOD PB MODELS H-9
H.3.1. Adaptation of the IEUBK Model H-9
H.3.2. Adaptation of the Leggett Model H-10
H.3.3. Adaptation of the Lanphear Model H-ll
H.3.3.1. Development of a Dust Pb Loading-Dust Pb Concentration
Regression Model H-ll
H.3.3.2. Estimation of Equivalent Dust Pb Concentrations and a Bivariate
PbB Model H-12
H.3.3.3. Estimation of PbB from Indoor Dust Loadings H-13
H.4. INPUTS TO THE BLOOD PB MODELS H-14
H.4.1. Exposure Concentration Estimates for Inhalation, Outdoor Soil/Dust and
Indoor Dust H-14
H.4.2. Policy-Relevant Background Exposure Pathway Concentrations and Pb
Intake Estimates H-14
H.4.3. Behavioral, Physical, and Chemicals Factors Affecting Pb Exposure,
Intake, and Uptake H-l5
H.4.4 Inter-Individual Variability H-20
July 2007 H-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
H.5. LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THIS ASSESSMENT AND
BLOOD PB MODELING H-27
REFERENCES H-28
July 2007 H-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit H-l. Structure of the IEUBK Model H-5
Exhibit H-2. Structure of the Leggett Model H-8
Exhibit H-3. Ages for the lEUBK-Derived PbB Estimates H-9
Exhibit H-4. Predicted PbB Levels Associated with Combinations of Outdoor Soil/Dust and
Indoor Dust Pb Loading and Indoor Pb Concentration H-13
Exhibit H-5. Summary of Non-Water Dietary Pb Intake Estimates H-15
Exhibit H-6. Input Parameter Values for the PbB Modeling H-17
Exhibit H-7. Summary of Children's PbB Studies H-23
ExhibitH-8. Time Trend in Children's PbB GSD Values H-24
Exhibit H-9. GSD Estimates from Seven Studies Used to Derive the Lanphear et al. (2005)
PbB-IQ Model H-26
July 2007 H-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Attachments
Attachment H-l. Respiratory Deposition and Absorption Fraction - Input for the
IEUBK Model H-32
July 2007 H-iv Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 H. BLOOD PB PREDICTION METHODS, MODELS, AND INPUTS
2 This appendix describes the approaches and methods that were used to predict the
3 changes in individual children's blood lead (PbB) levels and population PbB distributions
4 associated with air, outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust, diet, and drinking water exposures.
5 H.l. OVERVIEW OF BLOOD PB ESTIMATION APPROACH
6 As discussed in Appendices C through E, exposure concentrations of lead (Pb) in air,
7 outdoor soil/dust, and indoor dust have been estimated for each of the case studies. For the two
8 point source case studies, these estimates are provided for each of the U.S. Census blocks or
9 block groups in the assessment. For the general urban case study, a single estimate for each of
10 the media is provided to capture the entire urban area. In addition to these exposure media,
11 physiological and behavioral inputs are generated for each case study, as described below in
12 Section HAS. These exposure concentrations and other variables related to exposure patterns,
13 and pathway-specific absorption serve as inputs to the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
14 (TEUBK) Model for Children (hereafter referred to as the "IEUBK model") to generate PbB
15 estimates. Outputs from the IEUBK model take the form of PbB profiles (from 6 to 84 months
16 of age) of a child receiving that combination of exposures for the entire exposure period. Two
17 PbB metrics have been derived from this lifetime PbB profile. The first metric is the "lifetime"
18 average, where "lifetime" is defined as the period from 6 to 84 months. The second metric is an
19 estimate of "concurrent" PbB concentration, which has been defined as the average at ages 75
20 and 81 months of age in the seventh year of life.l
21 The PbB models yield central tendency estimates of a child's PbB concentrations for
22 specified simulation periods (with the temporal precision varying depending on the specific
23 model) and for specific patterns of exposure. Unless the graphing option of the IEUBK is used,
24 these estimates for a typical child (representing central tendency exposure) do not provide
25 information about how individual responses to Pb exposure might vary among the exposed
26 children or how changes in an individual's PbB levels would affect the population's levels for a
27 given case study. Thus, a probabilistic approach has been implemented to capture both the
28 effects of inter-individual variability in PbB levels and the population distribution of exposures
29 on the resultant population distribution of PbB statistics.
1 The rationale for defining the average PbB at 75 and 81 months of age in the seventh year of life as
concurrent reflects the fact that the average age of the intelligence quotient (IQ) testing in the Lanphear et al. (2005)
study of PbB-IQ relationships was approximately seven years (see Appendix K for a more detailed discussion).
July 2007 H-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 For the two point source case studies, development of population distributions of PbB
2 levels involved the following steps:
3 Step 1. PbB models were used to generate central tendency estimates of PbB per U.S.
4 Census block or block group.
5
6 Step 2. The number of children (birth to seven years of age) residing in each block and
7 block group was determined from U.S. Census Bureau data (2005).
8
9 Step 3. Population-weighted random sampling was used to select a PbB level from the
10 results of Step 1. The probability for sampling each U.S. Census block or block
11 group was set proportional to the number of young children (birth to seven years of
12 age) residing in each block (obtained from Step 2). The data set generated in Step 1
13 was sampled 50,000 times in this way.
14
15 Step 4. For the central tendency estimate corresponding to a specific U.S. Census block or
16 block group chosen in each iteration of Step 3, a lognormal distribution reflecting
17 inter-individual variability in both behavior and biokinetics related to Pb exposure
18 was developed using a geometric standard deviation (GSD) obtained from the
19 literature. A random number was generated for each of the 50,000 iterations; this
20 number corresponded to a cumulative probability value of the cumulative
21 distribution function for the lognormal distribution defined by the chosen central
22 tendency and the GSD. The Excel function LOGINV was then used to find the
23 specific PbB value corresponding to that cumulative distribution function value. In
24 this way, the central tendency values were adjusted to reflect specific patterns of
25 behavior and biokinetics in children related to Pb exposure. Data related to the
26 selection of the GSD values were provided in Section H.4.
27
28 Step 5. These 50,000 simulated child PbB levels were then used to characterize (via
29 percentiles) the distribution of PbB levels in the population.
30
31 Steps (3) through (5) result in a distribution of predicted PbB levels in the exposed
32 population that reflects variability contributed by both the population-weighted distributions of
33 exposure concentrations and by the inter-individual variations in response to Pb exposures.
34 For the general urban case study, no population-specific differences in central tendency
35 PbB levels were available, since only a single representative PbB was generated for the entire
36 urban area. Thus Steps (2) and (3) were skipped, and the same central tendency value was
37 always used to generate a lognormal distribution with the specified GSD in Step (4). However,
38 as in the other case studies, 50,000 PbB values were selected to reflect the inter-individual
39 variability associated with the GSD.
July 2007 H-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The following sections discuss in detail the PbB models used for this assessment to
2 generate the central tendency estimates, the selected model inputs, and how the models were
3 implemented to estimate case study-specific PbB levels for children (6 to 84 months of age).
4 H.2. DESCRIPTION OF BLOOD PB MODELS
5 Two biokinetic models and one empirical (regression-based) model were considered for
6 use in this assessment. The two biokinetic models are the IEUBK model described in Section
7 H.2.1 and the International Commission for Radiation Protection (ICRP) model (hereafter
8 referred to as the "Leggett model"), described in Section H.2.2. Both are well-documented, are
9 widely used, and have been subject to a range of testing and calibration exercises (see Section
10 4.4 of USEPA (2006a)]). The empirical model was developed by Lanphear et al. (1998)
11 (hereafter referred to as the "Lanphear model") and is described in Section H.2.3.
12 Based on the performance evaluation described in Appendix J, the IEUBK model was
13 selected for use in this assessment. However, PbB predictions generated using the Leggett
14 biokinetic model are included in the sensitivity analysis for comparison purposes (see Appendix
15 L for more details).
16 H.2.1. The IEUBK Model
17 The U.S. EPA IEUBK model (USEPA, 2005) consists of three main modules: the
18 exposure module, the uptake module, and the biokinetic module (see Exhibit H-l). The IEUBK
19 model also has a graphing module that estimates a plausible distribution of PbB concentrations
20 for a given GSD. The distribution is centered on the geometric mean (GM) PbB concentration
21 calculated by the biokinetic module. Each of the main modules is described below. Full
22 documentation of the IEUBK module structure and the basis for the suggested default parameter
23 values can be found in U.S. EPA (1994b; 2002b).
24 H.2.1.1. Exposure and Uptake Modules of the IEUBK Model
25 The exposure module accepts inputs related to six exposure media: air, diet (excluding
26 drinking water), drinking water, outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust, and other. The IEUBK model
27 provides default values for the various model input parameters, which the user can adjust for
28 specific applications. These parameters include those used by the model to estimate Pb uptake,
29 including absorption fraction and inhalation rate, water intake, dietary intakes of specific food
30 classes, and outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust ingestion rates. The selection of model input
31 parameter values for this assessment is discussed in more detail in Section H.4.
July 2007 H-3 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The exposure module also includes default age-specific estimates of time spent outdoors,
2 as well as estimates of outdoor and indoor air Pb concentrations, age-specific inhalation rate, and
3 respiratory tract absorption fraction, all of which are used to estimate age-specific Pb inhalation
4 uptakes. The respiratory tract absorption fraction implicitly reflects both deposition of inhaled
5 Pb in the respiratory tract and absorption of deposited Pb, either from the respiratory tract or
6 from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The model also contains an option for calculating indoor
7 dust Pb concentrations based on an empirical relationship among air, outdoor soil/dust, and
8 indoor dust Pb levels (a variation of the air and outdoor soil/dust regression based models
9 discussed in Appendix G). Ingestion uptake is calculated using absorption fractions that are
10 specific to the ingested medium (diet, drinking water, outdoor soil/dust, or indoor dust).
11 In the uptake module, total GI Pb uptake is modeled as being composed of a saturable
12 and an unsaturable component using the IEUBK default parameters describing the relative
13 importance of these two pathways as a function of Pb intake. The outputs of the uptake module
14 are estimates of the masses of Pb absorbed into the body over time as a function of
15 concentrations in the various exposure media.
16 H.2.1.2. Biokinetic Module of the IEUBK Model
17 In the biokinetic module of the model, absorbed Pb (from ingestion and inhalation) is
18 assumed to appear immediately in the plasma-extracellular fluid (ECF) compartment. The
19 plasma-ECF compartment constitutes the central compartment in the biokinetic model from
20 which exchange to all other compartments occurs. Trabecular and cortical bone (which are not
21 directly coupled in the IEUBK model) constitute the main long-term storage compartments, with
22 the estimated turnover in other compartments being more rapid. The binding capacity of the red
23 blood cell (RBC) compartment is modeled as being saturable, simulating the limited capacity of
24 aminolevulinate dehydratase (ALAD) and other Pb-binding proteins. Pb excretion occurs
25 through a urine pathway (distinct from the kidney compartment); hepatobiliary secretion is
26 coupled with the liver compartment, with a minor component of excretion from "other soft
27 tissues" (i.e., skin, hair, and nails). A more complete description of the derivation and structure
28 of the IEUBK model can be found in U.S. EPA (2006a) and White et al. (1998).
July 2007 H-4 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit H-l. Structure of the IEUBK Model
_. . , ( Drinking \
Diet ' ( Water )
Indoor \ / Outdoor \
Dust ) V Soil/Dust )
Other
Plasma extra-cellular fluid
Plasma extra-cellular fluid
2
o
Elimination pools of
the body
Intake from
environmental media
(ng/Pb/day)
Body compartment
Body compartment or
elimination pool required in
more than one compartment
Source: Adapted from (USEPA, 2006a).
July 2007
H-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 H.2.2. Leggett Model
2 The Leggett model (Leggett, 1993) differs from the IEUBK model in that data from
3 short-term studies (on the time-scale of hours to days) are used to estimate parameter values for
4 the most rapid uptake and exchange processes, and thus the time resolution of the Leggett model
5 is much finer than that of the IEUBK model. The user may specify step length, depending on the
6 degree of time resolution required in the PbB predictions. Unlike in the IEUBK model, Pb
7 absorption is a linear function of Pb intake, and the known nonlinearity of PbB responses is
8 modeled through concentration-dependent variation in Pb binding by RBCs.
9 The biokinetic component of the Leggett model is more technically sophisticated than the
10 IEUBK model, but the model lacks a built-in facility to convert exposure concentrations to Pb
11 uptake and to integrate uptakes from multiple exposure media.
12 Other key differences between the structures of the Leggett model and the IEUBK model
13 include (Pounds and Leggett, 1998; USEPA, 2006a):
14 The published version of the Leggett model lacks the multipathway exposure module of
15 the IEUBK model. The Leggett model accepts total respiratory and ingestion intakes
16 (administered doses) as inputs and calculates Pb uptake using age-specific absorption
17 factors.
18 The Leggett model lacks a "probabilistic" component; all predictions are deterministic
19 for a single individual receiving a given set of exposures, with no capability for
20 generating graphical outputs.
21 The central exchange compartment in the Leggett model is "diffusible plasma," rather
22 than the plasma-ECF compartment used in the IEUBK model. Extra-vascular fluid,
23 RBCs, and a bound plasma fraction are the other blood/fluid compartments that exchange
24 directly with plasma in the Leggett model, with different transfer rates reflecting
25 differences in estimated exchange rates.
26 The trabecular and cortical bone compartments in the Leggett model are each divided
27 into three subcompartments, bone surface and exchangeable and "non-exchangeable"
28 bone volume. Pb in the "non-exchangeable" compartments of both types of bone can be
29 remobilized, but only relatively slowly as a result of bone remodeling, whereas in the
30 IEUBK model bone Pb stores are represented by only two (trabecular and cortical)
31 compartments.
32 Another major difference between the models in the turn-over of Pb in bone. In the
33 IEUBK model, the half-time for transfer from bone to plasma is 8.5 days (at 2 years of
34 age). In the Leggett model, approximately 98 percent of bone Pb resides in exchangeable
35 and non-exchangeable bone volume, with half-times out of these compartments being
36 approximately 40 and 300 days, respectively (at age 2 years). This difference in bone
37 retention while not evident from quasi-steady state bone or blood estimates of the two
July 2007 H-6 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 models, yields very different bone Pb kinetics in response to change in exposure
2 (Leggett, 1993; USEPA, 1994a; 2006a: Section 4.4).
3 Urinary excretion is modeled in the Leggett model as part of a kidney subcompartment
4 that receives Pb from blood plasma and rapidly transfers it to urine, rather than as a
5 distinct compartment as in the IEUBK model.
6 In the Leggett model, the liver is modeled as two compartments one with rapid and one
7 with moderately rapid Pb exchange. Other soft tissues are modeled as having three
8 compartments with differing exchange rates. Pb in brain tissue is explicitly modeled in
9 the Leggett model. The IEUBK model, in contrast, simulates three soft tissue
10 compartments (kidney, liver and other), and does not specifically model Pb levels in the
11 brain.
12 The Leggett model predictions have been compared with the deterministic predictions of
13 PbB levels generated by the IEUBK model, using the IEUBK default inputs (Pounds and
14 Leggett, 1998). In that comparison, the Leggett model predictions were substantially higher than
15 those from the IEUBK model.
16 Like the IEUBK model, the Leggett model is biokinetic, and exchange among
17 compartments is modeled using first-order transfer coefficients (equivalent to first-order rate
18 constants). The Leggett model implements values for the transfer rates that are based on a range
19 of data from adult human radioactive tracer studies, autopsy data from adults and children, and
20 data from animal studies related to the absorption, deposition, and excretion of Pb and
21 chemically similar elements (Leggett, 1993). Exhibit H-2 depicts the compartmental structure of
22 the Leggett model. These transfer coefficients were estimated during the development of the
23 Leggett model and provided as default values for six age categories: newborn (birth to 100
24 days), 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 25 years and older, with age-specific transfer
25 parameters for children estimated by interpolation between the nearest values. Transfer factors
26 for children were adjusted to take into account the more rapid bone turnover (calcium [Ca] and
27 Pb addition and resorption) in children compared with adults. All of the Leggett model's default
28 transfer factors were used without modification in the performance evaluation described in
29 Appendix J.
July 2007 H-7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit H-2. Structure of the Leggett Model
Cortical Volume
Non-
Exchange
Exchange
Trabecular Volume
Non-
Exchange
Exchange
Kidneys
Other
Kidney
Tissue
Urinary
Path
i
Bladder
Contents
Extra-
Vascular
4f-
RBC
It
Bound
Plasma
Sweat
3 Source: Leggett (1993).
4
5 H.2.3. Lanphear Model
6 Lanphear et al. (1998) reported the results of an analysis of the relationship among
7 residential outdoor soil Pb levels, indoor dust Pb, Pb paint hazards, and PbB levels in 12 cohorts
8 of urban children in the United States. The study controlled for socioeconomic and family
9 variables and exposure to Pb in drinking water. A major result of that effort was a model that
10 predicted PbB concentrations as a function of indoor dust Pb loading (the amount of Pb per unit
11 area of flooring) and residential outdoor soil Pb concentrations. It is important to reiterate that
12 the Lanphear model estimates PbB concentrations for children 16 months of age, so the results
13 from this model cannot be directly compared to the lifetime average and concurrent PbB
14 predictions developed from outputs of the IEUBK and Leggett models.
July 2007
H-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
H.3. APPLICATION OF BLOOD PB MODELS
H.3.1. Adaptation of the IEUBK Model
The IEUBK model was used in batch mode to generate PbB estimates at different ages
for children exposed from 6 to 84 months of age in each block or block group for each case
study. Inputs to the IEUBK model included exposure parameters and intake and uptake factor
values (see Section H.4) and the inhalation, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust exposure
concentrations of Pb for each block or block group. The input data also included age-specific Pb
exposure concentrations for policy-relevant background pathways (e.g., drinking water and diet),
which were assumed to be the same for all children.
As described in Section H. 1, lifetime average and concurrent PbB estimates were derived
for each (hypothetical) exposed child. Lifetime average is defined as the average PbB level of
model outputs for the exposure interval 6 to 84 months, and concurrent PbB is defined as the
average PbB level at 75 and 81 months in the seventh year of life. To derive these metrics,
IEUBK PbB estimates were first generated for nine specific age ranges (see Exhibit H-3) for
each block or block group (point source case studies) or for the case study as a whole (the
general urban case study); these estimates represented the central-tendency PbB levels
experienced by children of those ages in each block or block group or the general urban
environment. The lifetime average PbB metric was derived as the time-weighted average of the
PbB values for the nine ages. The concurrent PbB metric was derived as the average of the last
two ages (75 and 81 months).
Exhibit H-3. Ages for the lEUBK-Derived PbB Estimates
22
23
24
Mid-point of IEUBK Age Ranges
(Months)
9
15
21
31
43
55
67
76
82
Age Range Represented by IEUBK
PbB Estimates
(Months)
7 to 12
1 3 to 1 8
1 9 to 24
25 to 36
37 to 48
49 to 60
61 to 72
73 to 78
79 to 84
Note: Modeling periods run from the first day of the first month to the last day of the
last month.
July 2007
H-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The nine age periods for which the point estimates were obtained using the IEUBK
2 model were selected to capture those periods of childhood exposure expected to produce
3 significant variability in PbB (i.e., exposures occurring under 2 years of age). Consequently,
4 exposure intervals covering the first two years of life (i.e., 7 to 12 months, 13 to 18 months, and
5 19 to 24 months) were six months long, while the remainder of the simulation periods (up to the
6 last year) were simulated with year-long exposure intervals.
7 The lifetime average and concurrent estimates were stored in Microsoft Excelฎ
8 spreadsheets to serve as inputs to the probabilistic population PbB model (see Sections H. 1 and
9 H.4). Each time the Monte Carlo sampling algorithm chose a particular U.S. Census block or
10 block group, the appropriate lifetime average and concurrent PbB levels served as the GM values
11 for the block or block group from which the individual PbB estimates were derived.
12 H.3.2. Adaptation of the Leggett Model
13 To evaluate its potential use in these assessments, two adaptations were made to the
14 Leggett model code, which Dr. Joel Pounds provided (Pounds, 2005). First, an external
15 spreadsheet model (hereafter referred to as the "Leggett uptake calculation model") was
16 developed for converting multimedia exposure concentrations to age-specific Pb uptake
17 estimates. This model was constructed using the same exposure factors and absorption fraction
18 values for the air, drinking water, diet, outdoor soil/dust, and indoor dust exposure pathways as
19 were used in the IEUBK model runs. This approach ensured that the age-specific masses of Pb
20 entering the biokinetic module of the Leggett model would be identical to those entering the
21 IEUBK model at the same exposure Pb concentrations for a child of the same age. Input values
22 for the PbB modeling are provided in Exhibit H-6 in Section H.4.3.
23 In addition to the Leggett uptake calculation model, a FORTRAN "wrapper" was
24 developed that allowed the model to be run in the batch mode (hereafter referred to as the "batch
25 Leggett model"), generating PbB profiles for multiple children based on the Leggett uptake
26 calculation model estimates described above. The outputs of the batch Leggett model were daily
27 age profiles of PbB estimates for each exposed child, from which the concurrent and lifetime
28 PbB metrics were derived by averaging over the same age ranges as described in Section H.3.1
29 for the IEUBK model.
30 PbB predictions from the Leggett uptake calculation model and the batch Leggett model
31 were compared to results obtained by the U. S. EPA and other investigators for the same
32 exposure scenarios. Predicted PbB levels were found to be very similar (nearly identical) to the
33 results obtained in earlier model comparisons (USEPA, 2007b).
July 2007 H-10 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The Leggett model iteration time step was set at 0.1 day throughout the modeling period.
2 Test runs indicated that modeled daily, concurrent, and lifetime average PbB concentrations from
3 six months of age and older were identical to those obtained using much shorter time steps. Just
4 as was described in Section H.3.1 for the IEUBK model, outputs from the PbB modeling
5 (lifetime average and concurrent PbB estimates for each U.S. Census block or block group) were
6 saved and stored in Microsoft Excelฎ spreadsheets to serve as inputs to the probabilistic
7 population PbB model described in Section H. 1.
8 H.3.3. Adaptation of the Lanphear Model
9 Two technical issues needed to be addressed in order to apply the Lanphear model to
10 estimate PbB levels in this type of assessment. First, because the Lanphear model accepts dust
11 Pb loading rather than dust Pb concentration as its input, a method was needed to develop a
12 model describing the relationship between the indoor dust concentration estimates generated in
13 the primary Pb smelter case study and estimates of indoor dust loading. The second problem
14 was how to apply the Lanphear model to the specific combinations of indoor dust and outdoor
15 soil Pb exposures in each case study block or block group. Sections H.3.3.1 and H.3.3.2 explain
16 how these two issues were addressed.
17 H.3.3.1. Development of a Dust Pb Loading-Dust Pb Concentration Regression Model
18 The biokinetic models used to predict PbB concentrations use as their inputs the
19 concentrations of Pb in outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust. However, the Lanphear model used to
20 estimate PbB levels generates outputs from inputs of indoor dust Pb loading. Thus, developing
21 approaches for estimating dust Pb concentration based on dust Pb loading is necessary. The
22 relationship between indoor dust loading and Pb concentration was investigated using a data set
23 developed as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) 1997
24 National Survey. The data set was used because it appeared to be the largest, most nationally
25 representative source of both indoor dust loading and concentration data taken simultaneously
26 from the same households. To the extent that these data do not reflect the dust loading-dust
27 concentration relationship in the primary Pb smelter case study, the PbB estimates will be biased.
28 See Attachment G-l for a more detailed discussion of the dust Pb loading-dust Pb concentration
29 Regression Model.
30 The HUD data comprises 307 wipe sample and dust concentration measurements taken
31 from 284 households (USEPA, 1998; Appendix C). The data were stratified into four vintage
32 ranges from pre-1940 to post-1979. The data from all four ranges were pooled for the analysis.
33 Log-log regression provided the best fit and regression diagnostics. Two dust concentration data
34 points, one with a value about five-fold below the next lowest and one with a value more than
July 2007 H-ll Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 10-fold above the next highest concentration, were excluded from the analysis. The dust
2 concentration model derived in this manner was as follows:
3 LnHouseDustPb = 4.920573 + 0.517568 x LnDustPbLoading
4 where:
5 LnHouseDustPb = log-transformed indoor dust Pb concentration (micrograms per
6 grams [ug/g])
7 LnDustPbLoading = log-transformed dust Pb loading (vacuum samples) (ug/square
8 feet [ft2])
9
10 Details of the derivation of the dust Pb loading-dust Pb concentration regression model
11 can be found in Attachment G-l.
12 H.3.3.2. Estimation of Equivalent Dust Pb Concentrations and a Bivariate PbB Model
13 In the second part of the analysis, linear regression was again used to estimate PbB
14 concentrations from the dust loading measurements in the Lanphear et al. (1998) analysis.
15 Exhibit H-4 reproduces Table 4 from Lanphear et al. (1998) with an added column of estimated
16 dust Pb concentrations. The table entries contain covariate-adjusted estimates of PbB for 16-
17 month-old children associated with specified combinations of indoor dust loading and outdoor
18 soil/dust Pb concentrations. In Exhibit H-4, the relationship is also specified for indoor dust Pb
19 concentrations.
20 To estimate PbB values for individual U.S. Census blocks or in general urban
21 environments, data from Exhibit H-4 were used to derive a bivariate model for predicting PbB as
22 a continuous function of outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust Pb concentrations. The REGRESS
23 module from Mathematicaฎ version 5.2 was used to fit a nonlinear model to the natural log of
24 outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust Pb concentrations, as follows:
25 BloodPb = -9.1138 + 2.03554 x LnDustPb + 0.66657 x LnSoilPb
26 where:
27 BloodPb = concentration of Pb in blood (ug/deciliter [dL])
28 LnDustPb = log-transformed indoor dust Pb concentration (ug/g)
29 LnSoilPb = log-transformed outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration (ug/g)
30
31 All the coefficients were significant at p < 10"6 and the F Ratio for the fit model was
32 960.3. To test the model, the fitted coefficients were used to reproduce the estimated PbB values
33 in Exhibit H-4. The resulting PbB values matched those in the table within an average of 0.4
34 percent. The maximum difference between any of the values in Exhibit H-4 and those in
35 Lanphear's original Table 4 was 1.6 percent.
July 2007 H-12 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit H-4. Predicted PbB Levels Associated with Combinations of Outdoor Soil/Dust
and Indoor Dust Pb Loading and Indoor Pb Concentration
Indoor
Dust Pb
Loading
(M9/ft2)
1
5
10
15
20
25
40
55
70
100
Estimated
Equivalent
Indoor Dust
Concentration
(mg/kg)
56
150
228
292
348
398
530
643
745
925
Outdoor Soil/Dust Pb (mg/kg) a
10
2.3
3.2
3.7
4
4.2
4.4
4.9
5.2
5.5
5.9
72
2.8
4
4.6
5
5.3
5.5
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
100
2.9
4.1
4.7
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.3
6.7
7
7.6
500
3.5
4.9
5.6
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.5
8
8.4
9
1000
3.8
5.3
6.1
6.6
7
7.3
8.1
8.6
9.1
9.7
1500
4
5.5
6.3
6.9
7.3
7.7
8.4
9
9.5
10.2
2000
4.1
5.7
6.5
7.1
7.6
7.9
8.7
9.3
9.8
10.5
4000
4.4
6.1
7.1
7.7
8.1
8.5
9.4
10
10.5
11.3
3
4
5
6
1
a Table adapted from Table 4 in Lanphear et al. (1998).
Note that for equivalent indoor dust Pb concentrations outside of the range of the model
(greater than 925 ug/g), the same degree of model fit cannot be expected. However, only 17
U.S. Census blocks/block groups in the primary Pb smelter case study, with less than two percent
of the exposed child population, have predicted indoor dust Pb concentrations above this value.
9 H.3.3.3. Estimation of PbB from Indoor Dust Loadings
10 The adapted version of Table 4 from the Lanphear model (see Exhibit H-4) predicts the
11 PbB concentrations in young children as a function of outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration and
12 indoor dust Pb loading. Thus, a log-log model of PbB concentration based on these variables can
13 be derived directly from the values given in Exhibit H-4. Multiple regression ofLnBloodPb on
14 LnSoilPb and LnDustPbLoading 2 yields the following:
2 The Lanphear et al. (1998) model is based on wipe loading measurements.
July 2007
H-13
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 LnBloodPb = 0.578371 + .205290 x LnDustPbLoading + 0.108972 x LnSoilPb
2 where:
3 LnBloodPb = log-transformed concentration of Pb in blood (ug/dL)
4 LnDustPbLoading = log-transformed indoor dust Pb loading (wipe samples) (ug/ft2)
5
6 LnSoilPb = log-transformed outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration (ug/g)
7 adjustedR2 = adjusted variance, set to 0.9997
8
9 Like the model based on indoor dust Pb concentration, the model fit the data within
10 rounding error (R2 = 0.9997, the F Ratio = 1691, and p< 10"6). When the indoor dust estimation
11 models were used, which provided indoor dust Pb loading as their outputs, the above equation
12 was used to predict PbB levels based on the Lanphear model.
13 H.4. INPUTS TO THE BLOOD PB MODELS
14 H.4.1. Exposure Concentration Estimates for Inhalation, Outdoor Soil/Dust and Indoor
15 Dust
16 Exposure concentrations for inhalation, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust were estimated
17 for each U.S. Census block or block group in each case study as described in Appendices C, D
18 and E. The values used for each air quality scenario modeled are presented in Appendix C for
19 the general urban case study, in Appendix D for the primary Pb smelter case study, and in
20 Appendix E for the secondary Pb smelter case study.
21 H.4.2. Policy-Relevant Background Exposure Pathway Concentrations and Pb Intake
22 Estimates
23 As noted above, the exposure Pb concentrations and Pb intake from policy-relevant
24 background pathways (drinking water and diet) were also parameter inputs to the PbB models.
25 All exposed populations were assigned the same Pb concentration in drinking water. While the
26 literature contains abundant data, in many cases the data are from "first-draw" samples, non-
27 random ("priority") samples, or from communities where Pb levels were known to be elevated.
28 After reviewing the literature, the average drinking water concentration was estimated to be 4.61
29 jig/liter (L), based on data from two recent studies of residential water concentrations in homes
30 and apartments in the United States and Canada (Clayton et al., 1999; Moir et al., 1996). The
31 range of values seen in these studies (0.84 to 16 |ig/L) was considered to be representative of
32 randomly sampled residential water in houses constructed since Pb pipe and solder were banned
33 from residential use. The selected value is close to the "default" value (4.0 ug/L) provided with
34 the IEUBK model (USEPA, 1994b). Much higher values have been encountered in homes with
July 2007 H-14 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Pb piping and/or very corrosive water. Lower average drinking water Pb concentrations (on the
2 order of 0.9 ug/L) have been reported in some recent studies (Ryan et al., 2000).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In addition to drinking water, young children are expected to be exposed to Pb in the
foods they consume. In this assessment, all exposed children were assumed to receive the age-
specific estimates of dietary Pb intake developed by the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (USEPA, 2006c). The U.S. EPA developed these estimates by analyzing
food consumption data from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES III), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (CDC, 1997), and food
residue data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Total Dietary Study
(USFDA, 2001). The daily intake values shown in Exhibit H-5 are considerably lower than
those developed using the same methodology in the 1980s and 1990s. Pb concentrations in food
have decreased dramatically since the prohibition of Pb solder in food containers in 1982
(USEPA, 2006a, Section 3.4).
Exhibit H-5. Summary of Non-Water Dietary Pb Intake Estimates
Age Category
(months)
Oto11
12 to 23
24 to 35
36 to 47
48 to 59
60 to 71
72 to 84
Updated Dietary Pb Intake
Estimates (pg/day)
3.16
2.6
2.87
2.74
2.61
2.74
2.99
The potential exists for double-counting of drinking water and dietary Pb intake because
some diet categories (e.g., baby formula, soup) may be prepared using domestic drinking water.
Such double counting is likely to be minimal because the Total Dietary Survey data are limited
to "direct" drinking water intake (USFDA, 2001).
The assumption that all children in all exposed populations experience the same
background exposure concentrations may result in a substantial underestimation of the overall
variation in Pb uptake in these populations.
HAS. Behavioral, Physical, and Chemicals Factors Affecting Pb Exposure, Intake, and
Uptake
As discussed previously, a number of model inputs govern how absorbed dose (uptake)
estimates are calculated from exposure concentrations. These factors represent the physiological
July 2007
H-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 and behavioral characteristics of the exposed population and the chemical and physical
2 properties of the exposure media that govern exposure and absorption by inhalation and
3 ingestion.
4 Because substantial data have become available since the IEUBK default values were last
5 updated, a literature review was conducted to identify and evaluate recent information related to
6 Pb exposures, absorption, and bioavailability (USEPA, 2006b). Experts in the U.S. EPA were
7 also consulted in an effort to derive exposure, intake, and uptake values for this assessment.
8 Exhibit H-6 presents the parameter values that were selected as inputs to the PbB prediction
9 models used in this assessment. The same (or equivalent) values were used, as described above,
10 to calculate Pb inputs to the Leggett model during the sensitivity analysis
11 Several values in Exhibit H-6 differ from the suggested default values in the most current
12 version of the IEUBK model (USEPA, 2005). Children's daily ventilation rate estimates were
13 derived from values in the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) report
14 (2002). The child respiratory absorption fraction values used in this assessment were 0.27 for
15 the primary and secondary Pb smelter case studies and 0.24 for the general urban case study.
16 OAQPS staff estimated these values based on multiple analyses of respiratory paniculate
17 deposition and Pb absorption, assuming a mass median particle diameter (MMPD) of 4.8
18 micrometers (uM), with a GSD of 8.29, for areas affected by point sources and 0.5 uM, with
19 GSD of 3.94, for urban areas not affected by specific point sources (USEPA, 2007a). See
20 Attachment H-l for more details.
July 2007 H-16 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit H-6. Input Parameter Values for the PbB Modeling
Parameter
Parameter Name a
Parameter Value
IEUBK Default Age Ranges (Years)
S
in
c>
CM
2
CO
2
CM
^-
2
CO
in
2
*
<ฃ>
2
in
r~
2
<ฃ>
Basis/Derivation a
Inhalation
Daily ventilation rate
(cubic meters
[m3]/day)
Absolute inhalation
absorption fraction
(unitless)
Indoor air Pb
concentration
Time spent outdoors
Ventilation rate
. Lung absorption
(IEUBK)
. Absolute respiratory
absorption fraction
(Leggett)
Indoor air Pb
concentration
(percentage of outdoor)
Time spent outdoors
(hours/day)
4
5.1
6
6.8
7.8
8.8
10
0.27 (Primary, secondary Pb smelter case studies),
0.24 (general urban case study)
100 percent
Not used
ICRP (2002), with interpolation for intermediate
ages.
U.S. EPA analysis of multiple studies of particulate
deposition and Pb absorption (USEPA, 2007a).
Time spent indoors/outdoors was not considered
when using either the IEUBK or Leggett model
because the input air concentrations were already
long-term weighted averages of indoor and outdoor
concentrations (see Appendices C, D and E).
Drinking Water Ingestion
Water consumption
(L/day)
Water Pb
concentration
(H9/L)
Water consumption
(L/day)
Pb concentration in
drinking water
(ug/L)
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.33
0.36
0.39
0.42
4.61
Based on value for infants, 1- to 3-year olds, 1-
to1 0-year olds (with trend lines used to interpolate
intermediate age ranges) (USEPA, 2002a).
CM of values reported in studies of United States
and Canadian populations (residential water)
(Clayton et al., 1999; Moir et al., 1996; as cited in
USEPA, 2006a, Section 3.3 Table 3-10).
July 2007
H-17
-------
Exhibit H-6. Input Parameter Values for the PbB Modeling
Parameter
Absolute absorption
(unitless)
Parameter Name a
. Total percent
accessible (IEUBK)
Absolute Gl
absorption fraction
(Leggett)
Parameter Value
IEUBK Default Age Ranges (Years)
2
c>
CM
2
CO
2
CM
^-
2
CO
in
2
<ฃ>
2
in
|-ซ^
2
50 percent
(Single value used across all age ranges)
Basis/Derivation a
Assumed similar to dietary absorption (see "Total
percent accessible" under Diet below).
Diet
Dietary Pb intake
(ug/day)
Absolute absorption
(unitless)
Daily Pb intake
(ug/day)
. Total percent
accessible (IEUBK)
. Absolute Gl
absorption fraction
(Leggett)
3.16
2.6
2.87
2.74
2.61
2.74
2.99
50 percent
Estimates based on the following:
. Pb food residue data from U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (U.S. FDA) Total Diet
Study (USFDA, 2001); and
. food consumption data from NHANES III
(CDC, 1997).
Alexander et al. (1974) and Ziegler et al. (1978) as
cited in U.S. EPA (2006a, Section 4.2.1). These
two dietary balance studies suggest that 40 to 50
percent of ingested Pb is absorbed by children (2
weeks to 8 years of age).
Outdoor Soil/Dust and Indoor Dust Ingestion
Outdoor soil/dust and
indoor dust weighting
factor
(unitless)
. Outdoor soil/dust
and indoor dust
ingestion weighting
factor (percent
outdoor soil/dust)
(IEUBK)
. Outdoor soil/dust
and indoor dust
ingestion rates
calculated separately
using same
proportion of outdoor
soil/dust ingestion
(Leggett)
45 percent
This is the percent of total ingestion that is outdoor
soil/dust. Value reflects best judgment and
consideration (results published by van Wijnen et
al. (1990), as cited in (USEPA, 1989). The van
Wijnen et al. study examined at tracer studies of
ingestion rates for rainy days and non-rainy days.
It was assumed that rainy days were associated
with all outdoor soil/dust ingestion and non-rainy
days were associated with a combination of
outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust with the delta
representing outdoor soil/dust.
July 2007
H-18
-------
Exhibit H-6. Input Parameter Values for the PbB Modeling
Parameter
Total indoor dust +
outdoor soil/dust
ingestion
(mg/day)
Absolute
gastrointestinal
absorption (outdoor
soil/dust and indoor
dust)
(unitless)
Parameter Name a
Amount of outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust
ingested daily
(mg)
Total percent
accessible(IEUBK)
Absolute Gl absorption
fraction (Leggett)
Parameter Value
IEUBK Default Age Ranges (Years)
ri CM ro ^ in to r-ซ
2 o o o o o o
->->->->->->
* i- CM ro ^- in to
85 135 135 135 100 90 85
Primary Pb smelter case study: 0.48 for outdoor
soil/dust and 0.26 for indoor dust
Secondary Pb smelter and general urban case
study: 0.30 for both outdoor soil/dust and indoor
dust
Basis/Derivation a
U.S. EPA (1989), which was based on multiple
studies focusing on children.
Site-specific absorption factors for outdoor soil/dust
and indoor dust were derived for the primary Pb
smelter case study using relative bioavailability
(RBA) estimates generated based on swine studies
involving outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust samples
collected in the study area (Casteel et al., 2005).
These RBAs were converted to absolute
bioavailability factors (i.e., total percent accessible
values) by applying the absolute bioavailability
factor for the control material (Pb acetate water
solution also fed to the animals).
Secondary Pb smelter and the general urban case
study values: (USEPA, 1989) reflects evidence that
Pb in indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust is as
accessible as dietary Pb and that indoor dust and
outdoor soil/dust ingestion may occur away from
mealtimes (resulting in enhanced absorption
relative to exposure during meal events).
Other
Maternal PbB (ug/dl_)
Maternal PbB
concentration at childbirth,
ug/dL
1.94
NHANES IV, national GM for adult women - all
nationalities (CDC, 2004).
1 a Where variable names or interpretations differ between the two models, it is specified within the Exhibit.
July 2007
H-19
-------
Estimates of children's direct water ingestion were interpolated from values in the
U.S. EPA Children-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 2002a); the GI
absorption fraction of Pb from water (and diet) was retained at the IEUBK default value
of 50 percent, and is consistent with the U.S. EPA OAQPS previous analyses of Pb
uptake (USEPA, 1989). As noted above, age-specific dietary intake values for Pb were
revised to reflect the latest analyses of the U.S. FDA and NHANES III data on food
consumption pattern and Pb residue levels (USEPA, 2006c).
Age-specific outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust ingestion rates for the PbB models
were left at the IEUBK default values. Similarly, the weighting factor for outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust ingestion was also left at 45 percent outdoor soil/dust, despite
limited data supporting this specific value (USEPA, 1989; 1994b). The impacts of
changes in the weighting factor and other variables related to outdoor soil/dust and indoor
dust ingestion were investigated through the sensitivity analysis, which is discussed in
more detail in Appendix L.
Casteel et al. (2005) evaluated the GI absorption of Pb and other metals from
outdoor soil/dust samples taken from the primary Pb smelter study area in juvenile swine.
Results of these experiments (relative bioavailability estimates) were used to derive
estimates of absolute GI absorption fractions (the IEUBK inputs are called "Percent
Available") of 0.48 (48 percent) for outdoor soil/dust and 0.26 (26 percent) for indoor
dust. Note that these values, based on site-specific data, should not be considered
representative of patterns of Pb uptake at other Pb smelter sites. For the other case
studies, the IEUBK generic default value for GI absorption of Pb from outdoor soil/dust
and indoor dust (0.30, or 30 percent) was used. This value is generally consistent with
more recently reported values, although estimates vary widely. As was the case with the
outdoor soil/dust-indoor dust weighting factor, the impacts of changes in absorption
fractions for outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust were investigated in the sensitivity
analyses, which is discussed in more detail in Appendix L.
For the case study PbB modeling, the IEUBK default value for maternal PbB
level was updated using data from the most recent NHANES survey. NHANES III data
from 1988 to 1994 indicate that the GM PbB value for women of reproductive age has
dropped to about 1.94 ug/deciliter (dL) (Maddaloni et al., 2005).
H.4.4 Inter-Individual Variability
The final major input to the probabilistic PbB model that needs to be defined is
the estimated GSD. The GSD is a measure of the extent to which an individual's
July 2007 H-20 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
simulated PbB level varies from the mean of the PbB levels for all individuals within a
defined area.3 The selected GSD value determines the shapes of the population
distributions of PbB levels generated by the probabilistic model within each of the
defined areas. Larger GSD estimates will stretch the upper "tails" of the distribution,
resulting in a larger proportion of children having higher estimated PbB values for a
given set of exposures. As part designing this analysis, a review was conducted of recent
literature characterizing variability in populations of Pb-exposed children to support the
GSD values selected for each case study.
Note that the appropriateness of using the GSD as an indicator of PbB inter-
variability presupposes that the population distributions of PbB levels are, or are close to,
lognormal. With a few exceptions, numerous studies of PbB distributions in moderate to
large populations have shown that lognormal models generally provide a good fit to the
data. As discussed below, this appears to be the case even in populations where Pb
exposures are relatively homogeneous.
Many PbB studies are available, dating to the 1970s, which report PbB GSD
values or present data from which GSD values can be estimated. These studies include
large population surveys (such as the NHANES), as well as studies of smaller
populations, often in limited geographic areas. A substantial proportion of the smaller
studies are of children residing near smelting or mining operations where point source
emissions and/or historical outdoor soil/dust contamination are dominant sources of
exposure. Two objectives of the literature review were to (1) identify trends in GSD
values over time in both the large population surveys and the smaller cohort studies, and
(2) determine whether any systematic differences were evident between the PbB GSD
values for the large and the small studies, and between the smelter and other small cohort
analyses. The expectation was that the variability in studies of large populations with
3 These defined areas are designed to delineate portions of the study area expected to have
relatively uniform Pb media concentrations (for the two point source case studies, these areas are U.S.
Census blocks and/or block groups). Consequently, the GSD used to cover inter-individual variability in
PbB levels within each of these defined areas reflects primarily differences in behavior and biokinetics
related to Pb exposure (i.e., delineation of these areas to include portions of the study area with similar Pb
media concentrations has controlled for significant differences in Pb exposure concentrations, although
some variability within these areas is still likely and is covered by the GSD). Note, that the GSD is applied
to the entire urban case study area because this is a single exposure zone assumed to have uniform Pb
media concentrations (and is not further differentiated as is the case with the two point source case studies).
July 2007 H-21 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
very heterogeneous exposure patterns should be greater than the variability in studies of
small populations, where exposures are less variable.
Exhibit H-7 lists the studies that were reviewed, and provides details related to the
study methodologies, populations, and dates of blood sampling.
July 2007 H-22 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit H-7. Summary of Children's PbB Studies
Study, Authors
New York Screening Study (Billick et al., 1 979)
NHANESII (Marcus, 1990)
(White et al., 1998) review
(see article for full references)
(Griffin et al., 1999)
(Lanphear et al., 1998)
(Lanphear et al., 2005)
(Pirkleetal., 1998) NHANES III
NHANES III, IV (CDC, 2007)
NHEXAS, Age 12 to 60 months (USEPA, 2004)
New York Seasonality (Haley and Talbot, 2004)
NHANES IV, Age 12 through 24 months
(CDC, 2004)
Study Population
New York State
National, 6 to 60
Midvale, Utah (smelter)
Baltimore, Maryland Urban Soil
Pb Abatement Demonstration
Project
Butte, Montana (smelter)
Kellogg, Idaho (smelter)
E. Helena, Montana (smelter)
Leadville, Colorado (smelter)
Telluride, Colorado (smelter)
Midvale, Utah (smelter)
Bingham Creek, Utah (smelter)
Sandy, Utah (smelter)
Five urban studies
Seven Pb smelter studies
Seven cohort studies (one
smelter, three foreign)
Males
Females
Urban
Non-Urban
13 Socioeconomic groups
National
Arizona
Baltimore, Maryland
Region 5
New York State
National males
National females
Age
(months)
NA
6 to 60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12 to 30
1 2 to 30
6 to 60
1 2 to 60
1 2 to 60
1 2 to 60
1 2 to 24
12 to 24
12 to 24
Dates of PbB
Measurement
1970101976
1976 to 1980
1980s
NA
NA
1974, 1983
1983
1987
1988
1990
1993
1994
1985to 1998
1989101994
1979to 2000
1991 to 1994
1988to 1991
1991 to 1994
1999102000
1997
1994101997
1999to 2000
GM PbB (pg/dL)
18 to 25
12.8
NA
NA
NA
14.8,8.0
8.8
8.7
6.1
5.1
3.1
NA
5.1
4
11.70
7.50
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.7
-
3.6
2.7
2.2
1.8
2.3
1.8
4
2.3
2.4
GSD
(pg/dL)
1.41
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7,1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.0a
1.9a
1 .6 (median
lifetime) b
1 .7 (median
concurrent) b
2.0 a
2.2a
2.2a
2.0a
2.0 (median)
2.1 a
2.2a
2.1 a
1.9
1.9
2
1.7
2
2
' GSD values were estimated from reported GM values and proportions of PbB measurements above 10 ug/dL.
' GSD values were estimated from reported GM, 5th and 95th percentiles.
July 2007
H-23
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
These studies illustrate the decline in children's PbB levels over the past three decades.
They also suggest that the level of inter-individual variability in PbB levels, as indicated by
GSDs, has increased. Exhibit H-8 shows the temporal trend in reported and calculated GSD
values from the studies listed in Exhibit H-7, with midpoint dates assigned to studies where
sampling took place over more than one year.
Exhibit H-8. Time Trend in Children's PbB GSD Values
2.2 -i
^ 2
Q
(/5 -i o
o
DQ
.Q
Q.
1
,"l 1 4 -
^
ฃ
o
ฐ- 1 2
a, i-ฃ
01
1
* *
A A.
I A*
A
v
1 A *
AH
A
Large Population Surveys
Mining/Smelting Sites
A Urban, Non-Smelting Sites
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Approximate Mid-Point of Blood Sampling
Large-scale and national studies, in particular, show a dramatic increase in children's
PbB GSDs. GSD estimates from the two pre-1980 studies are both approximately 1.4 |ig/dL for
New York State and National populations. In contrast, children's PbB GSDs in all post-1990
large population surveys were greater than 1.7 |ig/dL. All studies based on the NHANES from
1991 onward estimate PbB GSDs of between 2.0 and 2.2 |ig/dL for children ages 6 to 60 months
or subgroups of that population.
Potential time trends in GSD estimates from studies of smaller populations are more
difficult to discern from data presented in Exhibit H-8. Studies of populations living near
smelting and mining sites, most of which were conducted between 1970 and the mid-1990s,
show relatively constant GSDs of between 1.5 and 1.8 |ig/dL across this time period. However,
the non-smelter studies, most of which were conducted more recently (1985 to 2000), indicate
that PbB GSD values increased over this period, although the trend is less pronounced than for
July 2007
H-24
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 the large-population survey data. Uncertainties about the exact dates when PbB levels were
2 sampled, differences in sampling and averaging methods, and differences in the populations
3 studied prevent concluding that this apparent increase in GSD values is "real," even though such
4 a trend would be consistent with that shown by in the national survey data.
5 Collectively, the mean GSD value estimated from all the small studies (smelter and non-
6 smelter) is 1.73 |ig/dL. The average GSD derived from studies of smelter populations is
7 1.67 |ig/dL; the average GSD for studies of non-smelter populations is 1.80 |ig/dL. The average
8 GSD for all of the small-population studies where blood sampling occurred after 1990 is
9 1.76 |ig/dL. For large-population surveys where sampling was conducted during the same period
10 the average GSD is 2.01 |ig/dL. These results generally support the idea that PbB variability in
11 small populations with relatively homogeneous exposure patterns is, in fact, less than that for the
12 United States population as a whole, where exposure is much less homogeneous. Because of
13 methodological differences among these various studies, however, the differences in variability
14 should be interpreted cautiously.
15 One major difficulty in comparing GSD estimates from the various populations in Exhibit
16 H-8 is that the PbB data were collected and interpreted differently from study to study. The
17 number of samples taken from each child can strongly affect the overall inter-individual
18 variability in PbB levels. Also, the timing and numbers of multiple samples, and how they are
19 combined to generate PbB metrics, can strongly influence the reported "GSD" values. As noted
20 above, different levels of variability in exposures will also affect the observed variability in PbB
21 levels. Differences in analytical methods and levels of detection may also play a role in
22 differences in GSD.
23 In this assessment, these issues were addressed by basing risk estimates on two different
24 PbB metrics, which capture PbB variability over different time periods (i.e., "concurrent" and
25 "lifetime" PbB metrics as defined by Lanphear et al. (2005)]). The PbB-IQ model Lanphear et
26 al. (2005) was developed based on PbB data from seven cohort studies of Pb-exposed children,
27 where multiple PbB measurements had been taken over the age range of 6 months to at least 60
28 months. The data from these studies was also helpful in estimating appropriate GSD values for
29 use in this assessment; using similar assumptions about PbB variability helped to ensure that the
30 risk estimates evaluated were consistent with those that might be derived for the populations
31 from which the risk model was developed.
32 Exhibit H-9 summarizes the data Lanphear et al. (2005) used in the development of their
33 PbB-IQ models. GSD values for each of the seven studies were estimated based on the GM, 5th,
34 and 95th percentile values presented in Lanphear et al.'s Table 2 (2005), assuming log normality.
July 2007 H-25 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
In the exhibit, concurrent PbB refers to the PbB measurement closest to the age at which IQ
testing was performed, which was six to seven years for the bulk of the cohorts studied. Lifetime
PbB levels refer to the average of all PbB samples taken between six months of age and the
concurrent sample. Because lifetime PbB levels are estimated based on many measurements per
child, the average GSD value (1.58 |ig/dL) for lifetime average PbB levels is lower than the
average GSD for concurrent PbB (1.72 |ig/dL) across the seven studies. The pattern is very
consistent; the estimated concurrent GSDs are greater than the estimated lifetime GSDs for all of
the studies evaluated.
Exhibit H-9. GSD Estimates from Seven Studies Used to Derive the Lanphear et al. (2005)
PbB-IQ Model
Study
(Bellinger et al., 1992)
(Dietrich et al., 1993)
(Ernhart et al., 1989)
(Schnaas et al., 2000)
(Baghurst et al., 1992)
(Canfield et al., 2003)
(Wasserman et al.,
1997)
Location
Boston,
Massachusetts
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Mexico
Port Pirie, South
Australia
Rochester, New
York
Yugoslavia
Mean of All Studies
Median of All Studies
Lifetime PbB
(Mg/dL)a
GM
7.6
11.7
14.5
10.6
18.6
5.5
15.8
12.04
11.70
GSDC
1.55
1.56
1.41
1.60
1.37
1.66
1.94
1.58
1.56
Concurrent PbB
(pg/dL) b
GM
5.4
7.5
14.2
7.0
13.0
4.0
15.9
9.57
7.50
GSDC
1.68
1.70
1.53
1.68
1.52
1.88
2.02
1.72
1.68
a Lifetime PbB levels refer to the average of all PbB samples taken between six months of age and the
"concurrent" sample.
b Concurrent PbB refers to the PbB measurement closest to the age at which IQ testing was performed, which
was six to seven years of age for all of the cohorts studied, except the Boston and Cleveland cohorts. Blood
samples taken at the age of five years and an average age of 4.8 years were used to estimate "concurrent" PbB
levels in the Boston and Cleveland cohorts, respectively.
0 GSD values were calculated from GM, 5th, and 95th percentile in Lanphear et al. (2005).
The values in Exhibit H-9, along with those in Exhibit H-7 and Exhibit H-8, helped provide the
basis for selecting appropriate GSD values for this assessment. The IEUBK default GSD value
(intended to represent variability for children across the 7 year age range) was 1.6 |ig/dL.
July 2007
H-26
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 H.5. LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THIS ASSESSMENT AND BLOOD PB
2 MODELING
3 A number of factors affect the degree of uncertainty associated with this assessment and
4 PbB modeling. These factors include the estimated exposure Pb concentrations associated with
5 policy-relevant sources and policy-relevant background; the exposure, intake, and uptake factor
6 values; the differences in the PbB models themselves; the approach used to characterize inter-
7 individual variability; and the demographics of the exposed population. The relative impacts of
8 these factors on PbB estimates and health impacts are discussed in Appendix M.
July 2007 H-27 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Alexander, F. W.; Clayton, B. E.; Delves, H. T. (1974) Mineral and Trace-Metal Balances in Children Receiving
3 Normal and Synthetic Diets. Q. J. Med. 43:89-111.
4 Asgharian, B.; Menache, M. G.; Miller, F. J. (2004) Modeling Age-Related Particle Deposition in Humans. J.
5 Aerosol Med. 17(3): 213-224.
6 Baghurst, P. A.; McMichael, A. J.; Wigg, N. R.; Vimpani, G. V.; Robertson, E. F.; Roberts, R. J.; Tong, S. L. (1992)
7 Environmental Exposure to Lead and Children's Intelligence at the Age of Seven Years. The Port Pine
8 Cohort Study. N. Engl. J. Med. 327(18): 1279-1284.
9 Bellinger, D. C.; Stiles, K. M.; Needleman, H. L. (1992) Low-Level Lead Exposure, Intelligence and Academic
10 Achievement: a Long-Term Follow-Up Study. Pediatrics. 90(6): 855-861.
11 Billick, I. H.; Curran, A. S.; Shier, D. R. (1979) Analysis of Pediatric Blood Lead Levels in New York City for
12 1970-1976. Environ. Health Perspect. 31: 183-190.
13 Canfield, R. L.; Henderson, C. R., Jr.; Cory-Slechta, D. A.; Cox, C.; Jusko, T. A.; Lanphear, B. P. (2003)
14 Intellectual Impairment in Children With Blood Lead Concentrations Below 10 Microg Per Deciliter. N.
15 Engl. J. Med. 348(16): 1517-1526.
16 Casteel, S. W.; TessmanR.; Brattin W.J.; Wahlquist A.M. (2005) Relative Bioavailability of Lead inHouse Dust
17 and Soil From the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Site in Herculaneum, Missouri. Prepared for Black &
18 Veatch Special Projects Corporation; May.
19 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1997) Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
20 (NHANES III), 1988-1994, Dietary Recall. Available online at:
21 http://www.cdc. gov/nchs/products/elec_prods/subj ect/nhanes3. htm.
22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2004) Children's Blood Lead Levels in the United States.
23 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, National Center for Environmental Health. Available online
24 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%20survevs.
25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2007) Children's Blood Lead Levels in the United States.
26 Available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%20surveys.
27 Centers for Health Research (CUT) and Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).
28 (2002) Multiple Path Particle Dosimetry Model (MPPD): A Model for Human and Rat Airway Particle
29 Dosimetry. 2.0. Available online at: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/650010030.html.
30 Clayton, C. A.; Pellizzari, E. D.; Whitmore, R. W.; Perritt, R. L.; Quackenboss, J. J. (1999) National Human
31 Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): Distributions and Associations of Lead, Arsenic, and Volatile
3 2 Organic Compounds in EPA Region 5. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 9: 3 81 -3 92.
33 Cohen, J. (1987) Respiratory Deposition and Absorption of Lead Particles (Memorandum to Fred Miller and Ted
34 Martonen, Inhalation Toxicology Division). Durham, NC: USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
3 5 Standards, Ambient Standards Branch; October 7.
36 Dietrich, K. N.; Berger, O. G.; Succop, P. A.; Hammond, P. B.; Bornschein, R. L. (1993) The Developmental
3 7 Consequences of Low to Moderate Prenatal and Postnatal Lead Exposure: Intellectual Attainment in the
38 Cincinnati Lead Study Cohort Following School Entry. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 15(1): 37-44.
July 2007 H-28 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Ernhart, C. B.; Morrow-Tlucak, M; Wolf, A. W.; Super, D.; Drotar, D. (1989) Low Level Lead Exposure in the
2 Prenatal and Early Preschool Periods: Intelligence Prior to School Entry. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 11(2): 161-
3 170.
4 Griffin, S.; Marcus, A.; Schulz, T.; Walker, S. (1999) Calculating the Interindividual Geometric Standard Deviation
5 for Use in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. Environ. Health
6 Perspect. 107(6): 481-487.
7 Haley, V. B.and Talbot, T. O. (2004) Geographic Analysis of Blood Lead Levels in New York State Children Born
8 1994-1997. Environ. Health Perspect. 112(15): 1577-1582.
9 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). (1994) LUDEP 2.07: Personal Computer Program for
10 Calculating Internal Doses Using the ICRP Publication 66 Respiratory Tract Model.
11 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). (2002) ICRP Publication 89: Basic Anatomical and
12 Physiological Data for Use in Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP. 32(3-4): 100
13 Lanphear, B. P.; Hornung, R.; Khoury, I; Yolton, K.; Baghurst, P.; Bellinger, D. C.; Canfield, R. L.; Dietrich, K.
14 N.; Bornschein, R.; Greene, T.; Rothenberg, S. L; Needleman, H. L.; Schnaas, L.; Wasserman, G.;
15 Graziano, L; Robe, R. (2005) Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual
16 Function: An International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113(7)
17 Lanphear, B. P.; Matte, T. D.; Rogers, I; Clickner, R. P.; Dietz, B.; Bornschein, R. L.; Succop, P.; Mahaffey, K. R.;
18 Dixon, S.; Galke, W.; Rabinowitz, M.; Farfel, M.; Rohde, C.; Schwartz, I; Ashley, P.; Jacobs, D. E. (1998)
19 The Contribution of Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Residential Soil to Children's Blood Lead Levels:
20 A Pooled Analysis of 12 Epidemiologic Studies. Environmental Research. 79: 51-68.
21 Leggett, R. W. (1993) An Age-Specific Kinetic Model of Lead Metabolism in Humans. Environ Health Perspect.
22 101:598-616.
23 Maddaloni, M.; Bellew, M.; Diamond, G.; Follansbee, M.; Gefell, D.; Goodrum, P.; Johnson, M.; Koporec, K.;
24 Khoury, G.; Luey, J.; Odin, M.; Troast, R.; Van, L. P.; Zaragoza, L. (2005) Assessing Lead Risks at Non-
25 Residential Hazardous Waste Sites. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 11: 967-1005.
26 Marcus, A. H. (1990) Contributions to a Risk Assessment for Lead in Drinking Water (Report to the U.S.
27 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Drinking Water/Office of Toxic Substances). 68-D8-0115.
28 Batelle Memorial Institute.
29 Menache, M. G.; Miller, F. J.; Raabe, O. G. (1995) Particle Inhalability Curves for Humans and Small Laboratory
30 Animals. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 39(3): 317-328.
31 Moir, C. M.; Freedman, B.; McCurdy, R. (1996) Metal Mobilization From Water-Distribution Systems of Buildings
32 Serviced by Lead-Pipe Mains. Can. Water Resour. J. 21: 45-52.
3 3 Phalen, R. F.and Oldham, M. J. (2001) Methods for Modeling Particle Deposition As a Function of Age. Respir.
34 Physiol. 128(1): 119-130.
35 Pirkle, J. L.; Kaufmann, R. B.; Brody, D. J.; Hickman, T.; Gunter, E. W.; Paschal, D. C. (1998) Exposure of the U.S.
36 Population to Lead, 1991-1994. Environ. Health Perspect. 106(11): 745-750.
37 Pounds, J. G. (2005) Personal Communication With William Mendez, ICF International. Including the ICRP
3 8 (Leggett) Model FORTRAN Code and User's Manual.
39 Pounds, J. G.and Leggett, R. W. (1998) The ICRP Age-Specific Biokinetic Model for Lead: Validations, Empirical
40 Comparisons, and Explorations. Environ Health Perspect. 106 Suppl 6: 1505-1511.
July 2007 H-29 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Ryan, B.; Huet, N.; Macintosh, D. L. (2000) Longitudinal Investigation of Exposure to Arsenic, Cadmium, and Lead
2 in Drinking Water. Environmental Health Perspect. 108(731): 735
3 Schnaas, L.; Rothenberg, S. J.; Perroni, E.; Martinez, S.; Hernandez, C.; Hernandez, R. M. (2000) Temporal Pattern
4 in the Effect of Postnatal Blood Lead Level on Intellectual Development of Young Children. Neurotoxicol.
5 Teratol. 22(6): 805-810.
6 Singh, M.; Jaques, P. A.; Sioutas, C. (2006) Size Distribution and Diurnal Characteristics of Particle-Bound Metals
7 in Source and Receptor Sites of the Los Angeles Basin. Atmospheric Environment. 36: 1675-1689.
8 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) United States Census 2000: Summary File 1. Public Information Office. Available
9 online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfile 1 .html.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1989) Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
11 Lead: Exposure Analysis Methodology and Validation. EPA-450/2-89-011. Research Triangle Park, NC:
12 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; June.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1990) Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
14 Lead: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. EPA-450/2-89-022. Research Triangle Park,
15 NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; December.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1994a) Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake
17 Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. PB93-963510. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and
18 Emergency Response.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1994b) Technical Support Document: Parameters and Equations
20 Used in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (v.099d). EPA 540/R-
21 94/040. Office of Solid Waste.
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998) Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in Paint,
23 Dust, and Soil. EPA 747-R-97-006. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002a) Children-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook Interim
25 Draft. EPA-600-P-00-002B. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and
26 Development.
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002b) User's Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake
28 Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) Windows Version - 32 Bit Version. EPA 540-K-01-005.
29 Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004) Exposure Measurements: The National Human Exposure
31 Assessment Survey (NEXAS). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/heasd/edrb/nhexas.htm.
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2005) Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in
33 Children, Windowsฎ Version (lEUBKwin VI.0 Build 263). Available online at:
34 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products.htm.
35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006a) Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). Volume I and II.
3 6 Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF.
37 Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=158823.
38 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006b) Predicted Lead Deposition, Herculaneum, Missouri
39 (April 1, 1997 Through March 21, 1999). Memorandum from Richard L. Daye to Gene Gunn; January.
July 2007 H-30 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006c) Specific Estimates of Dietary Pb Intake Developed by
2 EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available online at:
3 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/ieubkfaq.htnrfFDA .
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007a) Analysis of Respiratory Paniculate Deposition and Lead
5 Absorption Studies in Children. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; May 14.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007b) Correction to Errors Identified in Leggett-Based Blood
7 Lead Modeling Completed for the Pilot Analysis. Memorandum from Zachary Pekar, Office of Air
8 Quality Planning and Standards to NAAQS Docket; January 26.
9 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). (2001) Total Diet Study. Center for Food Safety and Applied
10 Nutrition, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages; June. Available online at:
11 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/tds-toc.html.
12 van Wijnen J.H.; Clausing P.; Brunekreef, B. (1990) Estimated Soil Ingestionby Children. Environ Res. 51(2): 147-
13 162.
14 Wasserman, G. A.; Liu, X.; Lolacono, N. J.; Factor-Litvak, P.; Kline, J. K.; Popovac, D.; Morina, N.; Musabegovic,
15 A.; Vrenezi, N.; Capuni-Paracka, S.; Lekic, V.; Preteni-Redjepi, E.; Hadzialjevic, S.; Slavkovich, V.;
16 Graziano, J. H. (1997) Lead Exposure and Intelligence in 7-Year-Old Children: the Yugoslavia Prospective
17 Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 105(9): 956-962.
18 White, P. D.; VanLeeuwen, P.; Davis, B. D.; Maddaloni, M.; Hogan, K. A.; Marcus, A. H. (1998) The Conceptual
19 Structure of the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. Environmental Health
20 Perspectives. 106(86): 1513-1530.
21 Yeh, H. C.and Schum, G. M. (1980) Models of Human Lung Airways and Their Application to Inhaled Particle
22 Deposition. Bull. Math. Biol. 42(3): 461-480.
23 Ziegler, E. E.; Edwards, B. B.; Jensen, R. L.; Mahaffey, K. R.; Fomon, S. J. (1978) Absorption and Retention of
24 Lead by Infants. Pediatr. Res. 12: 29-34.
25
26
July 2007 H-31 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 ATTACHMENT H-l. RESPIRATORY DEPOSITION AND ABSORPTION
2 FRACTION - INPUT FOR THE IEUBK MODEL
3
4 One of the inputs to the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in
5 Children (IEUBK model) is an estimate of the fraction of lead (Pb) in air that deposits in the
6 respiratory system and is absorbed into the blood (either from the respiratory tract or from the
7 gastrointestinal tract following mucocilliary clearance from the respiratory system).4
8 Throughout this discussion, this parameter is termed respiratory deposition-absorption fraction.
9 To estimate appropriate values for the respiratory deposition-absorption fraction for use
10 in the case studies for this assessment, the basis for previously used values (i.e., those developed
11 for the 1990 U. S. EPA Staff Paper (USEPA, 1990)]) and currently available information and
12 methodologies were considered. The bases for the value used in the case study assessments
13 described in the 1990 Staff Paper and the default value used in the IEUBK model were described
14 by Cohen (1987). The value for the 1990 case study assessments was considered ambient air
15 near Pb point sources,5 while the value used as the IEUBK model default was for "general
16 atmospheres." Different analyses, with some commonality, underlie these two values. The
17 analyses differ in derivation of the estimates of fractional deposition in the respiratory tract
18 regions, due to different aerosol size distributions for the Pb particles in the ambient air in the
19 two types of environments (i.e., near point source or general populations). Subsequent steps for
20 both analyses relied on estimates of fractional absorption associated with the different regions of
21 the respiratory tract, and estimated differences in particle deposition between an adult and a 2-
22 year-old child.
23 Consistent with the 1987 analysis, and given the two types of case studies included in this
24 assessment (i.e., point sources and the general urban case study), two estimates of the respiratory
25 deposition-absorption fraction pertaining to the two different environments were developed
26 again. In addition to the aspects considered in the 1987 analysis, this assessment involved the
27 use of publicly available particle dosimetry models and explicitly considered particle
28 inhalability. Addressing inhalability, which was not done in the 1987 analysis, has a larger effect
29 on the estimate for the point source environment due to a greater preponderance of larger
30 particles.
4 Among the model parameters for the IEUBK model (windows based version), this is termed "lung absorption" and
is entered as a percentage (USEPA, 2002b).
July 2007 H-32 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 In the current analysis, the Pb-laden aerosol size distributions for the two types of
2 environments were described in terms of their mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) and
3 GSD based on information on Pb particle size distributions described in the U.S. EPA Criteria
4 Document for Pb (USEPA, 2006a) and other available information (Cohen, 1987; Singh et al.,
5 2006).6'7 Regional deposition (with consideration to inhalability) for the aerosols was estimated
6 using two publicly available mathematical models: 1) the Multiple Path Particle Dosimetry
7 (MPPD) model, Version 2.0, and 2) the Lung Dose Evaluation Program (LUDEP), Version 2.07,
8 software. The MPPD model was developed by the CUT Centers for Health Research (CUT),
9 USA, in collaboration with the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM),
10 the Netherlands, and the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the
11 Netherlands (Asgharian et al., 2004; CUT and RIVM, 2002). The LUDEP model is an
12 implementation of the Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection model
13 developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1994). LUDEP
14 (Version 2.07) only allows simulations for adult males, and not for females or children.
15 For the adult simulations, the MPPD was run using the (Yeh and Schum, 1980) airway
16 model. The adult simulations used the normal augmenter breathing route and similar values for
17 functional residual capacity (FRC) (3,300 milliliters [ml]) and head volume (50 ml). Tidal
18 volume and breathing frequency values for each activity level were those from (ICRP, 2002), as
19 were hours associated with each activity level used in deriving daily regional deposition
20 estimates. For the child simulations, the MPPD symmetric airway model (Asgharian et al.,
21 2004) for age 23 months was run. The FRC, head volume, and activity-dependent values of tidal
22 volume and breathing frequency were obtained by a curve fit to the data for three or more ages
23 e.g., 0.25, 1, and 5 years of age (see Table 15 [(ICRP, 1994)).
24 To create the average daily estimates needed for the IEUBK model, a daily respiratory
25 volume-weighted average was derived for each region of the respiratory tract8 using estimates of
5 The case studies included in the 1990 U.S. EPA Staff Paper analysis were populations living near two secondary
Pb smelters, a primary Pb smelter, and a battery recycling plant (USEPA, 1990).
6 The particle size distribution presented for the smelter environments was collapsed into a lognormal distribution
with MMAD of 4.8 urn and GSD of 8.29.
7 The particle size distribution presented for the downtown urban site was collapsed into a lognormal distribution
with MMAD of 0.5 urn and GSD of 3.94.
8 The MPPD model truncates calculations at MMAD values above 20 um. For the point source scenario, assuming a
lognormal distribution; approximately 30 percent of the particle mass falls into this part of the distribution.
Deposition of these particles, assumed to occur in the head, was estimated based on their inhalability (Menache et
al., 1995).
July 2007 H-33 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
daily time spent at each activity level and the associated cumulative ventilation volume. The
estimates of average daily fractional deposition were then combined with estimates of
absorption. Estimates of fractional absorption of Pb associated with deposition in different
regions of the respiratory tract used in this analysis were the same as in the Cohen (1987)
analysis, which are consistent with information presented in the U.S. EPA Criteria Document for
Pb (USEPA, 2006a). Absorption was estimated to be complete (100 percent) for particles
depositing in the alveolar region, while absorption was estimated at 40 percent for particles
depositing in the head or tracheobronchial region and were assumed to clear to the GI tract for
absorption.
The adult estimates of total and regional average daily respiratory tract deposition derived
using the two different models are generally similar (see Attachment H-l-1). The adult estimates
of total deposition are not that dissimilar from those for children. However, the regional
deposition values for children relative to adults were lower for the pulmonary region and higher
for the tracheobronchial and head regions. This finding is consistent with observations in the
current literature (Phalen and Oldham, 2001; USEPA, 2006a; pages 4-4 and 4-5). Consistent
with Cohen (1987), the current analysis for the general urban environment showed greater
deposition in the tracheobronchial and head regions of children as compared to adults. The
relatively lesser pulmonary deposition of children in both environments, while similar to
observations in the literature, differs from Cohen (1987), in which factors of 1.3 to 1.5 were
assigned to calculate estimates of pulmonary deposition for children from estimates for adults.
Attachment H-l-1. Estimates of Average Daily Respiratory
Deposition Fraction - Current Analysis
Body Region
2-year Old Child
(MPPD)
Adult
(MPPD)
Adult
(LUDEP)
General Urban Case Study
Alveolar Region
Tracheobronchial Region
Head Region
Total
0.038
0.020
0.122
0.170
0.119
0.026
0.109
0.254
0.122
0.014
0.093
0.230
Point Sources/Smelters
Alveolar Region
Tracheobronchial Region
Head Region
Total
0.015
0.012
0.225
0.252
0.053
0.012
0.230
0.295
0.065
0.010
0.207
0.282
23
July 2007
H-34
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 All estimates of respiratory deposition-absorption fraction (i.e., the IEUBK "lung
2 absorption" parameter) derived in the current analysis are lower than the previous estimates (see
3 Attachment H-l-2) indicating the influence of the newly considered inhalability.
4 The regional deposition differences between children and adults discussed above were
5 amplified when they were multiplied by the regional Pb absorption estimates of 100 percent for
6 the pulmonary region (where deposition is greater for adults) and 40 percent for tracheobronchial
7 and head regions (where deposition is greater for children), such that the resultant estimates of
8 respiratory deposition-absorption fraction were slightly lower for children than adults. However,
9 observations on particle deposition in the different regions of the human respiratory tract are less
10 available for children (the target population for this risk assessment) as compared to adults, more
11 greatly limiting our ability to evaluate the child-specific deposition estimates and accordingly
12 contributing to greater uncertainty. Consequently, rather than assigning a lower respiratory
13 deposition-absorption fraction estimate to the target population than the estimates obtained from
14 the adult modeling, the estimates chosen for IEUBK modeling were the averages of the values
15 obtained from the MPPD and ICRP adult model simulations. That is, 0.27 was selected as the
16 respiratory deposition-absorption fraction estimate for the smelter case studies and 0.24 was
17 selected as the estimate for the general urban case study. The same values were adopted as
18 absolute total absorption fractions in the sensitivity analysis conducted using the Leggett model.
19 The Leggett model regional deposition fractions (which determine the rate at which Pb is
20 released to the blood stream from the various lung compartments) were not changed from the
21 default values.
July 2007 H-35 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Attachment H-l-2. Estimates of Respiratory Deposition-Absorption Fraction - Previous
and Current Analyses
Source
General
2-Year Old Child
Adult
Urban
Cohen, 1987
MPPD (this analysis)
ICRP-LUDEP (this analysis)
0.25 to 0.45
0.17
0.1 5 to 0.30
0.25
0.23
Point Sources/Smelters
Cohen, 1987
Cohen, 1987 (adjusted for inhalability)
MPPD (this analysis)
ICRP-LUDEP (this analysis)
0.42
0.32 a
0.22
0.38
0.27 to 0.28 a
0.26
0.28
4
5
a This value was derived by adjusting the Cohen (1987) estimated fractional deposition for larger particles based on
inhalability (ICRP, 1994; Menache et al., 1995). Per ICRP (1994), the same adjustment was made for child as
adults.
July 2007
H-36
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix I: Blood Lead (PbB) Modeling Estimates
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents I-i
List of Exhibits I-ii
I. BLOOD LEAD MODELING ESTIMATES 1-1
I.I. CALCULATION OF PATHWAY CONTRIBUTIONS TO BLOOD PB 1-1
1.2. GENERAL URBAN CASE STUDY 1-2
1.2.1. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study 1-2
1.2.2. PbB Results for the General Urban Case Study 1-5
1.2.3. Ambient Air to PbB Ratios for the General Urban Case Study 1-35
1.3. PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY 1-39
1.3.1. Description of PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Primary Pb Smelter Case
Study 1-39
1.3.2. PbB Results for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study 1-41
1.3.3. Ambient Air to PbB Ratios for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study 1-47
1.4. SECONDARYPB SMELTER CASE STUDY 1-53
1.4.1. Description of PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case
Study 1-53
1.4.2. PbB Results for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study 1-54
1.4.3. Ambient Air to PbB Ratios for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study 1-59
REFERENCES 1-66
July 2007 I-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study 1-4
Exhibit 1-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) - Estimated
PbB Levels 1-7
Exhibit 1-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) - Estimated PbB
Levels 1-11
Exhibit 1-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 |ig/m3, Maximum Quarterly
Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-15
Exhibit 1-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average)-EstimatedPbB Levels 1-19
Exhibit 1-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-23
Exhibit 1-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-27
Exhibit 1-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3, Maximum Monthly
Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-31
Exhibit 1-9. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) - Ambient
Air Pb to PbB Ratios 1-36
Exhibit 1-10. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) - Ambient Air Pb to
PbB Ratios 1-36
Exhibit 1-11. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 ng/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios 1-37
Exhibit 1-12. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios 1-37
Exhibit 1-13. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ng/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios 1-38
Exhibit 1-14. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ng/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios 1-38
Exhibit 1-15. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ng/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios 1-39
Exhibit 1-16. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study 1-41
July 2007 I-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit 1-17. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS Scenario (1.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-42
Exhibit 1-18. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ng/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average)-EstimatedPbB Levels 1-43
Exhibit 1-19. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels 1-44
Exhibit 1-20. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-45
Exhibit 1-21. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-46
Exhibit 1-22. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS Scenario (1.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-48
Exhibit 1-23. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-49
Exhibit 1-24. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-50
Exhibit 1-25. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-51
Exhibit 1-26. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-52
Exhibit 1-27. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study 1-54
Exhibit 1-28. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Scenario - Estimated PbB
Levels 1-55
Exhibit 1-29. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average)-EstimatedPbB Levels 1-56
Exhibit 1-30. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-57
Exhibit 1-31. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-58
Exhibit 1-32. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) -Estimated PbB Levels 1-59
Exhibit 1-33. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Scenario - Ambient Air to
PbB Ratios 1-61
July 2007 I-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit 1-34. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-62
Exhibit 1-35. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-63
Exhibit 1-36. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-64
Exhibit 1-37. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios 1-65
July 2007 I-iv Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 I. BLOOD LEAD MODELING ESTIMATES
2 This appendix presents the blood lead (PbB) estimates for each case study and for all
3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) scenarios considered in this analysis.
4 Section 1.2 contains the results for the general urban case study, including an overview of the
5 scenarios evaluated (see Section 1.2.1), the PbB estimates for several percentiles of the PbB
6 distribution (see Section 1.2.2), and the ambient air Pb concentration to PbB ratios (see Section
7 1.2.3). Similarly, Section 1.3 provides the results for the primary Pb smelter case study, including
8 an overview of the scenarios evaluated (see Section 1.3.1), the PbB results for several percentiles
9 (see Section 1.3.2), and the ambient air Pb concentration to PbB ratios (see Section 1.3.3).
10 Finally, Section 1.4 presents the results for the secondary Pb smelter case study, including an
11 overview of the scenarios evaluated (see Section 1.4.1), the PbB results for several percentiles
12 (see Section 1.4.2), and the ambient air Pb concentration to PbB ratios (see Section 1.4.3).
13 Estimates presented in this appendix are specified with regard to number of decimal
14 places, which results in various numbers of implied significant figures. This is not intended to
15 convey greater precision for some estimates than others; it is simply an expedient and initial
16 result of the software used for the calculation. Greater attention is given to significant figures in
17 the presentation of estimates in the main body of the report.
18 LI. CALCULATION OF PATHWAY CONTRIBUTIONS TO BLOOD PB
19 In the subsequent sections of this appendix, the PbB estimates are separated into
20 contributions from diet, drinking water, outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust from "other" sources,
21 indoor dust from "recent air" sources, and the inhalation of recent air. These contributions are
22 estimated by calculating the percentage of uptake from each pathway and applying the same
23 percentage to the total PbB estimate. To calculate the percentage of total Pb uptake arising from
24 the different exposure pathways, the intake for each medium is calculated as the total amount
25 consumed of the given medium multiplied by the concentration of Pb in that medium. The
26 uptake is then calculated as the intake multiplied by the fraction of Pb that is absorbed for that
27 medium. All the relevant input parameters needed for this calculation are discussed in Appendix
28 H. For indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust, the total ingestion of both media is divided into
29 separate indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust contributions by multiplying by the percentage of the
30 total ingestion which arises from outdoor soil/dust (as discussed in Appendix H). The intakes are
31 calculated for all seven years of the child's life and then a lifetime average intake is calculated
32 for each medium. Finally, these are summed to get the total average yearly uptake, and the
33 percentage arising from each pathway is calculated as the uptake in a given medium divided by
34 the total.
July 2007 1-1 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The separation of indoor dust Pb into two portions is described for each case study in
2 Appendix G. These are: (1) that derived from "recent air" contributions and 2) "other." The PbB
3 contributions arising from these different portions of indoor dust Pb ingestion are derived by
4 applying the percentage of the dust Pb concentration arising from each of these two sources to
5 the total dust intake percentage. As described in Appendix G, how these portions, and their
6 corresponding percentages of total dust Pb concentration, are estimated varies with the model
7 used to estimate dust Pb concentration. For the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model, the "recent
8 air" percentages of total dust Pb is the percent contribution of dust Pb loading from the
9 mechanistic portion of the model and the percent from "other" is the percent contribution from
10 the empirical portion. For the regression-based models, these percentages are estimated as the
11 air slope multiplied by the air concentration ("recent air") and the intercept ("other" sources)
12 relative to the total estimated indoor dust Pb concentration. For the site-specific model used for
13 the primary Pb smelter case study, the "other" portion is assigned the dust Pb concentration at the
14 modeled receptor with the lowest air Pb concentration. Then, the percent from "other" sources is
15 calculated as this constant contribution to dust Pb concentration divided by the total dust Pb
16 concentration at each receptor. The "recent air" portion is the remainder after subtracting "other"
17 from the total dust Pb.
18 1.2. GENERAL URBAN CASE STUDY
19 1.2.1. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study
20 Exhibit 1-1 lists the major elements of the modeling approach used in estimating PbB
21 distributions in each general urban case study scenario. PbB model inputs for the general urban
22 case study were single estimates of the exposure concentrations representing the geometric mean
23 (GM) exposure concentrations for the entire child population of the simulated urban
24 environment. These concentrations were assumed to remain constant throughout the seven years
25 of exposure modeled in the biokinetic model. As discussed in Appendix G, two distinct dust
26 models (the air-only regression-based model and the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model
27 ["hybrid model" for short]) were used to generate PbB estimates. Both concurrent (average of
28 the results at 75 and 81 months of age in the seventh year of life) and lifetime (average of the
29 results between age six and 84 months) PbB metrics are reported. The estimated inter-individual
30 variability (i.e., geometric standard deviation [GSD] values) used to generate PbB distributions
31 are also shown in Exhibit 1-1.
32 The age-specific outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust, inhalation exposure, and drinking water
33 concentrations and dietary Pb intakes discussed in Appendix H were used to generate PbB
34 estimates using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Children
July 2007 1-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 (hereafter referred to as the "IEUBK model") for each dust model and each PbB metric. The
2 IEUBK model has been well-documented, is widely used, and has been subject to a range of
3 testing and calibration exercises (see Section 4.4 of USEPA (2006)]). These estimates
4 represented the GM PbB estimates for each scenario in the general urban case study. To capture
5 the inter-individual variability within the urban environment, the GSD values were then applied
6 to the GM values for each NAAQS scenario-dust model-PbB metric combination. The
7 lognormal distributions created by the GM and GSD were sampled 50,000 times to generate PbB
8 distributions, from which percentile estimates were derived, as described in Appendix H. For the
9 general urban case study, two GSD values were chosen for each PbB metric to represent high
10 and low variability cases, as shown in Exhibit 1-1. Data supporting the selection of values for the
11 GSDs are provided in Appendix H.
July 2007 1-3 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit 1-1. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study
NAAQS Scenario
Current conditions
(95th percentile)
Current conditions
(mean)
Current NAAQS
(1.5 microgram per
cubic meter (|ig/m3),
max quarterly
average)
Alternative NAAQS 1
(0.2 |ig/m3, max
quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2
(0.5 |ig/m3, max
monthly average)
Dust Model
(see Appendix G)
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
GSD (microgram
per deciliter
tug/dL])
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
July 2007
1-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit 1-1 Continued. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study
NAAQS Scenario
Alternative NAAQS 3
(0.2 |ig/m3, max
monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4
(0.05 |ig/m3, max
monthly average)
Dust Model
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
Air-only regression-based model
Hybrid model
GSD (microgram
per deciliter
iMO/dL])
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
2
3 1.2.2. PbB Results for the General Urban Case Study
4 Exhibit 1-2 through Exhibit 1-8 summarize the predicted PbB percentiles for scenarios in
5 the general urban case study. The exhibits also provide estimated contributions from each
6 pathway to total Pb uptake, expressed as percentages. Because there is no specific population in
7 the general urban case study (unlike in the two point source case studies), these percentages do
8 not vary by PbB percentile. The contribution from the ingestion of indoor dust is separated into
9 the contribution derived from recent ambient air and that from other sources (e.g., indoor paint,
10 outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources including historical air), as described in Appendix G.
11 In general, the concurrent PbB values are lower than the lifetime PbB values for all
12 percentiles and in all scenarios. Because the age-specific outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust
13 ingestion input parameters are highest for children ages two, three, and four, PbB tends to be
14 higher during these years and lower at ages one, five, six, and seven. Therefore, the lifetime
15 average PbB value, which includes all ages, is higher than the concurrent PbB value, which is the
16 average PbB at 75 and 81 months during the seventh year of life.
17 The hybrid mechanistic-empirical dust model predicts higher indoor dust Pb
18 concentrations for ambient air Pb concentrations less than 0.28 ng/m3 than those predicted by the
19 air-only regression-based model. In contrast, the hybrid model predicts lower indoor dust Pb
20 concentrations for ambient air Pb concentrations greater than 0.28 |J,g/m3. Only the current
July 2007
1-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 NAAQS scenario has an annual-average ambient air Pb concentration above 0.28 ng/m3 (i.e.,
2 0.6 |j,g/m3). Thus in this scenario, the air-only regression-based model predicts higher PbB levels
3 than the hybrid model. In all other scenarios, the median PbB values are higher when the hybrid
4 model is used to predict indoor dust concentrations, as expected. In general, the higher PbB
5 percentiles also follow this trend. However, in the second alternative NAAQS (0.5 ng/m3,
6 maximum monthly average) scenario, the PbB values obtained using the higher GSD (2.1 |J,g/dL)
7 for the concurrent PbB metric are higher for the 95th, 99th, 99.5th, and 99.9th percentiles when the
8 air-only regression-based model is used than when the hybrid model is used. This unexpected
9 trend is likely due to sampling error in the "tails" of the distribution, particularly because it
10 occurs with higher GSDs, but not with lower GSDs.
July 2007 1-6 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-th
1 Exhibit 1-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95m Percentile) - Estimated
2 PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.0
7.6
6.7
4.7
3.9
2.8
2.0
1.4
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.9
9.4
8.4
6.1
5.2
3.9
2.8
2.1
1.0
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
July 2007
1-7
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-th
1 Exhibit 1-2 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95m Percentile)
2 Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.8
8.2
7.3
5.1
4.2
3.1
2.1
1.5
0.6
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
13.0
10.2
9.1
6.7
5.6
4.2
3.1
2.2
1.0
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
July 2007
I-t
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-th
1 Exhibit 1-2 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95m Percentile)
2 Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
19.9
13.1
11.1
6.7
5.1
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
24.6
16.7
14.3
8.9
6.9
4.5
2.8
1.8
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
July 2007
1-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
-th
Exhibit 1-2 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95 Percentile)
Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
21.5
14.2
12.0
7.2
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.3
0.4
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
26.7
18.1
15.5
9.6
7.5
4.9
3.1
1.9
0.6
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
4
5
6
1
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) - Estimated PbB
2 Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.0
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.2
0.5
19.4%
11.3%
41.3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.7
8.3
7.4
5.5
4.6
3.5
2.5
1.8
0.8
19.4%
11.3%
41.3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
July 2007
1-11
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-3 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) -
Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.8
7.6
6.6
4.6
3.8
2.8
1.9
1.3
0.6
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.7
9.4
8.3
6.0
5.1
3.8
2.8
2.0
0.9
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
July 2007
1-12
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-3 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) -
Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
16.4
11.7
9.9
6.0
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.3
19.4%
11.3%
41.3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
20.2
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.1
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
19.4%
11.3%
41.3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
July 2007
1-13
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-3 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) -
Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
17.9
12.9
10.8
6.5
5.0
3.1
1.9
1.2
0.3
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
22.2
16.4
13.9
8.6
6.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
0.5
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
4
5
6
1
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 (lg/m , Maximum Quarterly
2 Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
18.4
14.2
12.6
8.7
7.2
5.2
3.7
2.6
1.1
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
22.2
17.7
15.8
11.5
9.7
7.3
5.3
3.9
1.8
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
July 2007
1-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-4 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
16.5
12.6
11.0
7.6
6.2
4.5
3.1
2.2
0.9
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
19.7
15.5
13.7
9.9
8.3
6.2
4.5
3.3
1.5
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
July 2007
1-16
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-4 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
35.1
25.0
20.9
12.3
9.4
6.0
3.6
2.2
0.6
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
43.9
32.0
27.1
16.5
12.8
8.4
5.3
3.3
1.0
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
July 2007
1-17
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-4 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
28.5
21.0
17.3
10.6
8.1
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.6
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
35.6
26.7
22.3
14.1
10.9
7.2
4.5
2.8
0.9
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
4
5
6
1
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-18
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ^lg/m3, Maximum
2 Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.4
7.3
6.4
4.4
3.6
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.5
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.1
8.9
7.9
5.7
4.8
3.7
2.7
1.9
0.9
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
July 2007
1-19
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-5 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2
2 Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.2
7.8
6.9
4.8
4.0
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.6
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
12.2
9.6
8.6
6.3
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.0
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
July 2007
1-20
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-5 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2
2 Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
18.1
12.4
10.4
6.2
4.8
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.3
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
22.3
15.6
13.3
8.2
6.4
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.5
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
July 2007
1-21
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-5 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
20.3
14.1
11.5
6.9
5.3
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
25.1
17.9
14.7
9.2
7.1
4.7
2.9
1.8
0.6
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
4
5
6
1
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-22
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ^lg/m3, Maximum
2 Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.0
7.7
6.8
4.8
3.9
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.6
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
12.0
9.5
8.5
6.2
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.0
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
July 2007
1-23
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-6 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5
2 Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.9
8.5
7.5
5.2
4.3
3.1
2.2
1.5
0.6
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1.0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
13.1
10.5
9.4
6.8
5.7
4.3
3.2
2.3
1.1
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1.0%
July 2007
1-24
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-6 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5
2 Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
20.3
13.5
11.2
6.8
5.2
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
25.1
17.2
14.5
9.1
7.0
4.6
2.9
1.8
0.6
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
July 2007
1-25
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-6 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
18.6
12.7
10.6
6.7
5.2
3.4
2.2
1.4
0.4
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1.0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
31.4
20.9
17.2
10.5
8.0
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.6
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1.0%
4
5
6
7
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-26
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ^lg/m3, Maximum
2 Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.1
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.5
19.7%
11.5%
41.9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.8
8.3
7.5
5.4
4.6
3.4
2.5
1.8
0.8
19.7%
11.5%
41.9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
July 2007
1-27
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-7 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2
2 Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.9
7.5
6.5
4.5
3.7
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.6
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.8
9.3
8.2
5.9
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.0
0.9
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
July 2007
1-28
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-7 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2
2 Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
17.0
11.7
9.9
5.9
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.3
19.7%
11.5%
41.9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
20.9
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.0
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
19.7%
11.5%
41.9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
July 2007
1-29
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-7 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
18.3
12.6
10.6
6.4
4.9
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.3
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
22.6
16.0
13.6
8.5
6.6
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.5
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
4
5
6
1
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-30
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |lg/m , Maximum
2 Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.9
6.3
5.5
3.9
3.2
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.5
21.5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.4
7.6
6.8
5.0
4.2
3.1
2.3
1.7
0.8
21.5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
July 2007
1-31
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-8 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05
2 Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.5
6.7
5.9
4.1
3.4
2.4
1.7
1.2
0.5
20.5%
11.9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.0
8.1
7.2
5.2
4.4
3.3
2.4
1.7
0.8
20.5%
11.9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
July 2007
1-32
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit 1-8 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05
2 Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
15.8
11.2
9.2
5.5
4.2
2.7
1.6
1.0
0.3
21.5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
19.3
14.0
11.7
7.2
5.6
3.7
2.3
1.4
0.5
21.5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
July 2007
1-33
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-8 Continued. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 \ig/m ,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Predicted
PbB (ng/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
16.2
11.5
9.5
5.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
1.0
0.3
20.5%
11.9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
19.9
14.4
12.1
7.5
5.9
3.8
2.4
1.5
0.5
20.5%
11.9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
4
5
6
1
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with
outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-34
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 1.2.3. Ambient Air to PbB Ratios for the General Urban Case Study
2 Exhibit 1-9 through Exhibit 1-15 show the ratio of the annual average ambient air Pb
3 concentration to the PbB estimate (where a ratio of 1:2.0 indicates that the PbB, estimated in
4 Hg/dL, is twice the ambient air concentration, estimated in ng/m3). The ratios in this section
5 were calculated before the application of the GSD to the PbB values to account for inter-
6 individual variability. That is, the GM PbB estimates for each NAAQS scenario (i.e., the
7 unadjusted IEUBK outputs) are used to determine the ratios. All ratios are presented to one
8 decimal place, which results in various numbers of implied significant figures (e.g., 1 to 5).1
9 This is not intended to convey greater precision for some ratios than others; it is simply an
10 expedient and initial result of the software used for the calculation. Greater attention is given to
11 significant figures in the presentation of ratios in the main body of the report.
12 For each NAAQS scenario, ratios are provided for different portions of the estimated
13 PbB. The first ratio (inhalation [recent air]) is for that portion of PbB estimated to be derived
14 from inhalation of ambient air. The second (inhalation+ingestion [recent air]) is for the
15 aggregate PbB estimated to result from inhalation of ambient air plus ingestion of the Pb in
16 indoor dust that is predicted to be associated with ambient air Pb levels. The third
17 (inhalation+ingestion [recent and past air]) is the aggregate PbB resulting from the inhalation of
18 ambient air, the ingestion of indoor dust, and the ingestion of outdoor soil/dust.
19 As a result of the dust equations used for the general urban case study, the indoor dust Pb
20 contributions other than that associated with recent ambient air Pb levels cannot be distinguished.
21 This is because indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust or other sources (e.g., historical ambient air
22 contributions) are all represented by a single constant intercept in the indoor dust loading
23 equation (for the hybrid model) or indoor dust concentration equation (for the air-only
24 regression-based model). Therefore, the third ratio includes contributions to PbB from indoor
25 paint, as well as recent ambient air Pb levels and past deposition of ambient air Pb to outdoor
26 soil/dust. Accordingly, this ratio may be an overestimate of the relationship of ambient air Pb
27 concentration to the portion of PbB derived from ambient air Pb.
1 Similarly, the ambient air annual average Pb concentration estimates are presented to three decimal places,
resulting in various numbers of implied significant figures (e.g., 1 to 3). No difference in precision is intended to be
conveyed; this is simply an expedient and initial result of the software used for presentation.
July 2007 1-35 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
-th
Exhibit 1-9. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95 Percentile) - Ambient
Air Pb to PbB Ratios
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb Concentration
(jig/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (u.g/m3 : jig/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and
Past Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.114
1 : 0.2
1 : 3.9
1 : 12.6
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.114
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.7
1 : 18.1
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.114
1 : 0.2
1 : 7.1
1 : 14.0
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.114
1 : 0.3
1 : 10.3
1 : 20.3
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
Exhibit 1-10. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) - Ambient Air Pb to
PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb Concentration
(jig/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (^g/m3 : jig/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and
Past Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.056
1 : 0.2
1 :4.0
1 :21.9
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.056
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.7
1 : 31.2
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.056
1 : 0.2
1 : 9.9
1 : 24.6
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.056
1 : 0.3
1 : 14.2
1 : 35.5
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-36
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Exhibit 1-11. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 Jlg/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb Concentration
(ng/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (ng/m3 : jig/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and
Past Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.600
1 : 0.2
1 : 3.7
1 :5.3
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.600
1 : 0.2
1 : 5.4
1 :7.6
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.600
1 : 0.2
1 : 3.2
1 :4.4
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.600
1 : 0.2
1 :4.6
1 :6.3
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
Exhibit 1-12. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 Hg/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual Average
Pb Concentration (jig/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (ng/m3 : |ig/dl_)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.080
1 : 0.2
1 :4.0
1 : 16.4
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.080
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.7
1 : 23.5
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.080
1 : 0.2
1 : 8.4
1 : 18.5
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.080
1 : 0.3
1 : 12.1
1 : 26.7
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-37
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-13. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |lg/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual Average
Pb Concentration (jig/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (ng/m3 : |ig/dl_)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and
Past Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.125
1 : 0.2
1 : 3.9
1 : 11.8
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.125
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.7
1 : 17.0
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.125
1 : 0.2
1 :6.8
1 : 13.1
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.125
1 : 0.3
1 : 9.9
1 : 19.0
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
Exhibit 1-14. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 M-g/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual Average
Pb Concentration (jig/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (^g/m3 : jig/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and
Past Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.050
1 : 0.2
1 :4.0
1 : 24.0
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.050
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.7
1 : 34.3
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.050
1 : 0.2
1 : 10.4
1 :27.1
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.050
1 : 0.3
1 : 14.9
1 : 38.9
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-38
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-15. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |lg/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) - Ambient Air Pb to PbB Ratios
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual Average
Pb Concentration (jig/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (ng/m3 : |ig/dl_)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and
Past Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.013
1 : 0.2
1 :4.0
1 : 84.9
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-
based
0.013
1 : 0.2
1 : 5.7
1 : 120.6
Concurrent PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.013
1 : 0.2
1 : 17.1
1 : 90.8
Lifetime PbB Metric
Hybrid
0.013
1 : 0.2
1 : 24.4
1 : 129.3
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
1.3. PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
1.3.1. Description of PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Ambient air and soil Pb concentration estimates for the primary Pb smelter case study
were estimated as described in Appendix D. Exposure concentrations were assumed to be
constant throughout the seven-year duration of the exposure scenario. Data from the U.S.
Census provided estimates of the numbers of children (birth to seven years of age) living in each
block or block group in the year 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). The numbers of exposed
children in each U.S. Census block or block group were assumed to be constant through the
entire seven-year exposure period. In- and out-migration to and from the case study areas was
not considered. PbB levels were modeled for each child as though exposure started at birth and
continued through 84 months (seven years of age). Maternal PbB levels during pregnancy were
assumed to be identical for all children at a level consistent with nationally representative values
for women of childbearing age. Thus, all children were assumed to start with the same body
burden of Pb at birth. Similarly, all exposed children were assumed to receive the same pattern
of nationally representative policy-relevant background exposures throughout the exposure
period.
July 2007
1-39
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Estimates of indoor dust Pb concentrations were generated using the site-specific H6
2 model for the U.S. Census blocks and block groups within 1.5 kilometer (km) of the source.
3 Dust Pb concentration estimates in more distant U.S. Census blocks and block groups were
4 derived using the U.S. EPA air+soil regression-based model, as discussed in Appendix G. Thus,
5 unlike the general urban case study, only a single set of indoor dust concentrations was input to
6 the IEUBK model (along with the outdoor soil/dust, inhalation exposure, dietary, and drinking
7 water Pb concentrations) to generate GM PbB estimates for each U.S. Census block and block
8 group. As in the urban case study, both concurrent (at 75 and 81 months during the seventh year
9 of life) and lifetime (ages 6 to 84 months) average PbB metrics were estimated for each NAAQS
10 scenario.
11 To capture the inter-individual variability and the PbB levels for the whole population,
12 random lognormal probability distributions, represented by GSD values, were superimposed on
13 the U.S. Census block GM estimates, as discussed in Appendix H. In each iteration of the
14 probabilistic model, a single U.S. Census block or block group was randomly selected, where the
15 probability of selecting a given block was proportional to the number of children ages birth to
16 seven years in that block. A random uniform variate was sampled and used as the probability
17 ("p") input to the Excelฎ LOGINV function, along with the GM value for the block group and
18 the GSD value selected for the case study and exposure scenario. The resulting PbB estimate for
19 each iteration was therefore a lognormally distributed variate reflecting the GM for the randomly
20 chosen U.S. Census block and the specified GSD value. This process was repeated for 50,000
21 iterations, and the resultant distribution of PbB estimates was used to generate population PbB
22 percentile estimates. For the primary Pb smelter case study, a single set of GSD values was used
23 for each PbB metric, as shown in Exhibit 1-16. Supporting data for the GSD estimates are
24 provided in Appendix H.
July 2007 1-40 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit 1-16. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
NAAQS Scenario
Current NAAQS
(1.5 |ig/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 1
(0.2 |ig/m3, max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2
(0.5 |ig/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3
(0.2 |ig/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4
(0.05 |ig/m3, max monthly average)
GSD (ng/dL)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
2
3 1.3.2. PbB Results for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
4 Exhibit 1-17 through Exhibit 1-21 summarize PbB distribution percentile estimates for all
5 scenarios in the primary Pb smelter case study. In addition, the estimates of the percent
6 contribution of each exposure pathway to the overall Pb uptake estimates are given for each
7 percentile. The indoor dust contribution is separated into the contribution derived from recent
8 ambient air and that from other sources (e.g., indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional
9 sources including historical air), as described in Appendix G. These contribution estimates were
10 derived for the GM PbB estimates for each U.S. Census block or block group before the GSD is
11 applied to generate the PbB distributions. The PbB percentile estimates, however, are those after
12 the application of the GSD. Thus, as some of the high percentile PbB values are actually
13 associated with U.S. Census blocks (or block groups) with low PbB GMs (and vice versa), these
14 exhibits contain some seemingly irregular trends in pathway contributions.
15 Also included in Exhibit 1-17 through Exhibit 1-21 are the estimated numbers of children
16 with PbB levels above the various percentiles. As in the general urban case study, the concurrent
17 PbB percentile estimates tend to be lower than the corresponding percentiles of lifetime
18 estimates under all of the exposure scenarios.
July 2007
1-41
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-17. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS Scenario (1.5 ug/m ,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
18.8
11.7
9.2
4.8
3.6
2.3
1.5
1.0
0.4
3.0%
4.0%
6.3%
21.6%
15.1%
32.9%
11.1%
36.9%
30.9%
1.7%
2.3%
3.7%
12.6%
8.8%
19.1%
6.5%
21.5%
18.0%
11.5%
14.7%
6.8%
39.1%
48.5%
22.6%
53.9%
18.9%
27.1%
27.0%
35.9%
56.7%
17.1%
17.1%
17.2%
16.9%
17.7%
17.5%
56.0%
42.5%
25.9%
9.0%
9.8%
7.6%
10.8%
4.6%
6.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.4%
0.4%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
24.3
15.4
12.5
6.5
4.8
3.2
2.1
1.4
0.6
4.9%
4.9%
18.0%
12.4%
18.0%
32.9%
15.0%
32.9%
31.7%
2.9%
2.8%
10.5%
7.2%
10.5%
19.1%
8.7%
19.1%
18.5%
9.8%
8.2%
45.1%
49.3%
44.7%
22.6%
47.7%
22.6%
28.0%
44.6%
44.2%
17.3%
16.3%
17.2%
17.2%
16.8%
17.2%
18.1%
37.2%
39.2%
8.5%
13.7%
8.9%
7.6%
10.9%
7.6%
3.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.6%
0.3%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-42
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-18. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
11.3
7.8
6.6
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.9
0.4
5.3%
10.3%
12.2%
16.5%
23.9%
12.2%
32.5%
16.5%
38.4%
3.1%
6.0%
7.1%
9.6%
13.9%
7.1%
18.9%
9.6%
22.4%
26.8%
63.1%
59.3%
52.8%
41.2%
59.3%
28.6%
52.8%
19.7%
15.5%
18.9%
18.6%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.4%
48.9%
1 .6%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.6%
1 .4%
2.3%
1.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
14.3
10.2
8.6
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
7.1%
16.0%
6.0%
7.7%
12.2%
25.5%
34.3%
22.7%
31.9%
4.2%
9.3%
3.5%
4.5%
7.1%
14.8%
20.0%
13.2%
18.6%
68.5%
53.8%
16.9%
17.0%
59.3%
39.7%
25.7%
43.4%
28.9%
19.0%
18.7%
17.7%
22.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.3%
1.1%
2.1%
55.3%
47.8%
2.6%
1.3%
1 .4%
2.0%
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
4
5
6
1
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-43
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-19. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB
(Mfl/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent
Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
14.1
9.1
7.4
4.3
3.4
2.2
1.4
1.0
0.4
4.8%
4.8%
10.2%
25.6%
18.9%
16.1%
35.9%
34.4%
35.9%
2.8%
2.8%
5.9%
14.9%
11.0%
9.4%
20.9%
20.1%
20.9%
18.5%
18.5%
7.3%
37.3%
47.6%
51.5%
22.6%
23.7%
22.6%
23.9%
23.9%
50.4%
18.1%
18.2%
18.1%
18.2%
18.0%
18.2%
49.4%
49.4%
25.7%
3.8%
3.9%
4.6%
2.2%
3.5%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
18.4
12.2
9.7
5.8
4.5
3.0
2.0
1.3
0.6
11.7%
3.7%
4.8%
11.9%
7.9%
16.0%
32.0%
34.4%
25.6%
6.8%
2.1%
2.8%
6.9%
4.6%
9.3%
18.7%
20.1%
14.9%
56.1%
18.5%
18.5%
57.6%
15.7%
51.1%
28.1%
23.7%
37.3%
17.7%
18.1%
23.9%
18.1%
38.9%
18.0%
18.2%
18.0%
18.1%
7.1%
57.0%
49.4%
5.1%
32.5%
5.1%
2.8%
3.5%
3.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-44
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-20. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB
(Mfl/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent
Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
10.9
7.8
6.5
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.9
0.4
12.3%
16.6%
14.1%
19.8%
14.1%
26.1%
35.2%
24.0%
34.5%
7.2%
9.7%
8.2%
11.5%
8.2%
15.2%
20.5%
14.0%
20.1%
58.8%
52.8%
56.1%
48.2%
56.1%
37.7%
24.3%
41.4%
25.3%
18.5%
18.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.6%
18.4%
18.4%
18.5%
18.4%
3.0%
2.1%
2.8%
1.7%
2.8%
2.5%
1 .4%
1.9%
1.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
14.0
10.0
8.5
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
10.4%
5.8%
16.6%
16.6%
12.2%
35.2%
26.3%
16.6%
35.2%
6.0%
3.4%
9.7%
9.6%
7.1%
20.5%
15.3%
9.6%
20.5%
63.3%
29.5%
52.8%
53.1%
24.2%
24.3%
38.2%
53.1%
24.3%
18.9%
14.7%
18.6%
18.7%
30.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
1.3%
46.2%
2.1%
1.9%
25.6%
1 .4%
1.5%
1.9%
1 .4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-45
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-21. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB
(Mfl/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent
Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
9.8
7.1
6.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
1.4
0.9
0.4
16.4%
7.6%
16.8%
16.6%
23.1%
28.5%
32.9%
14.4%
19.1%
9.6%
4.5%
9.8%
9.7%
13.5%
16.6%
19.2%
8.4%
11.1%
45.0%
68.4%
53.9%
54.1%
44.1%
35.9%
29.0%
57.4%
38.0%
14.9%
19.2%
19.0%
19.0%
18.9%
18.8%
18.7%
19.0%
17.3%
14.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.7%
14.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
12.2
9.0
7.8
5.1
4.1
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
8.7%
35.6%
35.6%
18.7%
36.0%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
5.1%
20.8%
20.8%
10.9%
21.0%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
66.8%
24.6%
24.6%
50.9%
24.1%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.2%
18.6%
18.6%
19.0%
18.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-46
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 1.3.3. Ambient Air to PbB Ratios for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
2 Exhibit 1-22 through Exhibit 1-26 show the ratios of the ambient air Pb concentration to
3 estimated PbB, where a ratio of 1:2.0 indicates that the PbB is twice the ambient air
4 concentration, using ambient air units of ng/m3 and PbB units of ng/dL. In all of these exhibits,
5 the ratios are calculated before the application of the GSD representing inter-individual
6 variability to the U.S. Census block or block group GM Pb values. And, the PbB estimates used
7 to calculate air to blood ratios come from either the median or 99.5th percentile U.S. Census
8 blocks or block groups (with regard to air concentration), as indicated in the tables. All ratios are
9 presented to one decimal place, which results in various numbers of implied significant figures
10 (e.g., 1 to 5).2 This is not intended to convey greater precision for some ratios than others; it is
11 simply an expedient and initial result of the software used for the calculation. Greater attention
12 is given to significant figures in the presentation of ratios in the main body of the report.
13 As in the general urban case study, ratios are provided for different portions of the
14 estimated PbB. The first ratio (inhalation [recent air]) is for that portion of PbB estimated to be
15 derived from inhalation of ambient air. The second (inhalation+ingestion [recent air]) is for the
16 aggregate PbB estimated to result from inhalation of ambient air plus ingestion of the Pb in
17 indoor dust that is predicted to be associated with ambient air Pb levels. The third
18 (inhalation+ingestion [recent and past air]) is the aggregate PbB resulting from the inhalation of
19 ambient air, the ingestion of indoor dust, and the ingestion of outdoor soil/dust. As the Pb in
20 dust (that is included within the 3rd ratio) is inclusive of non-air-related sources such as Pb paint
21 (captured via the intercept of both indoor dust models employed for this case study), this third
22 ratio may be an overestimate of the relationship of ambient air Pb concentration to the portion of
23 PbB derived from recent and past air Pb throughout the study area.
2 Similarly, the ambient air annual average Pb concentration estimates are presented to three decimal places,
resulting in various numbers of implied significant figures (e.g., 1 to 3). No difference in precision is intended to be
conveyed; this is simply an expedient and initial result of the software used for presentation.
July 2007 1-47 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-22. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS Scenario (1.5 ug/m ,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.093
0.740
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :2.7
1 : 11.1
1 : 12.5
1 : 15.1
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5'h
Percentile
0.059
0.740
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.2
1 : 3.8
1 : 15.2
1 : 28.0
1 : 20.7
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-48
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-23. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.017
0.147
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :2.7
1 : 19.8
1 : 62.8
1 : 36.7
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.017
0.147
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 3.9
1 : 28.7
1 : 89.2
1 : 53.4
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-49
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-24. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.033
0.326
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :2.7
1 : 15.2
1 : 32.3
1 :21.5
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.033
0.326
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.2
1 : 3.8
1 :21.7
1 : 45.9
1 : 30.7
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-50
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-25. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.013
0.119
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :2.7
1 :21.8
1 : 77.2
1 : 42.5
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.013
0.119
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 3.9
1 : 31.8
1 : 109.2
1 :61.9
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-51
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-26. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m ,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.002
0.006
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :2.7
1 :2.5
1 : 387.4
1 : 887.3
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Air+soil regression-based
andH6
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.002
0.006
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 3.9
1 : 3.7
1 : 547.1
1 : 1294.4
3
4
5
6
7
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-52
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 1.4. SECONDARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
2 1.4.1. Description of PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
3 Ambient air and soil Pb concentration estimates for the secondary Pb smelter case study
4 were estimated as described in Appendix E. Exposure concentrations were assumed to be
5 constant throughout the seven-year duration of the exposure scenario. As in the primary Pb
6 smelter case study, the numbers of exposed children in each U.S. Census block or block group
7 were assumed to be constant through the entire seven-year exposure period. In- and out-
8 migration to and from the case study areas was not considered. PbB levels were modeled for
9 each child as though exposure started at six months and continued through 84 months. Maternal
10 PbB levels during pregnancy were assumed to be identical for all children at a level consistent
11 with nationally representative values for women of childbearing age. Thus, all children were
12 assumed to start with the same body burden of Pb at birth. Similarly, all exposed children were
13 assumed to receive the same pattern of nationally representative policy-relevant background
14 exposures throughout the exposure period.
15 For all of the scenarios evaluated, indoor dust Pb concentrations were estimated using the
16 air-only regression-based model. Thus, as for the primary Pb smelter case study, only one set of
17 indoor dust concentrations were input to the IEUBK model (along with the outdoor soil/dust,
18 inhalation exposure, dietary, and drinking water Pb concentrations) to generate PbB estimates for
19 each scenario evaluated. Concurrent and lifetime average PbB metrics were generated for each
20 NAAQS scenario. The probabilistic model was then run in the same manner as described in
21 1.3.1 for the primary Pb smelter case study. Exhibit 1-27 summarizes the various model
22 scenarios run for the secondary Pb smelter case study.
July 2007 1-53 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit 1-27. PbB Model Scenarios Run for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
NAAQS Scenario
Current Conditions
Alternative NAAQS 1
(0.2 |ig/m3 max quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2
(0.5 |ig/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3
(0.2 |ig/m3, max monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4
(0.05 |ig/m3, max monthly average)
GSD (ng/dL)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
2
3 1.4.2. PbB Results for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
4 Exhibit 1-28 through Exhibit 1-32 provide the population percentile PbB estimates for the
5 secondary Pb smelter case study scenarios, along with estimates of the pathway contributions to
6 total Pb uptake. The indoor dust contribution is separated into the contribution derived from
7 recent ambient air, and that from other sources (e.g., indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and
8 additional sources including historical air), as described in Appendix G. These estimates of
9 pathway contributions were derived for the GM PbB estimates for the individual U.S. Census
10 blocks, before the GSDs for inter-individual PbB variability were applied to generate the PbB
11 distributions. The PbB percentile estimates, however, are those after application of the GSD.
12 Thus, as some of the high percentile PbB values are actually associated with U.S. Census blocks
13 with low PbB GMs (and vice versa), these exhibits contain some seemingly irregular trends in
14 pathway contributions. The exhibits also provide estimates of the numbers of children estimated
15 to have PbB levels greater than the various percentiles. As in the previous two case studies, the
16 concurrent PbB population percentile estimates are less than the lifetime estimates for the
17 corresponding percentiles in all cases.
July 2007
1-54
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-28. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Scenario (1.5 ug/m ,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percent! le
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.3
4.0
3.5
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
39.7%
33.4%
42.0%
41.1%
29.4%
37.9%
39.7%
41.8%
41.8%
23.1%
19.4%
24.5%
24.0%
17.1%
22.1%
23.1%
24.3%
24.3%
4.5%
17.6%
0.3%
1.9%
25.1%
8.2%
4.5%
0.6%
0.6%
31.3%
26.3%
33.1%
32.5%
23.2%
29.9%
31.3%
33.0%
33.0%
1.3%
3.1%
0.2%
0.5%
5.0%
1.9%
1.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.9
4.5
4.0
2.9
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
13.8%
38.7%
39.3%
41.6%
38.7%
39.6%
41.4%
40.4%
41.7%
8.0%
22.5%
22.9%
24.2%
22.5%
23.0%
24.1%
23.5%
24.3%
46.9%
6.2%
5.4%
1.0%
6.2%
4.9%
1.3%
3.1%
0.8%
10.9%
30.5%
31.0%
32.8%
30.5%
31.2%
32.6%
31.9%
32.9%
19.3%
2.0%
1.3%
0.3%
2.0%
1 .2%
0.5%
1.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
4
5
6
1
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-55
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-29. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percent! le
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.3
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
40.1%
39.7%
41.0%
41.9%
41.6%
40.7%
39.4%
40.1%
41.9%
23.3%
23.1%
23.9%
24.4%
24.2%
23.7%
22.9%
23.3%
24.4%
4.6%
5.5%
2.7%
0.6%
1.2%
3.1%
6.2%
4.6%
0.6%
31.6%
31.3%
32.3%
33.0%
32.8%
32.1%
31.1%
31.6%
33.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.6
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
32.9%
40.4%
37.0%
37.5%
40.1%
38.7%
41.7%
39.9%
41.3%
19.2%
23.5%
21.6%
21.9%
23.3%
22.5%
24.3%
23.2%
24.0%
20.5%
3.9%
11.3%
10.4%
4.5%
7.7%
0.9%
5.1%
1.9%
26.0%
31.9%
29.2%
29.6%
31.6%
30.5%
32.9%
31.4%
32.6%
1.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-56
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-30. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percent! le
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
15.2%
40.1%
41.7%
35.0%
41.4%
39.2%
31.5%
41.2%
39.2%
8.8%
23.3%
24.3%
20.4%
24.1%
22.8%
18.4%
24.0%
22.8%
51.5%
4.2%
0.9%
14.9%
1.5%
6.2%
22.5%
2.0%
6.2%
12.0%
31.6%
32.9%
27.6%
32.7%
30.9%
24.9%
32.5%
30.9%
11.9%
0.7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.2%
0.8%
2.6%
0.4%
0.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.9
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
35.4%
39.0%
18.3%
39.1%
39.0%
41.7%
41.4%
41.1%
39.8%
20.6%
22.7%
10.6%
22.8%
22.7%
24.3%
24.1%
23.9%
23.2%
13.5%
6.2%
50.4%
6.2%
6.2%
0.9%
1.5%
2.1%
4.9%
28.0%
30.8%
14.4%
30.9%
30.8%
32.9%
32.7%
32.4%
31.4%
2.4%
1.1%
6.0%
1.0%
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-57
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-31. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
19.0%
41.8%
32.0%
33.9%
42.0%
39.4%
38.8%
38.8%
36.2%
11.1%
24.3%
18.6%
19.7%
24.5%
23.0%
22.6%
22.6%
21.1%
52.3%
0.8%
22.6%
18.3%
0.3%
6.1%
7.4%
7.4%
13.3%
15.0%
33.0%
25.2%
26.8%
33.2%
31.1%
30.7%
30.7%
28.5%
2.5%
0.1%
1.5%
1.2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.8
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
39.4%
37.6%
41.3%
41.3%
33.7%
38.6%
41.8%
37.0%
42.0%
23.0%
21.9%
24.1%
24.1%
19.6%
22.5%
24.4%
21.5%
24.5%
6.1%
10.4%
1.9%
1.9%
19.4%
7.9%
0.7%
11.7%
0.3%
31.1%
29.6%
32.6%
32.6%
26.6%
30.5%
33.0%
29.2%
33.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4
5
6
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-58
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-32. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Estimated PbB Levels
PbB
Percent! le
Population
Above
Predicted
PbB (|jg/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other a
Recent Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
41.9%
41.8%
37.6%
41.9%
17.1%
39.6%
39.8%
41.8%
37.6%
24.4%
24.4%
21.9%
24.4%
10.0%
23.0%
23.2%
24.3%
21.9%
0.6%
0.8%
10.7%
0.6%
58.0%
6.1%
5.5%
0.8%
10.7%
33.1%
33.0%
29.7%
33.1%
13.5%
31.2%
31.4%
33.0%
29.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
5.7
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
40.2%
40.3%
39.5%
41.9%
40.2%
39.8%
39.5%
40.2%
41.9%
23.4%
23.5%
23.0%
24.4%
23.4%
23.2%
23.0%
23.4%
24.4%
4.6%
4.3%
6.3%
0.6%
4.7%
5.5%
6.2%
4.7%
0.6%
31.7%
31.8%
31.2%
33.1%
31.7%
31.4%
31.2%
31.7%
33.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4
5
6
1
9
10
11
12
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
1.4.3. Ambient Air to PbB Ratios for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Exhibit 1-33 through Exhibit 1-37 show the ratio of ambient air Pb concentration to PbB
estimates, where a ratio of 1:2.0 indicates that the PbB, estimated in ng/dL, is twice the ambient
air concentration, estimated in ng/m3. The ratios are calculated before the application of the
GSD to the GM PbB values to account for inter-individual variability. And, as in the primary Pb
July 2007
1-59
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 smelter case study, the PbB estimates come from either the median or 99.5th percentile U.S.
2 Census blocks or block groups (with regard to air concentration). All ratios are presented to one
3 decimal place, which results in various numbers of implied significant figures (e.g., 1 to 5).3
4 This is not intended to convey greater precision for some ratios than others; it is simply an
5 expedient and initial result of the software used for the calculation. Greater attention is given to
6 significant figures in the presentation of ratios in the main body of the report.
7 As in the other two case studies, ratios are provided for different pathway contributions to
8 PbB. The first ratio (inhalation [recent air]) is for that portion of PbB estimated to be derived
9 from inhalation of ambient air. The second (inhalation+ingestion [recent air]) is for the
10 aggregate PbB estimated to result from inhalation of ambient air plus ingestion of the Pb in
11 indoor dust that is predicted to be associated with ambient air Pb levels. The third
12 (inhalation+ingestion [recent and past air]) is the aggregate PbB resulting from the inhalation of
13 ambient air, the ingestion of indoor dust, and the ingestion of outdoor soil/dust.
14 The indoor dust model used to estimate indoor dust Pb concentrations in this case study
15 does not distinguish Pb contributions to indoor dust other than that from recent ambient air Pb
16 levels. This is because indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust and other sources are all represented by a
17 single constant intercept in the model. Therefore, the third ratio includes contributions to PbB
18 from indoor paint as well as recent ambient air Pb levels and recent plus past deposition of
19 ambient air Pb to outdoor soil/dust. Accordingly, this ratio may be an overestimate of the
20 relationship of ambient air Pb concentration to the portion of PbB derived from recent and past
21 air sources.
3 Similarly, the ambient air Pb concentration estimates are presented to three decimal places, resulting in
various numbers of implied significant figures (e.g., 1 to 3). No difference in precision is intended to be conveyed;
this is simply an expedient and initial result of the software used for presentation.
July 2007 1-60 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-33. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Scenario (1.5 ug/m ,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.005
0.052
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :4.5
1 : 3.6
1 : 73.9
1 : 24.5
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.003
0.052
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.9
1 : 5.1
1 : 184.8
1 : 34.9
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-61
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-34. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Quarterly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.001
0.014
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :4.5
1 : 3.6
1 : 264.1
1 : 81.2
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.001
0.014
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.9
1 : 5.1
1 : 344.2
1 : 115.2
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-62
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-35. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.003
0.029
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :4.5
1 : 3.6
1 : 127.7
1 : 40.6
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.002
0.029
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.9
1 : 5.1
1 :238
1 : 57.9
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-63
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-36. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.001
0.012
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :4.5
1 : 3.6
1 : 315.1
1 : 96.3
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.001
0.012
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.9
1 : 5.1
1 : 410.7
1 : 136.5
3
4
5
6
1
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-64
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit 1-37. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) - Ambient Air to PbB Ratios
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dust Model
Ambient Air Annual
Average Pb
Concentration (ug/m3)
Air to PbB Ratios (jig/m3 : ug/dL)
with PbB Contribution from:
Inhalation
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent Air) a
Inhalation
+lngestion
(Recent and Past
Air) a'b
Concurrent PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.000
0.003
1 : 0.2
1 : 0.2
1 :4.5
1 : 3.6
1 : 1780.5
1 : 373.5
Lifetime PbB Metric
Air-only regression-based
Air-only regression-based
Median
99.5th
Percentile
0.000
0.003
1 : 0.3
1 : 0.3
1 : 5.9
1 : 5.1
1 : 2864.7
1 : 529.9
a These results exclude application of the GSD reflecting inter-individual variability in Pb exposure and
biokinetics.
b "Past air" includes contributions from outdoor soil/dust contribution to indoor dust, historical air contribution to
indoor dust, and outdoor soil/dust pathways, and "recent air" refers to contributions associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be
associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
1-65
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) United States Census 2000: Summary File 1. Public Information Office. Available
3 online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfile 1 .html.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006) Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). Volume I and II.
5 Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF.
6 Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=158823.
7
July 2007 1-66 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix J: Performance Evaluation of Blood Pb (PbB) Models
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents J-i
List of Exhibits J-iii
J. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BLOOD PB MODELS J-l
J. 1. EVALUATION OF BIOKINETIC MODELS (IEUBK AND LEGGETT):
BLOOD PB PREDICTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN J-l
J.I.I. Exposure Scenarios J-l
J.1.2. Model Setup J-2
J. 1.3. Performance Evaluation Results J-3
J. 1.3.1. Scenario 1: Change in Predicted PbB with Increasing Pb
Uptake J-3
J.I.3.2. Scenario 2: Leggett and IEUBK Model Responses to Episodic
High Exposure J-5
J.I.3.3. Scenario 3: IEUBK Default Multipathway Exposure Scenario J-6
J.I.3.4. Summary of Biokinetic Model Performance on Defined
Exposure Scenarios J-9
J.2. EVALUATION OF LANPHEAR ET AL. (1998) EMPIRICAL
BLOOD PB MODEL J-10
J.2.1. Performance and Limitations of the Lanphear PbB Model J-11
J.3. PREDICTION OF BLOOD PB MODELS COMPARED TO POPULATION
BLOOD PB DATA J-ll
J.3.1. Comparison of Biokinetic Model Predictions toNHANES PbB
Survey Data J-ll
J.3.2. Comparison of Predicted PbB Concentrations to Measured PbB
Values from an Urban Cohort J-14
J.3.2.1. Overview of the Data Set J-14
J.3.2.2. Model Test Procedures J-15
J.3.2.3. Model Evaluation Results J-16
J.3.2.4. Explanation for the Discrepancies between Measured and
Predicted PbB Concentrations J-20
July 2007 J-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
J.4. SUMMARY OF BLOOD PB MODEL EVALUATION J-23
REFERENCES J-26
July 2007 J-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit J-l. Predicted PbB at Age 3 Years versus Pb Intake J-4
Exhibit J-2. FORTRAN Leggett Model Predicted PbB Response to a 1 Year Increase in Pb
Intake of 100 ng/day Starting at Age 2 J-5
Exhibit J-3. Estimated Age-Specific Pb Intakes and Uptakes Derived Based on the IEUBK
Default Input Parameters J-6
Exhibit J-4. Comparison of IEUBK PbB Predictions from the Pounds and Leggett (1998)
Multi-Source Exposure Scenario with Results Obtained in this Analysis Using
IEUBKwin32 J-7
Exhibit J-5. Comparison of Leggett Model-Predicted Annual Average PbB Concentrations
Obtained Based on the IEUBK Default Pb Intake Estimates with the Results of
Pounds and Leggett (1998) J-8
Exhibit J-6. Comparison of Leggett Model-Predicted Annual Average PbB Concentrations
Obtained Based on the IEUBK Default Pb Uptake Estimates with the Results
of Pounds and Leggett (1998) J-9
Exhibit J-7. Comparison of Biokinetic Model PbB Predictions to PbB Survey Data J-13
Exhibit J-8. Comparison of Observed and Predicted PbB Concentrations for the
Rochester, New York, Cohort J-17
Exhibit J-9. Measured and Predicted PbB Levels for Subsets of the Rochester,
New York, Cohort Data J-18
Exhibit J-10. Comparison of Average PbB Predictions from the IEUBK, Leggett, and
Lanphear Models with Measured PbB Levels from the Rochester Cohort J-19
Exhibit J-l 1. Correlation between IEUBK PbB Prediction Errors and Measured
Arithmetic Mean Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations J-21
Exhibit J-12. Errors in Lanphear Predicted PbB Concentrations versus Measured
Arithmetic Mean Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations J-22
Exhibit J-13. Errors in Lanphear Predicted PbB Concentrations versus Measured
PbB Concentrations J-23
July 2007 J-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
1 J. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BLOOD PB MODELS
2 This appendix presents the results of performance evaluation analyses of the models used
3 to estimate blood Pb (PbB) levels in this assessment. Section J. 1 describes the relative
4 performance of two biokinetic models when applied to a range of exposure scenarios for
5 individuals and for populations of children exposed to Pb. The two models are the Integrated
6 Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) (hereafter referred to as the
7 "IEUBK model") (USEPA, 1994) and the International Commission for Radiation Protection
8 (ICRP) model (hereafter referred to as the "Leggett model") (Leggett, 1993). Both models are
9 well-documented, widely used, and have been subject to a range of testing and calibration
10 exercises (see Section 4.4 of USEPA [(2006)]). Section J.2 describes the performance of the
11 "empirical" model (hereafter referred to as the "Lanphear model"), which includes children 6 to
12 24 months of age (Lanphear et al., 1998). Section J.3 describes the performance of the biokinetic
13 and empirical models when applied to selected populations of children exposed to Pb and
14 Section J.4 summarizes the results of the performance analysis.
15 J.I. EVALUATION OF BIOKINETIC MODELS (IEUBK AND LEGGETT): BLOOD
16 PB PREDICTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN
17 The performance of the two biokinetic models, IEUBK and Leggett, was evaluated by
18 comparing the PbB predictions from each model to results obtained previously by the U.S. EPA
19 and other investigators when the models were tested using specific exposure scenarios. The
20 purpose of this evaluation was to ensure that the model results were consistent with previous
21 calibration results.
22 J.I.I. Exposure Scenarios
23 The following three exposure scenarios were used to examine the performance of the two
24 biokinetic models:
25 Scenario 1: This scenario compared the predicted PbB levels in two- to three-year-old
26 children in response to a range of constant Pb uptakes from 0.1 to 100 micrograms (jig)
27 per day. This scenario is described on page 4-122 and is illustrated in Figure 4-32 of the
28 U. S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (USEPA, 2006). The primary output
29 measure from this scenario is the slope of the relationship between estimated PbB at age
30 three years and Pb uptake in the low-dose range (0 to 10 jig/day), where the model
31 responses are very nearly linear. Estimates of the daily Pb uptake were also compared,
32 which resulted in a predicted average PbB level of 10 jig per deciliter (dL), and a
33 predicted PbB level associated with 100 ng/day Pb uptake. This scenario provides a
34 straightforward test of the biokinetic components of the models because it bypasses
35 assumptions related to Pb absorption from different media. In the Leggett model, Pb was
36 assumed to directly enter the blood stream, as described below. In the IEUBK model, Pb
July 2007 J-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 uptake occurs through the ingestion pathway with an assumed ingestion absorption
2 fraction (API) value of 1.0 (or 100 percent absorption), or through the "alternative"
3 pathway, also with 100 percent absorption.
4 Scenario 2: In this scenario, a constant Pb uptake is assumed to begin at birth, resulting
5 in a PbB level of 2.0 |ig/dL at two years of age. At age two, Pb "exposure" (actually, oral
6 intake) is increased by 100 |ig/day for one year. This scenario is described in the U.S.
7 EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (USEPA, 2006; page 4-127, Figure 4-35).
8 Consistent with the description in the legend for Figure 4-32 of the U.S. EPA Air Quality
9 Criteria Document for Lead, "default bioavailability assumptions" were used (USEPA,
10 2006). The default was interpreted to be the Leggett default age-specific API values for
11 children from birth through three years of age, which is 45 percent from birth through age
12 100 days, decreasing linearly to 30 percent by one year of age, and remaining at 30
13 percent through childhood (USEPA, 2006). For the IEUBK runs, the default absorption
14 factor for outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust (30 percent) was used.
15 Scenarios: Scenario 3 is a multi-pathway exposure scenario, described by Pounds and
16 Leggett (1998). This exposure scenario was derived from the IEUBK default exposure
17 concentration and exposure/uptake/intake factor values, as defined in the U.S. EPA 1994
18 Technical Support Document (USEPA, 1994). In their study, Pounds and Leggett used
19 the IEUBK default values to derive annual average Pb intake and uptake estimates for
20 seven one-year age ranges beginning at birth. Exposure sources included diet, drinking
21 water, outdoor soil/dust, and indoor dust. Two sets of model inputs were developed for
22 the Leggett model: one set was the Pb intake estimates derived from the IEUBK defaults,
23 and the other set was the Pb uptake estimates corresponding to the same set of exposures.
24 In reproducing these two sets of estimates (see below), the age-specific Pb intakes were
25 input to the model using the default age-specific AFI values described in Scenario 2. Pb
26 uptake for input to the Leggett models was assumed to occur either directly into the blood
27 stream or by ingestion with 100 percent gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. All IEUBK
28 model inputs were maintained at their default values, except for indoor dust Pb
29 concentration, which was set to 200 ug per gram (g), consistent with the value that
30 Pounds and Leggett assumed.
31 J.I.2. Model Setup
32 Dr. Joel Pounds of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories provided the Leggett model
33 FORTRAN code. The code (Pounds, 2000) was imported into the Digital Visual FORTRANฎ
34 compiler and compiled into an .exe file that could be run from Windowsฎ. The original input
35 and output file formats were preserved. A batch version of the model (also in FORTRAN) was
36 also created that repeatedly called the original model code as a subroutine, passing results to
37 various sets of ingestion and inhalation Pb intake or uptake estimates for each age range. No
38 other features were added to the batch version of the model.
39 In both FORTRAN versions, the assumption that all ingested Pb was absorbed with the
40 same efficiency was maintained (i.e., only a single AFI value applies to all ingested Pb).
July 2007 J-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Therefore, to evaluate PbB impacts of multi-source scenarios (involving, for example, dietary,
2 drinking water, and outdoor soil/dust exposures), calculating Pb uptake (input to the GI tract or
3 blood stream) external to the model was necessary, so that a single "ingestion" intake or uptake
4 value could be provided for each age interval evaluated.
5 For simplicity, age-specific Pb inputs to the Leggett model were specified in one of two
6 ways: (1) as ingestion uptake values, assigning a constant value of 100 percent to the GI
7 absorption fraction; or (2) by using the "chronic" exposure pathway of the model, in which all
8 uptake is assumed to enter the blood/extra-vascular fluid compartment instantaneously. These
9 two approaches resulted in nearly identical PbB estimates, except for the first iterations
10 following large changes in exposures. In these cases, slightly more rapid increases in PbB levels
11 occurred in the "chronic" pathway than in other compartments. All biokinetic modeling
12 parameters and age ranges were maintained exactly as in the default input file Dr. Pounds
13 provided. In all tests performed, the batch version of the Leggett model generated identical
14 results to the off-the-shelf version (Pounds, 2000).
15 Also as part of the testing process, the effects of using different simulation time steps in
16 the Leggett model were examined. In all scenarios tested, time steps shorter than 0.1 day
17 resulted in nearly identical results, except in the first few iterations of each run. The differences
18 essentially disappeared for time steps of 0.01 days or less. Therefore, a constant iteration step of
19 0.01 days was used for all Leggett model testing. The default time step of 4 hours was used in
20 all IEUBK runs.
21 To reproduce comparisons with the IEUBK results, the U.S. EPA IEUBKwin32 model
22 Version 1.0ฉ, build 261, was used. Both single-run and batch model results were used, with
23 input parameter values specified as discussed below.
24 J.1.3. Performance Evaluation Results
25 J.l.3.1. Scenario 1: Change in Predicted PbB with Increasing Pb Uptake
26 The FORTRAN version of the Leggett model, in response to varying Pb uptake levels
27 between 1.0 and 100 |ig/dL, produced results that were very similar to those presented in the
28 U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (see Exhibit J-l and Figure 4-32 from the U.S.
29 EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead). In the uptake range of 0.1 to 10 jig/day, an
30 increase in Pb uptake of 0.90 |ig/dL per 1.0 |ig/day was estimated between the ages of two and
31 three years, which corresponds to 0.88 |ig/dL per |ig/day in Pb uptake reported in the U.S. EPA
32 Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (USEPA, 2006). The U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria
33 Document for Lead reported that a 10 ug/dL PbB level would result from a 12 ng/day Pb uptake.
July 2007 J-3 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Based on the Leggett modeling results, a value of 11.1 ug/day was calculated. The PbB
concentration associated with 100 ug/day Pb uptake in Figure 4-31 of the U.S. EPA Air Quality
Criteria Document for Lead is around 55 ug/dL (the axes of the chart are not labeled clearly); the
corresponding value predicted by the Leggett model was 55.4 ug/dL.
Initially, the PbB levels predicted using the IEUBK model differed slightly from the
results presented in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (USEPA, 2006), in
that the results of this assessment show a slight downward curvature with increasing Pb uptake.
However, essentially identical PbB predictions were obtained if the nonlinear uptake module in
the IEUBK was bypassed by setting the "Fraction Passive" input value to 1.0 (100 percent). It
was assumed that the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) also overrode this
module in their performance analysis, given the lack of curvature demonstrated in the PbB-Pb
uptake plot in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (USEPA, 2006; Figure 4-
32), which is reproduced by the results in Exhibit J-l.
Exhibit J-l. Predicted PbB at Age 3 Years versus Pb Intake
20
40
60
80
100
Pb Uptake (pg/day)
From the IEUBK runs, a PbB-Pb uptake slope of 0.36 ug/dL per ug/day uptake was
estimated, which is identical to the value reported in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria
Document for Lead. A Pb uptake of 27 ug/day corresponded to an estimated PbB level of 10
ug/dL for a three-year old, close to the value of 29 ug/day reported in the Criteria Document for
Lead (USEPA, 2006). The IEUBK estimated PbB at 100 ug/day uptake was 33.7 ug/dL; the
corresponding value from the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead figure is
approximately 33 ug/dL.
July 2007
J-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The results presented here closely agree with the results of the Leggett and IEUBK model
comparisons reported in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead. The reasons for
the small differences between these results and those in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria
Document for Lead are unclear, but they could include minor differences in the specification of
model inputs, limitations in machine precision, or rounding error. As mentioned above, identical
results were obtained with the off-the-shelf and batch versions of the FORTRAN version of the
Leggett model.
J.l.3.2. Scenario 2: Leggett and IEUBK Model Responses to Episodic High Exposure
As noted above, the second scenario examined the Leggett and IEUBK model response to
a sudden increase in Pb exposure beginning at two years of age. As shown in Exhibit J-2, the
results obtained using the FORTRAN version of the Leggett model are indistinguishable from
those presented in Figure 4-32 of the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead. When
the U.S. EPA ran this scenario through the Leggett model, the peak PbB achieved at age three
years was 23 |ig/dL. The corresponding result with the FORTRAN Leggett model was
23.2 |ig/dL. The maximum PbB predicted by the IEUBK model (10.0 ug/dL) also precisely
matched the results presented in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead.
Exhibit J-2. FORTRAN Leggett Model Predicted PbB Response to a 1 Year Increase in Pb
Intake of 100 ug/day Starting at Age 2
19
Age (years)
July 2007
J-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
J.l.3.3. Scenario 3: IEUBK Default Multipathway Exposure Scenario
To compare results from the Leggett and IEUBK models, Pounds and Leggett (1998)
constructed an exposure scenario for children 0 to 7 years of age based on the default input
parameter values for the IEUBK model. For each age group, they estimated Pb intake
(administered dose) and uptake (absorbed dose) using IEUBK default exposure concentrations,
behavioral variables, and absorption fractions. The IEUBK model was run using the default
values and the estimated annual average PbB for children from birth through age 7 years served
as the basis for comparison with the Leggett model predictions.
Pounds and Leggett (1998) ran the Leggett model using two different sets of intakes.
First, the uptake values were used as direct inputs to the biokinetic algorithms. Second, they
used the calculated Pb intake values as inputs, apparently applying the Leggett model default
AFI values to the summed intakes. (Note that the exact methods used to calculate uptake are not
well documented). Exhibit J-3 displays the intake and uptake estimates from Pounds and
Leggett (1998).
Exhibit J-3. Estimated Age-Specific Pb Intakes and Uptakes Derived Based on the IEUBK
Default Input Parameters
Source of
Exposure
Age Range (months)
6 to 12
12 to 23
24 to 35
36 to 47
48 to 59
60 to 71
72 to 84
Default Intake, ug/day
Air
Diet
Drinking Water
Outdoor Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Pb Paint
Total Intake
0.07
5.53
0.80
7.65
9.35
0.0
23.40
0.11
5.78
2.00
12.15
14.85
0.0
34.89
0.19
6.49
2.08
12.15
14.85
0.0
35.76
0.21
6.24
2.12
12.15
14.85
0.0
35.57
0.21
6.01
2.20
9.00
11.00
0.0
28.42
0.29
6.34
2.32
8.10
9.90
0.0
26.95
0.29
7.00
2.36
7.65
9.35
0.0
26.65
Default Uptake, ug/day
Air
Diet
Drinking Water
Outdoor Soil/Dust
+ Indoor Dust
Pb Paint
Total Uptake
0.02
2.54
0.37
4.68
0.00
7.59
0.04
2.63
0.91
7.36
0.00
10.90
0.06
2.98
0.96
7.44
0.00
11.38
0.07
2.90
0.99
7.53
0.00
11.42
0.07
2.86
1.04
5.69
0.00
9.58
0.09
3.03
1.11
5.16
0.00
9.30
0.09
3.36
1.13
4.89
0.00
9.30
17
18
Note: Data extracted from Pounds and Leggett (1998).
July 2007
J-6
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The Pounds and Leggett (1998) IEUBK exposure scenario estimates were reproduced by
2 simply running the IEUBK with its default inputs, which have not changed since the 1994
3 Technical Support Document was issued. As noted above, the only input that was adjusted was
4 the default indoor dust concentration, which was adjusted from 150 ug/g to 200 ug/g to yield
5 intake values consistent with Pounds and Leggett (1998). As shown in Exhibit J-4, resulting
6 PbB predictions were essentially identical to those reported by Pounds and Leggett (1998).
7 Exhibit J-4. Comparison of IEUBK PbB Predictions from the Pounds and Leggett (1998)
8 Multi-Source Exposure Scenario with Results Obtained in this Analysis Using
9 IEUBKwin32
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
I
D Pounds and Leggett (1998)
This Analysis
0.0
345
Age (years)
When the Pb intake values from Exhibit J-3 were used as inputs to the Leggett model in
this analysis, the results were generally similar to the Leggett model results obtained by Pounds
and Leggett (see Exhibit J-5). Except for age "1," which is defined by Pounds and Leggett as
from birth to the first birthday, results presented here are very close to the values from the
previous scenario. For infants less than 1 year old, the average PbB estimate is about 36 percent
higher than the earlier estimate (8.5 versus 6.2 ug/dL) (Pounds and Leggett, 1998). Possible
explanations for this rather large difference may be differing assumptions about very early
exposure patterns and/or assumptions about when the averaging of PbB concentrations was
initiated.
July 2007
J-7
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit J-5. Comparison of Leggett Model-Predicted Annual Average PbB Concentrations
2 Obtained Based on the IEUBK Default Pb Intake Estimates with the
3 Results of Pounds and Leggett (1998)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2- 10.0
5
"B)
^ 8.0
CO
A
Q_
0.0
8.5
8.7 8.8 9.1
D Pounds and Leggett (1998)
This Analysis
Age (years)
For older children, predicted PbB levels (based on intake) were very close to, but slightly
higher than, the corresponding values Pounds and Leggett obtained. For age "2," the prediction
is about 7 percent higher than the earlier estimate, and the difference decreases with age until age
7 when the difference is less than 2 percent. Given the inherent uncertainty in PbB modeling and
potentially numerous subtle differences in the way the model could have been run, these results
represent very good agreement.
When the calculated Pb uptake values from Exhibit J-3 were used as model inputs to the
Leggett model, results differed substantially from those of Pounds and Leggett, even though they
(presumably) used the same assumptions (see Exhibit J-6). For all age groups, predicted PbB
levels in this analysis using the Leggett model are 26 to 43 percent higher than the Pounds and
Leggett predictions. The reason for these differences is not clear. However, although the age-
specific Pb intakes obtained were consistent with the default IEUBK input parameters, the
pathway-specific or total Pb uptake (Pounds and Leggett, 1998) using the default values from the
1994 Technical Support Document (USEPA, 1994) were not. A more complete understanding
of the differences in PbB predictions requires access to documentation of the exact approaches
Pounds and Leggett used in deriving the intake and uptake estimates and in running the Leggett
model. Given the close agreement between the intake-based results, however, the differences are
almost certainly due to differences in model inputs, rather than significant differences in model
performance.
July 2007
J-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Exhibit J-6. Comparison of Leggett Model-Predicted Annual Average PbB Concentrations
2 Obtained Based on the IEUBK Default Pb Uptake Estimates with the
3 Results of Pounds and Leggett (1998)
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
14.0
12.4
12.4
D Pounds and Leggett (1998)
This Analysis
0.0
4 5
Age (years)
J.l.3.4. Summary of Biokinetic Model Performance on Defined Exposure Scenarios
IEUBK results reported in previous model comparisons were almost exactly replicated
here using the newest version of the model. The low-dose PbB slope estimate for three-year-olds
exactly matched the value reported in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead, as
did the maximum predicted PbB response to episodic high exposure beginning at age two.
IEUBK estimates of annual average PbB estimates arising from the Pounds and Leggett (1998)
multi-source scenario were also identical (within 0.1 ug/dL or less) to the previously reported
values for all age groups. These results indicate that application of the IEUBK model is
basically consistent with the approaches used in previous model comparisons.
In two of the three tests conducted, the FORTRAN version of the Leggett model
generated PbB predictions that were close or identical to the results obtained in previous
calibration and comparison exercises. The low-dose PbB slope for three-year-old children was
within about two percent (0.90 versus 0.88 |ig/dL per |ig/day uptake) of the value reported in the
U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (2006). The maximum predicted PbB level in
response to a sudden increase for one year in exposure beginning at age two (23.2 |ig/dL) was
identical to that reported in the U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (23 |ig/dL).
Thus, when the exposure scenarios and intake/uptake assumptions are precisely duplicated, the
FORTRAN version of the Leggett model appears to produce essentially the same results as the
model when applied by other investigators.
July 2007
J-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Even when the exposure conditions are less well documented and more difficult to
2 duplicate, results presented here for the Leggett model are similar to those obtained in previous
3 analyses. As noted above, for similar age patterns of total Pb intake, results matched fairly
4 closely (within seven percent, except for the youngest age group) those that Pounds and Leggett
5 (1998) obtained in their model comparison. Larger differences from the Pounds and Leggett
6 results were observed when uptake estimates were used as the basis for PbB prediction. As
7 explained above, these differences are likely related to potential inconsistencies in the way Pb
8 uptakes were calculated, rather than to differences in model performance per se.
9 Consistent with previous analyses, the Leggett model predicts PbB levels that are
10 significantly higher than the IEUBK model levels for similar exposure scenarios. The Pb intake-
11 PbB slope estimate derived from the Leggett model for exposure between ages two and three
12 years was approximately 2.5 times higher than that derived using the IEUBK model. This
13 difference is entirely due to differences in the biokinetic components of the two models, because
14 PbB uptake (the dose entering the biokinetic modules) was the same for both models. Similarly,
15 the Leggett prediction for the other two scenarios was 2.1 to 2.6 times greater than the IEUBK-
16 predicted response for the same exposures.
17 J.2. EVALUATION OF LANPHEAR ET AL. (1998) EMPIRICAL BLOOD PB MODEL
18 Lanphear et al.(1998) reported on the results of analyzing the relationships among
19 observed PbB levels in young children, socioeconomic and behavioral variables, and several Pb
20 exposure metrics in indoor dust, outdoor soil/dust, Pb paint, and drinking water. The model was
21 derived based on data from 12 United States epidemiologic studies of approximately 1,300
22 children, aged 6 months to 24 months, published between 1985 and 1996. Five of the studies
23 focused on children in urban areas while the others focused on children living near Pb smelting
24 or mining sites. Geometric mean (GM) PbB levels in the individual studies ranged from 1.92
25 ug/dL to 11.17 ug/dL; the GM PbB for the collective study population was 5.02 ug/dL.
26 In the best fitting (log-linear) model, wipe-dust Pb loading, outdoor soil/dust Pb
27 concentration, exterior sample location, paint condition, race, mouthing behavior, and several
28 interaction terms were significantly related to PbB. Lanphear et al.(1998) presented the results in
29 look-up tables showing the predicted PbB concentrations, with covariates set to mean values, as
30 a function of outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration and indoor dust Pb loading (Lanphear et al.,
31 1998; Table 4). The results in these tables can easily be interpolated using multiple regressions
32 to derive models to predict PbB in 16-month-olds (the mean age in the study population).
July 2007 J-10 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 J.2.1. Performance and Limitations of the Lanphear PbB Model
2 The performance of the Lanphear model has not been compared to that of other PbB
3 models to the same extent as the biokinetic models previously discussed. Although several other
4 empirical models have been developed to predict children's PbB (USEPA, 2006; Section 4.4.2),
5 variations in study populations, model structure, and input variables make model comparisons
6 difficult.
7 For human exposure and health risk assessment, the Lanphear model has two distinct
8 limitations. The first is that the model estimates PbB levels as a function of wipe-dust Pb
9 loading, rather than Pb dust concentration, which is the dust Pb metric used by many biokinetic
10 models (including the IEUBK and Leggett models). As discussed in Attachment G-l, deriving
11 empirical estimates of dust Pb concentrations from dust Pb loading values using the few data sets
12 that contain both measurements appears possible, but a substantial degree of uncertainty is
13 introduced into the estimates of the exposure metrics. Furthermore, the Lanphear model
14 estimates PbB levels for an infant of mean study age 16 months based on point estimates of
15 outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust exposure, with no temporal variation. Thus, no dynamic
16 component is incorporated, and the model cannot (except by averaging) predict PbB for
17 situations where exposures change over time.
18 More importantly, the Lanphear model was derived based on data from infants and
19 toddlers age 6 to 24 months and thus cannot be used to estimate PbB in older children. The
20 Lanphear model predictions are for children near their expected peak PbB levels; these values
21 cannot be directly compared to the lifetime and concurrent PbB metrics used in this assessment
22 for estimating IQ decrement (presented in Appendix K). These reasons limit use of the Lanphear
23 et al. (1998) model as a primary tool in this assessment. However, comparisons of the Lanphear
24 model predictions with predictions of the biokinetic models are presented later in this appendix
25 for a small cohort of young children with known dust Pb loading, dust Pb concentration, and PbB
26 levels as a further check on the performance of the biokinetic models.
27 J.3. PREDICTION OF BLOOD PB MODELS COMPARED TO POPULATION
28 BLOOD PB DATA
29 J.3.1. Comparison of Biokinetic Model Predictions to NHANES PbB Survey Data
30 The biokinetic models were further evaluated by comparing results (predicted PbB
31 levels) to statistics from PbB surveys of large populations. The premise underlying this
32 comparison was that, if the exposure factors and exposure concentrations used in the simulations
33 were, in fact, representative of recent general population exposures, a finding of predicted age-
July2007 J-ll Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 PbB profiles that were similar to the reported general population PbB profiles would increase
2 confidence in the ability of the models to capture impacts of changes in aggregate Pb intakes.
3 The model predictions were compared to data from the NHANES surveys conducted
4 from 1999 to 2002 (USEPA, 2006) and data from the National Human Exposure Assessment
5 Survey (NHEXAS) (USEPA, 2004) that measured children's PbB concentrations in three areas
6 of the United States in 1994. The biokinetic model simulations relied on the exposure factor
7 values, drinking water Pb concentrations and age-specific dietary Pb intake values used in this
8 risk assessment (Appendix H). Two sets of model outputs, based on two sets of indoor dust and
9 outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations (see below) were generated for comparison to the PbB
10 survey data. Additionally an ambient air concentration of 0.06 microgram per cubic meter (ug/
11 m3) was assumed for the inhalation exposure pathway, which contributed little to overall Pb
12 intake compared to the other pathways.
13 Two sets of "typical" indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations were derived
14 for use in the simulations. The first set consisted of the population-weighted GM indoor dust
15 and outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations from the Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
16 National Survey data (86 and 200 ug/g, respectively) (USEPA, 1996).1 See Appendix G for a
17 more detailed discussion of the HUD Survey data. The second set of outdoor soil/dust and
18 indoor dust concentration estimates was derived from data gathered during the NHEXAS.
19 Weighted GM soil/dust (56 ug/g) and dust Pb (162 ug/g) concentrations from the combined
20 NHEXAS study areas (Arizona; Baltimore, Maryland; and Region 5) were input into the IEUBK
21 and Leggett models to simulate typical children's exposures.
22 The IEUBK and Leggett models were run using both sets of outdoor soil/dust and
23 indoor dust inputs, and the other inputs described above, to generate age profiles of estimated
24 PbB concentrations. The results are summarized in Exhibit J-7.
1 Data on the relationship between dust Pb loading and Pb concentration was gathered as part of the HUD
National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in Housing conducted between November 1989 and 1990 (USEPA, 1995).
The goal of the survey was to obtain information on the presence and condition of Pb paint, outdoor soil/dust and
indoor dust Pb loading and Pb concentrations, as well as other household data, from a representative national sample
of 300 private homes and 100 public housing facilities. The data used to estimate outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust
Pb concentration in this analysis came from 284 private households that were ultimately sampled during the survey.
July 2007 J-12 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit J-7. Comparison of Biokinetic Model PbB Predictions to PbB Survey Data
PbB Levels from Biokinetic Models or Survey Data by Age in Months
PbB Levels
(pg/dL)
Age 13 to 24 Months
GM PbB Levels from Survey
Data
PbB Levels Predicted by
Biokinetic Models
NHANES IV 1999 to 2000 a
Leggett (NHEXAS, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
Leggett (HUD, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
IEUBK (NHEXAS, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
IEUBK (HUD Survey, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
2.5
6.9
9.4
2.5
3.4
Age 13 to 60 Months
GM PbB Levels from Survey
Data
PbB Levels Predicted by
Biokinetic Models
NHANES IV 1999 to 2000 b
NHANES IV 2001 to 2002 b
Leggett (NHEXAS, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
Leggett (HUD, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
IEUBK (NHEXAS, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
IEUBK (HUD Survey, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
2.2
1.7
6.7
9.2
2.2
3.0
Age 37 to 84 Months
GM PbB Levels from Survey
Data
PbB Levels Predicted by
Biokinetic Models
NHEXAS IV 1994
Leggett (NHEXAS, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
Leggett (HUD, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
IEUBK (NHEXAS, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
IEUBK (HUD Survey, outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust)
2.1
5.9
8.1
1.7
2.3
2 a Data extracted from Hattis (2006).
3 b Data extracted from U.S. EPA (2006; Table 4.4).
4
5 Exhibit J-7 shows that the IEUBK model PbB concentrations were much closer to the
6 NHANES IV GM than those of the Leggett model. Using the lower NHEXAS outdoor soil/dust
7 and indoor dust Pb concentration data, the PbB level for the youngest children (ages 13 to 24
8 months) predicted by IEUBK matched the NHANES age GM value for the same age group of
9 2.5 |ig/dL. The predicted PbB levels for children ages one through five years of age (2.2 or 3.0
10 |^g/dL, depending on the assumed outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust Pb concentrations) were
11 somewhat lower than the GM values for children in the same age range (2.2 ug/dL and 1.7
12 |ig/dL) seen in the 1999 to 2000 and 2001 to 2002 NHANES data, respectively. The same
13 pattern was seen when the age-averaged PbB predictions for older children (age 37 to 84
July 2007
J-13
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 months) are compared to survey data. The IEUBK model predictions were very close to the GM
2 values derived from the survey data, while the Leggett predictions were much higher.
3 When the higher GM indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations from the HUD
4 National Survey are used as inputs to the IEUBK model, the predicted PbB levels for young
5 children are higher than the GM values from the NHANES IV. The IEUBK blood predictions
6 decrease from 3.4 ug/dL for a 13- to 24-month-old to 2.4 ug/dL for a 49- to 60-month-old,
7 compared to NHANES GM PbB estimates for one- through five-year-olds of 2.2 ug/dL (1999 to
8 2000) and 1.7 ug/dL (2001 to 2002).
9 The ratio of Leggett predictions to survey GM PbB values ranges from 2.74 to 5.41
10 depending on the age group and assumed indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations.
11 Using the GM indoor dust loading and outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration from the HUD
12 national survey as inputs to the Lanphear et al. (1998) empirical model results in a PbB estimate
13 for a 16-month-old of 5.1 ug/dL. This estimate is roughly twice the observed GM value from the
14 NHANES IV (1999-2000) data for ages 13 to 24 months, but as high as that obtained with the
15 Leggett model for that age group.
16 J.3.2. Comparison of Predicted PbB Concentrations to Measured PbB Values from an
17 Urban Cohort
18 As the final test of model performance, the predicted PbB levels from the IEUBK,
19 Leggett, and Lanphear models were compared to measured PbB levels in a cohort of young
20 children for whom Pb outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust exposures have been well characterized.
21 J.3.2.1. Overview of the Data Set
22 Data relating to PbB levels, outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations, indoor dust Pb
23 concentrations, and loading for a cohort of 204 children who had been the subjects of a previous
24 epidemiological investigation were obtained from Dr. Bruce Lanphear (Lanphear et al., 1995;
25 Lanphear and Roghmann, 1997). The purpose of the study was to measure the levels of Pb in
26 outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust, paint, drinking water and PbB levels among children who had
27 lived at the same address in Rochester, New York, since six months of age. PbB and
28 environmental sampling were conducted in 1991 through 1994, when the children were
29 between!2 to 30 months old. Also included in the data set were a number of variables related to
30 socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and income level. This cohort was one of the 12 (Lanphear et
31 al., 1998) later used to derive the previously discussed empirical model for predicting PbB from
32 outdoor soil/dust concentration and indoor dust Pb loading.
July 2007 J-14 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Data were obtained as a SAS transport file; relevant variables were extracted to
2 spreadsheets. Arithmetic and GM values of outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration, house floor dust
3 loading, and house floor dust concentration values were derived for each sampled household.
4 Dust loading and concentration values were included in calculations of summary statistics
5 irrespective of floor covering type. Missing values were excluded from the calculation of
6 average and GM values; all households had at least one outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust sample,
7 and most had multiple samples. Outdoor soil/dust samples measured in the play yard, however,
8 were available for only 86 of the 204 households. Single PbB measurements (means of triplicate
9 analyses of the same sample) were also extracted from the SAS file.
10 J.3.2.2. Model Test Procedures
11 All three previously discussed models (the IEUBK and Leggett biokinetic models and the
12 Lanphear empirical equation) were used to derive PbB estimates for individual children in the
13 cohort. Estimates were derived using the outdoor soil/dust Pb, indoor dust loading, or indoor
14 dust Pb concentration data reported for the households for each child as model inputs. Reported
15 outdoor soil/dust concentrations measured in the play yard and the arithmetic mean indoor dust
16 concentrations measured on the floor were used as inputs to the biokinetic models. Outdoor
17 soil/dust concentrations measured in the play yard were found to be much more strongly
18 correlated with PbB levels than perimeter [drip line] outdoor soil/dust Pb levels. Air
19 concentration data were not collected in the study. One U.S. EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
20 monitor collected total suspended particulate matter (TSP) during the sampling time period
21 (January 1993 to June 1996) and within 50 kilometer (km) of the homes where indoor dust and
22 outdoor soil/dust samples were collected (USEPA, 2007). Concentrations from this monitor
23 were averaged from January 1993 to December 1996 to yield an average Pb air concentration of
24 0.035 |ig/m3. This value was used to approximate concentrations for input into the biokinetic
25 models. As in the other PbB estimating exercises, ambient air Pb concentrations (used here only
26 for the inhalation exposure pathway) contributed only a very small proportion of total Pb intake.
27 Pb exposures from other pathways (diet, drinking water) were also simulated; the inputs and
28 values for other exposure factors were described in Appendix H.
29 Biokinetic model PbB estimates for each child were the annual average PbB outputs for
30 the age group corresponding to the child's age at the time of the PbB measurement (rounded to
31 the nearest year (i.e., age groups one to two years or two to three years). Estimates were derived
32 only for the 86 of the 204 children for whom play yard outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations Pb
33 concentrations had been measured, because, as noted above, outdoor soil/dust concentration in
34 the play yard was found to be much more strongly correlated to measured PbB concentration
July 2007 J-15 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 than other outdoor soil/dust metrics. The estimates discussed below were derived using
2 arithmetic mean indoor dust Pb concentrations, unless otherwise specified.
3 PbB estimates were also derived for the Lanphear et al. (1998) empirical model, using
4 average play yard and indoor dust Pb loading values for the households where the children lived.
5 The Lanphear model provides estimates of PbB concentrations for 16-month-olds (the mean age
6 of children in the cohorts used to estimate the model). PbB concentrations from the model were
7 not corrected for variation with age (the Lanphear et al. (1998) model results were compared to
8 measured levels for all children, irrespective of the age at which PbB was measured) or for other
9 covariates.
10 J.3.2.3. Model Evaluation Results
11 Exhibit J-8 provides a comparison of the relationship between the measured PbB
12 concentrations (the x-axis) and PbB concentrations predicted (as described in Section J.3.2.2) for
13 the same child (the y-axis). The black line corresponds to equality between the measured and
14 predicted PbB levels (i.e., no prediction "error"). The strongest pattern visible is the large
15 number of children for which the Leggett PbB predictions were very much higher than the
16 measured PbB levels. Only two children had measured PbB levels greater than those predicted
17 for them by the Leggett model.
July 2007 J-16 Draft-Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit J-8. Comparison of Observed and Predicted PbB Concentrations for the
Rochester, New York, Cohort
70 n
60 -
icted PbB (|jg/dL)
8 6 8
0>
CL
20 -
10 -
0
C
m ' m
*
* .
' *ป "
*
IEUBK
Leggett
A Lanphear
' * .
. '
^
. .
f ป
ซ ' m ซ
" I* .' " ^ ^1
ป*"* *.. f *'* * ^^V A
ft
^^____---~~~~~~^
^^^
^__^-- -~~~~
^^^~~-~~~~^
A
^jSjwfif* *^:
) 10
20
30
Measured PbB (Mg/dL)
3
4
5
6
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Note: IEUBK and Leggett predictions are for age of child associated with measured PbB value, while Lanphear
predictions are based on children, age 16 months
A substantial proportion of the PbB levels predicted by the IEUBK model also fell well
above the measured values. In contrast to the Leggett model, however, a cluster of IEUBK
predicted PbB concentrations fell near or below the measured values. Finally, the bulk of the
Lanphear PbB model predictions were near or below the corresponding measured PbB values.
The slope of the Lanphear model predictions, however, appeared to be very small; compared to
measured values PbB tends to have been over-predicted at low Pb levels and under-predicted at
high Pb levels.
A more detailed breakdown of the PbB predictions for each model is presented in Exhibit
J-9. In this exhibit, average measured and predicted PbB levels are shown for the entire cohort
and for the cohort broken down by quintiles with regard to measured PbB levels. For the entire
data set, the average PbB levels predicted by IEUBK (12.3 ug/dL) and Leggett (22.4 ug/dL)
were substantially greater than the average measured PbB (7.3 ug/dL). The IEUBK predictions
were on average about 70 percent greater than the corresponding measured values for the data set
taken as a whole, while the PbB levels Leggett model predictions were on average 3.1 times
July 2007
J-17
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
greater. This pattern is consistent with the relative magnitude of IEUBK and Leggett predictions
based on typical population exposures discussed in Section J.3.1.
Exhibit J-9. Measured and Predicted PbB Levels for Subsets of
the Rochester, New York, Cohort Data
Group
Measured
IEUBK
Leggett
Lanphear
Arithmetic Mean Measured/Estimated PbB (fig/dL)
Whole Data Set
1st Quintile
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
5th Quintile
7.3
3.1
4.9
6.7
8.5
13.5
12.3
13.7
8.6
7.6
13.7
18.1
22.4
18.3
18.9
21.0
23.6
30.6
6.5
6.2
5.3
6.5
7.0
7.5
Ratio of Prediction to Measured PbB (unitless)
Whole Data Set
1st Quintile
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
5th Quintile
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
4.4
1.8
1.1
1.6
1.3
3.1
5.9
3.8
3.1
2.8
2.3
0.9
2.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
Note: IEUBK and Leggett predictions are for age of child associated with measured PbB
value, while Lanphear predictions are based on children, age 16 months
Exhibit J-10 provides a graphical summary of the data in Exhibit J-9. This exhibit clearly
illustrates how much greater the average modeled Leggett PbB predictions were across all
quintiles than the measured PbB levels for the same quintiles. Interestingly, however, the
"slope" of the Leggett predictions across the quintiles was very similar to that seen in the
observed average PbB levels.
July 2007
J-18
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit J-10. Comparison of Average PbB Predictions from the IEUBK, Leggett, and
Lanphear Models with Measured PbB Levels from the Rochester Cohort
1st Quintile
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
5th Quintile
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In contrast, PbB predictions from the IEUBK model did not increase monotonically
across the measured PbB quintiles. Predicted PbB values for the two lowest quintiles were
higher than the observed average PbB levels, but the IEUBK predictions for the three highest
quintiles increased with a slope not very dissimilar from that seen in the data. As shown in
Exhibit J-9, the IEUBK model over predicted PbB levels compared to the measured average
values by between 30 to 60 percent for the two highest quintiles. Finally, it can be seen that the
Lanphear model gave average PbB predictions that were, on the whole, closest to those seen in
the Rochester data set. However, the "slope" across the quintiles was much lower than that seen
in the data set.
Looking at the performance of the three models in predicting PbB levels for this data set,
three distinct patterns can be seen. The Leggett model consistently and substantially over
predicted average PbB relative to the observed data, but the change in predicted PbB levels
across the quintiles was very close to that seen in the data set. This suggests that the low-
exposure "intercept" of the Leggett model was set too high, while the "slope" (response to
increasing Pb uptake) reproduced the pattern seen in the data quite well. In the case of the
IEUBK model, it was hard to understand the pattern of PbB predictions that were seen for the
two lowest quintiles. Based on the pattern shown in Exhibit J-10, it appeared that outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust Pb exposure levels associated with relatively low PbB levels in the data
July 2007
J-19
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 set were consistently being given undue weight in the model's exposure, intake and uptake
2 modules, while at higher exposures, the outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust Pb intake values were
3 weighted so as to given similar PbB increments as observed in the data set. Finally, while the
4 Lanphear model yielded PbB predictions that most closely matched the observed quintile
5 averages, in terms of absolute differences, it appeared that the response to increasing Pb uptake
6 from outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust was weaker (the "slope" is shallower) than the pattern
7 seen in the Rochester data set. Potential explanations for these patterns of model behavior are
8 discussed in Section J.3.2.4.
9 J.3.2.4. Explanation for the Discrepancies between Measured and Predicted PbB
10 Concentrations
11 One issue that effected the evaluation of all of the models was the difficulty of estimating
12 the contribution of inter-individual variability in exposures, and responses to Pb exposures, to the
13 observed variability in measured PbB levels in the Rochester cohort. When the biokinetic
14 models were applied to estimate PbB levels for children in this cohort, Pb exposure
15 concentrations inputs were measurements at a single point in time which did not reflect potential
16 temporal (e.g., seasonal) variability. Similarly, the uptake and biokinetic module parameters
17 were single-valued estimates, and likewise did not reflect inter-individual differences in Pb
18 absorption, deposition, and elimination. In the case of the Lanphear empirical model, variability
19 in exposure, absorption, and responsiveness were "lumped" into the central tendency estimates
20 of the model parameters that were used in this analysis.
21 To the extent that the various sources of uncertainty were not accounted for in the PbB
22 modeling, the overall variability of predicted PbB values can be expected to be lower than they
23 would be if all of these factors could be included in the analysis. Exposure concentrations and
24 other input parameters tend to be positively skewed (often lognormal) with long "tails"
25 increasing the mean of the distribution. Therefore, it is likely that the overall impact of not
26 including all sources of variability in the PbB modeling was to give arithmetic means that are
27 somewhat underestimated compared to those that would be obtained if all sources of variability
28 could be included. The available data do not allow the extent of this potential bias to be
29 estimated. It is not likely that the general patterns of predicted versus measured PbB values
30 shown in Exhibit J-9 and Exhibit J-10 depend very strongly on the on the extent to which inter-
31 individual variability is accounted for in the PbB modeling.
32 Predictions from the IEUBK model seem to match population PbB distributions more
33 closely than those from the Leggett model. For the Rochester cohort data, the extent to which
34 the IEUBK model overestimated PbB compared to measured Pb was strongly correlated with the
July 2007 J-20 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 average measured indoor dust Pb concentration (see Exhibit J-l 1). That is, the IEUBK model
2 appeared to be giving a greater influence to the higher dust Pb concentrations than was seen in
3 the PbB measurements.
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Exhibit J-ll. Correlation between IEUBK PbB Prediction Errors and Measured
Arithmetic Mean Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
5
g 50.0
CO
Q.
TJ
0)
3J 30.0
(0
0)
1
1
1 mo
X.
ง
LU ซ
*
*
**
ป
*4i **
r*
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Indoor Dust Pb Concentration (pg/g)
In contrast, Lanphear model errors (differences from measured values) were somewhat
more weakly related to indoor dust Pb concentrations than the IEUBK model errors (see Exhibit
J-12). Also, the correlation between the Lanphear PbB prediction error and play yard soil/dust
Pb was not significant (R = 0.024, p = 0.82). In contrast, the correlation between the Lanphear
model prediction error and wipe dust Pb loading was significant (R = 0.53, p < 0.001), but the
relationship was largely determined by two very high dust Pb loading observations.
Interestingly, the relationship between the Lanphear PbB model error and the age of the children
when PbB was measured was not significant (R = 0.12, p = 0.27).
July 2007
J-21
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Exhibit J-12.
on
ฃ\J
CO
ฐ 1^
Q. 15
u
3 m
J I U
(/)
(0
0)
S 5
^^ \J
CO -3
J3 TJ n
ฐ--3> ฐ-
^ |
* -5
TJ
s.
t -10-
s
C
o 15
c
(0
_l
on
Errors in Lanphear Predicted PbB Concentrations versus Measured
Arithmetic Mean Indoor Dust Pb Concentrations
^
^
* *
U* A** *
ซ!*' *
& **
^ *.
ป *
^
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
In fact, the
Indoor Dust Pb Concentration, ug/g
strongest predictor of the Lanphear model error (predicted - measured PbB)
was measured PbB itself (see Exhibit J-13). This pattern suggests that, despite its relatively good
overall accuracy at predicting PbB levels (based on the average ratio of predicted versus measure
values), the Lanphear model was not adequately capturing the exposure factors that cause PbB
levels to change in
this cohort. Instead, the model was predicting more or less constant,
relatively low, PbB levels across the entire range of exposures. This behavior may be a function
of how the model was derived; the equation used in this evaluation exercise was developed using
data from 12 study
cohorts. The result was a rather generic model, based on the averages of
many covariates, which may not be the best fit to the Rochester cohort. A more detailed,
multivariate model might perform better.
July 2007
J-22
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit J-13. Errors in Lanphear Predicted PbB Concentrations
versus Measured PbB Concentrations
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
on
2
m
D 5
^ (/)
< C
^B 0
11
1 ง
0. c
to o
0)
4 -10
c
(0
on
.
**4^
^ ^Hfe V * ^
mf^^^f
~*<**\ -
*y%
*
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Measured PbB Concentration (|jg/dL)
J.4. SUMMARY OF BLOOD PB MODEL EVALUATION
The IEUBK and Leggett biokinetic model evaluations established, first of all, that the
performance of these models was consistent with that reported by previous investigators
(USEPA, 2006; Lanphear and Roghmann, 1997; Pounds and Leggett, 1998). Tests of the models
against specific individual exposure scenarios (Section J.I.3) to a very high degree reproduced
the results of previous model comparisons.
Age profiles of predicted PbB levels were also compared against PbB data from the
NHANES IV national survey, under the assumption that children in the sample population
experienced "typical" pathway-specific Pb exposures as determined from reviews of the recent
literature (see Section J.3.1). Depending on the assumptions made regarding typical outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust Pb concentrations, the IEUBK model either moderately over-predicted
age-specific GM PbB levels (by two-fold or less) or generated predictions that were very close to
the NHANES summary statistics. In contrast, age-averaged predictions from the Leggett model
were between 2.7 and 5.4 times higher than the age-specific NHANES IV GM values.
July 2007
J-23
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 Comparisons of the model predictions to individual measured PbB values in a small
2 urban cohort of urban toddlers (see Section J.3.2) showed similar results. Average PbB
3 predictions from the IEUBK model were about 70 percent higher than the average measured PbB
4 for the entire study cohort. The differences between lEUBK-predicted and measured PbB levels
5 varied, however, for subsets of the study groups with different average measured PbB levels.
6 For children in the first quintile of measured PbB, the IEUBK predictions were about four-fold
7 higher than the average measured value. For higher PbB quintiles, while the IEUBK predictions
8 were still greater than the measured values, the extent of agreement between the IEUBK
9 predictions and measured PbB was much better (differences between 10 and 80 percent). The
10 increase in PbB levels predicted by the IEUBK model across the three highest quintiles was
11 similar to that seen in the data.
12 As shown in the comparison to the NHANES data, PbB predictions from the Leggett
13 model were all much higher than the corresponding average values in the urban cohort. The
14 average ratio of Leggett-predicted PbB to the measured values was 3.1 for the entire study group.
15 The increments in predicted average PbB values were very similar to the increments seen in the
16 PbB data (see Exhibit J-10).
17 The Lanphear empirical equation model predicted steady-state PbB concentrations that
18 were quite close to the measured values in the study cohort. The average ratio of Lanphear-
19 predicted PbB to measured PbB values was 0.9 for the entire study population. The average
20 predicted PbB was two-fold greater than the measured values for the lowest PbB quintile,
21 decreasing to 40 percent below the average measured values for the highest quintile. The
22 increments in predicted PbB across the quintiles was much smaller than the increments seen in
23 the data, suggesting that the Lanphear model was underestimating the effect of increasing
24 exposure on PbB compared to that seen in the data.
25 The results of this evaluation suggest that, of the two biokinetic models, the IEUBK
26 generates PbB estimates that are most similar to measured values in populations of Pb-exposed
27 children, especially for children with higher Pb uptakes. The Leggett PbB predictions are
28 consistently much higher than both measured PbB levels and PbB levels predicted by the other
29 models that have been tested.
30 Although the Lanphear model generated PbB predictions that were relatively close to
31 measured values in the small urban cohort, it tends to under-predict the slope of the relationship
32 between Pb exposure (i.e., indoor dust Pb and outdoor soil/dust Pb) and PbB. Additionally, the
33 potential utility of the Lanphear model in this assessment is limited by the lack of a dynamic
34 component and the inability to predict PbB levels for children outside of the age range for which
July 2007 J-24 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 the model was derived (12 to 30 months). Thus, it cannot be used to calculate the "concurrent"
2 or "lifetime" PbB metrics that are the primary inputs to the PbB-IQ modeling.
3 Differences between measured PbB levels and the levels predicted by the IEUBK model
4 were greatest for children associated with high measured indoor dust Pb levels (and to a lesser
5 extent, high outdoor soil/dust Pb concentrations). The IEUBK model would appear to give
6 undue weight to these high Pb exposure concentrations compared to the strength of their
7 influence on PbB levels in the urban child data set. This may be because the high measured dust
8 Pb values are unrepresentative of time-averaged exposures. While the arithmetic mean indoor
9 dust Pb concentrations used in the model evaluation may provide the theoretical best estimates of
10 the expected values of exposure Pb concentrations, the mean values for some children may be
11 highly influenced by high "outlier" values, whose concentrations are not representative of long-
12 term averages. Using the household GM indoor dust Pb concentrations, which reduced the effect
13 of "outliers," instead of the arithmetic means as inputs to the IEUBK model, results in PbB
14 predictions for the urban cohort that are much closer to the measured values. For the entire study
15 population, the average difference between the IEUBK model prediction and measured PbB was
16 20 percent. While this argument provides a plausible explanation for some of the difference
17 between the observed and predicted PbB values for this cohort, it does not imply that any
18 adjustment to the exposure Pb concentration estimates is necessary in this assessment. Unlike
19 the test cases evaluated above, the exposure Pb concentration estimates in this assessment were
20 intended to be representative of long-term Pb exposures.
July 2007 J-25 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Hattis, D. (2006) Analysis of Trends in NHANES Children's Blood Lead Distributions. Submitted to the Office of
3 Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; November.
4 Lanphear, B. P.; Emond, M; Jacobs, D. E.; Weitzman, M; Tanner, M; Winter, N. L.; Yakir, B.; Eberly, S. (1995)
5 A Side-by-Side Comparison of Dust Collection Methods for Sampling Lead-Contaminated House Dust.
6 Environ. Res. 68(2): 114-123.
7 Lanphear, B. P.; Matte, T. D.; Rogers, I; Clickner, R. P.; Dietz, B.; Bornschein, R. L.; Succop, P.; Mahaffey, K. R.;
8 Dixon, S.; Galke, W.; Rabinowitz, M.; Farfel, M.; Rohde, C.; Schwartz, I; Ashley, P.; Jacobs, D. E. (1998)
9 The Contribution of Lead-Contaminated House Dust and Residential Soil to Children's Blood Lead Levels:
10 A Pooled Analysis of 12 Epidemiologic Studies. Environmental Research. 79: 51-68.
11 Lanphear, B. P.and Roghmann, K. J. (1997) Pathways of Lead Exposure in Urban Children. Environ. Res. 74(67):
12 73
13 Leggett, R. W. (1993) An Age-Specific Kinetic Model of Lead Metabolism in Humans. Environ Health Perspect.
14 101:598-616.
15 Pounds, J. G. (2000) An Operators Manual for the Leggett Age-Dependent Biokinetic Model for Lead. Version 1.1.
16 Pounds, J. G.and Leggett, R. W. (1998) The ICRP Age-Specific Biokinetic Model for Lead: Validations, Empirical
17 Comparisons, and Explorations. Environ Health Perspect. 106 Suppl 6: 1505-1511.
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1994) Technical Support Document: Parameters and Equations
19 Used in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (v.099d). EPA 540/R-
20 94/040. Office of Solid Waste.
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995) Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in
22 Housing: Appendix I: Design and Methodology. EPA 747-R95-004. Office of Pollution Prevention and
23 Toxics.
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1996) Adjustments to the HUD National Survey Dust Data for
25 Section 403 Analyses. EPA 747-R-96-011. Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics.
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004) Exposure Measurements: The National Human Exposure
27 Assessment Survey. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/heasd/edrb/nhexas.htm.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006) Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). Volume I and II.
29 Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF.
30 Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=158823.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2007) Air Quality System (AQS) Database. Available online at:
32 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/aqsweb/aqswebwarning.htm.
33
34
July 2007 J-26 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix K: Risk (IQ Decrement) Estimates
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents K-i
List of Exhibits K-ii
K. IQ DECREMENT RESULTS K-l
K.I. GENERALURBAN CASE STUDY K-l
K.I.I. Description of Scenarios Analyzed K-l
K.I.2. IQ Decrement Results for the General Urban Case Study K-3
K.2. PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY K-47
K.2.1. Description of Scenarios Analyzed K-47
K.2.2. IQ Decrement Results for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study K-47
K.3. SECONDARYPB SMELTER CASE STUDY K-59
K.3.1. Description of Scenarios Analyzed K-59
K.3.2. IQ Decrement Results Tables for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study K-59
July 2007 K-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit K-1. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study K-2
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile)
Estimated IQ Losses K-5
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean) Estimated
IQ Losses K-ll
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-17
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-23
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-29
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-35
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-41
Exhibit K-9. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study K-47
Exhibit K-10. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 |ig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-49
Exhibit K-ll. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3,
Maximum Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-51
Exhibit K-12. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-53
Exhibit K-13. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-55
Exhibit K-14. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-57
Exhibit K-15. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study K-59
July 2007 K-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-16. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Estimated
IQ Losses K-60
Exhibit K-17. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 |ig/m3,
Maximum Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-62
Exhibit K-18. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 |ig/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-64
Exhibit K-19. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 |ig/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-66
Exhibit K-20. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 |ig/m3,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses K-68
July 2007 K-iii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
1 K. IQ DECREMENT RESULTS
2 This appendix presents the estimated distributions of intelligence quotient (IQ)
3 decrements for each of the case studies and for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards
4 (NAAQS) scenarios considered in this analysis. Section K. 1 contains the results for the general
5 urban case study, including an overview of the scenarios run (see Section K. 1.1) and the
6 estimated IQ decrement distributions (see Section K. 1.2). Similarly, Section K.2 provides the
7 results for the primary lead (Pb) smelter case study, including an overview of the scenarios run
8 (see Section K.2.1) and the estimated IQ decrement distributions (see Section K.2.2). Finally,
9 Section K.3 presents the results for the secondary Pb smelter case study, including an overview
10 of the scenarios run (see Section K.3.1) and the estimated IQ decrement distributions (see
11 Section K.3.2).
12 Estimates presented in this appendix are specified with regard to number of decimal
13 places, which results in various numbers of implied significant figures. This is not intended to
14 convey greater precision for some estimates than others; it is simply an expedient and initial
15 result of the software used for the calculation. Greater attention is given to significant figures in
16 the presentation of estimates in the main body of the report.
17 K.l. GENERAL URBAN CASE STUDY
18 K.1.1. Description of Scenarios Analyzed
19 Exhibit K-l lists the general urban case study scenarios for which IQ decrement estimates
20 were generated for the general urban case study. As discussed in Appendix I, blood Pb (PbB)
21 distributions were generated using two different indoor dust Pb concentration models (i.e., the
22 air-only regression-based model and the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model ["hybrid model"])
23 and two different PbB metrics (i.e., concurrent [average of the results at 75 and 81 months of age
24 in the seventh year of life] and lifetime [average of the results between age 6 and 84 months]).
25 These PbB estimates included a correction to account for inter-individual variability using two
26 different geometric standard deviation (GSD) values. These corrections were applied in 50,000
27 iterations of a probabilistic model in order to generate a distribution of PbB estimates for each
28 NAAQS scenario. Finally, three different IQ functions (i.e., the two-piece linear IQ change
29 function ["two-piece linear"], the log-linear IQ change function ["log-linear with cutpoint"], and
30 the log-linear IQ change function with low-exposure linearization ["log-linear with
31 linearization"]), as described in Section 4.1.1 of the main body of the report, were used to
32 estimate IQ loss impacts from the PbB concentration distributions estimated for each scenario.
July 2007 K-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-l. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study
NAAQS Scenario a
Current conditions
(95th percentile)
Current conditions
(mean)
Current NAAQS
(1.5 ug/m3, max quarterly
average)
Alternative 1 NAAQS
(0.2 ug/m3, max quarterly
average)
Alternative 2 NAAQS
(0.5 ug/m3, max monthly
average)
Dust Model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
GSD
(microgram
per deciliter
Qjg/dL])
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
IQ Decrement Models
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
July 2007
K-2
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-l. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the General Urban Case Study
NAAQS Scenario a
Alternative NAAQS 3
(0.2 pg/m3, max monthly
average)
Alternative NAAQS 4
(0.05 |jg/m3, max monthly
average)
Dust Model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
Air-only regression-
based model
Hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model
GSD
(microgram
per deciliter
Qjg/dL])
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
IQ Decrement Models
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear
with cutpoint, and log-linear
with linearization
1 a For a more detailed discussion of the NAAQS scenarios see Appendix C.
2
3 K.1.2. IQ Decrement Results for the General Urban Case Study
4 Exhibits K-2 through K-8 summarize the distributions of estimated losses in IQ
5 associated with each of the scenarios analyzed for the general urban case study. In the exhibits,
6 IQ decrements less than one IQ point are considered to be indistinguishable from zero within the
7 expected error of the PbB and IQ models, and are reported as "<1." IQ losses that were exactly
8 zero because the estimated PbB was below the cutpoint are reported as "-." The PbB values
9 corresponding to the each IQ percentile are also given. In addition, the approximate contribution
10 from each exposure pathway to the overall IQ change is provided. The indoor dust contribution
11 is separated into an ambient air contribution (ingestion [recent air]) and a contribution from other
12 sources (e.g., indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources [including historical air]), as
13 described in Appendix G. The pathway associated with inhalation of policy-relevant air Pb
14 concentrations is shown as "inhalation (recent air)."
15 The pathway contribution estimates correspond to the fraction of Pb uptake coming from
16 each pathway, and the assumption is made that these fractions map linearly to IQ effects.
17 Because of the nonlinearity of the IQ models themselves, there is considerable ambiguity about
18 how best to assign proportional pathway contributions to IQ loss; using the proportional
19 contribution to total Pb uptake as proxy estimates is a simplification which introduces
July 2007
K-3
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 uncertainty into these estimates. Because there is no underlying population in the general urban
2 case study (unlike the two point source case studies), these percentages do not vary by IQ
3 decrement percentile.
4 In general, the two-piece linear IQ function predicts the lowest IQ losses and the log-
5 linear with linearization IQ function predicts the highest IQ losses at the specified percentiles.
6 The trends in IQ tend to follow the trends in PbB across the different dust models, GSD values,
7 and NAAQS scenarios. In particular, the hybrid model, which tends to predict higher Pb
8 concentration than the air-only regression-based model for most NAAQS scenarios, also predicts
9 larger losses in IQ. The exception is the current NAAQS scenario. As discussed in Appendix I,
10 this is the only NAAQS scenario which predicts ambient air Pb concentrations above 0.28
11 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) (the point at which the hybrid model and air-only
12 regression-based model cross) and thus is the only scenario for which the hybrid model predicts
13 lower indoor dust concentrations than the air-only regression model. In addition, in the second
14 alternative NAAQS (0.5 |ig/m3, maximum monthly average) scenario, the PbB values obtained
15 using the higher GSD (2.1 jig per deciliter [dL]) for the concurrent PbB metric are higher for the
16 95th, 99th, 99.5th, and 99.9th percentiles when the air-only regression-based model is used than
17 when the hybrid model is used. This unexpected trend is likely due to sampling error in the
18 "tails" of the distribution, as discussed in Appendix I.
July 2007 K-4 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) Estimated
IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.5
3.5
3.0
2.1
1.8
1.3
<1
<1
<1
10.0
7.6
6.7
4.7
3.9
2.8
2.0
1.4
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.2
3.7
2.8
1.8
<1
-
10.0
7.6
6.7
4.7
3.9
2.8
2.0
1.4
0.9
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.9
8.2
7.8
6.9
6.4
5.5
4.5
3.6
1.6
10.0
7.6
6.7
4.7
3.9
2.8
2.0
1.4
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.5
3.6
3.2
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
11.9
9.4
8.4
6.1
5.2
3.9
2.8
2.1
1.0
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
July 2007
K-5
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) Estimated
IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.5
5.7
5.4
4.4
3.9
3.1
2.1
1.1
<1
11.9
9.4
8.4
6.1
5.2
3.9
2.8
2.1
1.4
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.5
8.8
8.4
7.5
6.9
6.1
5.1
4.2
2.0
11.9
9.4
8.4
6.1
5.2
3.9
2.8
2.1
1.0
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.9
3.7
3.3
2.3
1.9
1.4
<1
<1
<1
10.8
8.2
7.3
5.1
4.2
3.1
2.1
1.5
0.6
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.4
5.7
5.4
4.4
3.9
3.0
2.0
1.1
-
10.8
8.2
7.3
5.1
4.2
3.1
2.1
1.5
1.0
15.7%
9.1%
43.7%
11.1%
37.2%
0.1%
July 2007
K-6
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) Estimated
IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.1
8.4
8.1
7.1
6.6
5.7
4.7
3.8
1.7
10.8
8.2
7.3
5.1
4.2
3.1
2.1
1.5
0.6
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.9
3.9
3.5
2.5
2.1
1.6
1.2
<1
<1
13.0
10.2
9.1
6.7
5.6
4.2
3.1
2.2
1.0
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.7
6.0
5.6
4.7
4.2
3.3
2.3
1.4
-
13.0
10.2
9.1
6.7
5.6
4.2
3.1
2.2
1.4
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.7
9.0
8.7
7.7
7.2
6.3
5.4
4.4
2.2
13.0
10.2
9.1
6.7
5.6
4.2
3.1
2.2
1.0
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
July 2007
K-7
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) Estimated
IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.9
5.2
4.9
3.0
2.3
1.5
<1
<1
<1
19.9
13.1
11.1
6.7
5.1
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.1
7.0
6.5
5.1
4.4
3.2
1.8
<1
-
19.9
13.1
11.1
6.7
5.1
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.8
9.7
9.2
7.8
7.1
5.9
4.5
3.2
<1
19.9
13.1
11.1
6.7
5.1
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.4
5.5
5.2
3.4
2.6
1.7
1.1
<1
<1
24.6
16.7
14.3
8.9
6.9
4.5
2.8
1.8
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1 .0%
July 2007
K-8
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) Estimated
IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.6
7.5
7.0
5.5
4.8
3.5
2.1
<1
-
24.6
16.7
14.3
8.9
6.9
4.5
2.8
1.8
0.9
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.7
10.5
10.0
8.6
7.8
6.5
5.1
3.7
1.2
24.6
16.7
14.3
8.9
6.9
4.5
2.8
1.8
0.6
17.1%
10.0%
36.5%
13.5%
21.8%
1.0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.1
5.3
5.1
3.3
2.5
1.6
<1
<1
<1
21.5
14.2
12.0
7.2
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.3
0.4
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.3
7.2
6.7
5.3
4.6
3.4
2.0
<1
-
21.5
14.2
12.0
7.2
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.3
0.7
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
July 2007
K-9
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-2. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (95th Percentile) Estimated
IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.0
9.9
9.4
8.0
7.3
6.1
4.7
3.4
1.0
21.5
14.2
12.0
7.2
5.5
3.5
2.1
1.3
0.4
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.7
5.6
5.3
3.7
2.8
1.9
1.2
<1
<1
26.7
18.1
15.5
9.6
7.5
4.9
3.1
1.9
0.6
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.9
7.7
7.3
5.8
5.0
3.8
2.3
<1
-
26.7
18.1
15.5
9.6
7.5
4.9
3.1
1.9
1.0
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.9
10.8
10.3
8.8
8.1
6.8
5.4
4.0
1.3
26.7
18.1
15.5
9.6
7.5
4.9
3.1
1.9
0.6
15.7%
9.1%
33.4%
" Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further d
3.6%
37.2%
0.9%
iscussion.
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-10
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean)
Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (Mg/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.1
3.1
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
9.0
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.2
0.5
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.9
5.2
4.8
3.9
3.4
2.5
1.5
<1
-
9.0
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.2
0.7
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.6
7.9
7.5
6.6
6.1
5.2
4.2
3.3
1.4
9.0
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.2
0.5
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.0
3.2
2.8
2.1
1.7
1.3
<1
<1
<1
10.7
8.3
7.4
5.5
4.6
3.5
2.5
1.8
0.8
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
July 2007
K-ll
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean)
Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (Mg/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.1
5.4
5.0
4.1
3.6
2.7
1.7
-
<1
10.7
8.3
7.4
5.5
4.6
3.5
2.5
1.8
1.1
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.1
8.4
8.0
7.1
6.6
5.7
4.8
3.8
1.8
10.7
8.3
7.4
5.5
4.6
3.5
2.5
1.8
0.8
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.4
3.5
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.3
<1
<1
<1
9.8
7.6
6.6
4.6
3.8
2.8
1.9
1.3
0.6
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.1
3.6
2.7
1.8
<1
-
9.8
7.6
6.6
4.6
3.8
2.8
1.9
1.3
0.9
17.7%
10.3%
43.7%
11.1%
28.3%
0.1%
July 2007
K-12
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean)
Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (Mg/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.9
8.2
7.8
6.8
6.3
5.4
4.5
3.5
1.5
9.8
7.6
6.6
4.6
3.8
2.8
1.9
1.3
0.6
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.4
3.6
3.1
2.3
1.9
1.4
1.0
<1
<1
11.7
9.4
8.3
6.0
5.1
3.8
2.8
2.0
0.9
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.4
5.7
5.3
4.4
3.9
3.0
2.0
1.0
-
11.7
9.4
8.3
6.0
5.1
3.8
2.8
2.0
1.4
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.4
8.8
8.4
7.4
6.9
6.0
5.0
4.1
2.0
11.7
9.4
8.3
6.0
5.1
3.8
2.8
2.0
0.9
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
July 2007
K-13
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean)
Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (Mg/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.5
5.0
4.5
2.7
2.1
1.3
<1
<1
<1
16.4
11.7
9.9
6.0
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.3
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.6
6.6
6.2
4.8
4.1
2.9
1.5
<1
-
16.4
11.7
9.9
6.0
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.6
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.3
9.3
8.9
7.5
6.8
5.6
4.2
2.9
<1
16.4
11.7
9.9
6.0
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.3
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.9
5.2
4.8
3.0
2.3
1.5
<1
<1
<1
20.2
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.1
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
July 2007
K-14
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean)
Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (Mg/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.1
7.1
6.6
5.2
4.4
3.1
1.7
<1
-
20.2
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.1
4.0
2.5
1.6
1.0
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.1
10.1
9.7
8.2
7.4
6.2
4.8
3.4
1.1
20.2
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.1
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
19.4%
1 1 .3%
41 .3%
15.3%
12.1%
0.6%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.7
5.1
4.9
2.9
2.2
1.4
<1
<1
<1
17.9
12.9
10.8
6.5
5.0
3.1
1.9
1.2
0.3
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.8
6.9
6.4
5.0
4.3
3.1
1.8
<1
-
17.9
12.9
10.8
6.5
5.0
3.1
1.9
1.2
0.3
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
July 2007
K-15
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-3. General Urban Case Study: Current Conditions (Mean)
Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (Mg/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.5
9.6
9.1
7.7
7.0
5.8
4.5
3.1
<1
17.9
12.9
10.8
6.5
5.0
3.1
1.9
1.2
0.3
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.1
5.4
5.1
3.3
2.5
1.7
1.0
<1
<1
22.2
16.4
13.9
8.6
6.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
0.5
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.3
7.4
6.9
5.5
4.7
3.4
2.0
<1
-
22.2
16.4
13.9
8.6
6.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
0.6
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.4
10.5
10.0
8.5
7.7
6.5
5.0
3.6
1.2
22.2
16.4
13.9
8.6
6.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
0.5
17.7%
10.3%
37.6%
5.6%
28.3%
0.5%
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-16
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 fig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.8
5.3
5.1
4.0
3.3
2.4
1.7
1.2
<1
18.4
14.2
12.6
8.7
7.2
5.2
3.7
2.6
1.1
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.9
7.2
6.8
5.9
5.3
4.5
3.5
2.5
<1
18.4
14.2
12.6
8.7
7.2
5.2
3.7
2.6
1.1
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.6
9.9
9.5
8.6
8.0
7.2
6.2
5.2
2.8
18.4
14.2
12.6
8.7
7.2
5.2
3.7
2.6
1.1
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.1
5.6
5.4
4.3
3.7
2.8
2.0
1.5
<1
22.2
17.7
15.8
11.5
9.7
7.3
5.3
3.9
1.8
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
July 2007
K-17
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 fig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.3
7.6
7.3
6.3
5.8
5.0
4.0
3.0
-
22.2
17.7
15.8
11.5
9.7
7.3
5.3
3.9
1.8
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.4
10.7
10.3
9.4
8.9
8.0
7.0
6.1
3.7
22.2
17.7
15.8
11.5
9.7
7.3
5.3
3.9
1.8
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.6
5.1
4.9
3.4
2.8
2.0
1.4
1.0
<1
16.5
12.6
11.0
7.6
6.2
4.5
3.1
2.2
0.9
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.6
6.8
6.5
5.5
4.9
4.1
3.1
2.1
-
16.5
12.6
11.0
7.6
6.2
4.5
3.1
2.2
0.8
10.4%
6.0%
43.7%
11.1%
57.1%
0.1%
July 2007
K-18
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 fig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.3
9.5
9.2
8.2
7.6
6.8
5.8
4.8
2.5
16.5
12.6
11.0
7.6
6.2
4.5
3.1
2.2
0.9
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.8
5.3
5.1
3.7
3.1
2.4
1.7
1.3
<1
19.7
15.5
13.7
9.9
8.3
6.2
4.5
3.3
1.5
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.0
7.2
6.9
5.9
5.3
4.5
3.5
2.6
<1
19.7
15.5
13.7
9.9
8.3
6.2
4.5
3.3
1.5
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.0
10.3
9.9
8.9
8.4
7.5
6.5
5.6
3.2
19.7
15.5
13.7
9.9
8.3
6.2
4.5
3.3
1.5
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
July 2007
K-19
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 fig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.7
6.5
6.1
5.1
4.3
2.7
1.7
1.0
<1
35.1
25.0
20.9
12.3
9.4
6.0
3.6
2.2
0.6
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.6
8.7
8.2
6.8
6.1
4.8
3.5
2.1
-
35.1
25.0
20.9
12.3
9.4
6.0
3.6
2.2
0.7
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
12.3
11.4
10.9
9.5
8.8
7.5
6.2
4.8
1.7
35.1
25.0
20.9
12.3
9.4
6.0
3.6
2.2
0.6
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.7
7.3
6.7
5.4
4.9
3.2
2.0
1.3
<1
43.9
32.0
27.1
16.5
12.8
8.4
5.3
3.3
1.0
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
July 2007
K-20
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 fig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.4
9.4
8.9
7.4
6.7
5.4
4.0
2.6
-
43.9
32.0
27.1
16.5
12.8
8.4
5.3
3.3
1.1
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
13.5
12.5
12.0
10.5
9.7
8.4
7.0
5.6
2.2
43.9
32.0
27.1
16.5
12.8
8.4
5.3
3.3
1.0
8.7%
5.1%
18.6%
6.9%
58.0%
2.8%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.9
6.1
5.6
4.8
3.7
2.3
1.4
<1
<1
28.5
21.0
17.3
10.6
8.1
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.6
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.0
8.2
7.7
6.4
5.6
4.4
3.1
1.7
-
28.5
21.0
17.3
10.6
8.1
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.7
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
July 2007
K-21
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-4. General Urban Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 fig/m3, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.7
10.9
10.4
9.1
8.3
7.1
5.8
4.4
1.5
28.5
21.0
17.3
10.6
8.1
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.6
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.7
6.7
6.1
5.2
4.1
2.7
1.7
1.1
<1
35.6
26.7
22.3
14.1
10.9
7.2
4.5
2.8
0.9
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.8
8.9
8.4
6.9
6.2
4.9
3.5
2.1
-
35.6
26.7
22.3
14.1
10.9
7.2
4.5
2.8
1.1
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
12.8
11.9
11.4
10.0
9.2
7.9
6.5
5.1
1.9
35.6
26.7
22.3
14.1
10.9
7.2
4.5
2.8
0.9
10.4%
6.0%
22.1%
1.1%
57.1%
3.3%
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-22
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.3
3.3
2.9
2.0
1.7
1.2
<1
<1
<1
9.4
7.3
6.4
4.4
3.6
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.5
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.0
5.4
5.0
4.0
3.5
2.6
1.7
<1
-
9.4
7.3
6.4
4.4
3.6
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.6
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.7
8.1
7.7
6.7
6.2
5.3
4.4
3.4
1.5
9.4
7.3
6.4
4.4
3.6
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.5
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.2
3.4
3.0
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.0
<1
<1
11.1
8.9
7.9
5.7
4.8
3.7
2.7
1.9
0.9
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
July 2007
K-23
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.2
5.6
5.2
4.2
3.7
2.9
1.9
-
<1
11.1
8.9
7.9
5.7
4.8
3.7
2.7
1.9
1.0
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.3
8.6
8.2
7.3
6.7
5.9
4.9
4.0
1.9
11.1
8.9
7.9
5.7
4.8
3.7
2.7
1.9
0.9
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.6
3.5
3.1
2.2
1.8
1.3
<1
<1
<1
10.2
7.8
6.9
4.8
4.0
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.6
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.3
5.5
5.2
4.2
3.7
2.9
1.9
<1
-
10.2
7.8
6.9
4.8
4.0
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.7
16.7%
9.7%
43.7%
11.1%
32.7%
0.1%
July 2007
K-24
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.0
8.2
7.9
6.9
6.4
5.6
4.6
3.6
1.6
10.2
7.8
6.9
4.8
4.0
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.6
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.6
3.6
3.3
2.4
2.0
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
12.2
9.6
8.6
6.3
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.0
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.5
5.8
5.5
4.5
4.0
3.1
2.2
1.2
-
12.2
9.6
8.6
6.3
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.1
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.6
8.8
8.5
7.5
7.0
6.2
5.2
4.2
2.1
12.2
9.6
8.6
6.3
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.0
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
July 2007
K-25
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.7
5.1
4.7
2.8
2.2
1.4
<1
<1
<1
18.1
12.4
10.4
6.2
4.8
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.3
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.8
6.8
6.3
4.9
4.2
3.0
1.7
<1
-
18.1
12.4
10.4
6.2
4.8
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.8
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.5
9.5
9.0
7.6
6.9
5.7
4.4
3.0
<1
18.1
12.4
10.4
6.2
4.8
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.3
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.1
5.3
5.0
3.1
2.4
1.6
1.0
<1
<1
22.3
15.6
13.3
8.2
6.4
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.5
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
July 2007
K-26
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.4
7.3
6.8
5.3
4.6
3.3
1.9
<1
-
22.3
15.6
13.3
8.2
6.4
4.3
2.7
1.7
1.2
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.4
10.3
9.8
8.4
7.6
6.4
4.9
3.5
1.1
22.3
15.6
13.3
8.2
6.4
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.5
18.4%
10.7%
39.2%
14.5%
16.3%
0.8%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.0
5.3
5.0
3.2
2.4
1.5
<1
<1
<1
20.3
14.1
11.5
6.9
5.3
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.1
7.1
6.6
5.2
4.5
3.3
1.9
<1
-
20.3
14.1
11.5
6.9
5.3
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.9
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
July 2007
K-27
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-5. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.8
9.8
9.3
7.9
7.2
6.0
4.6
3.2
<1
20.3
14.1
11.5
6.9
5.3
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.5
5.6
5.2
3.5
2.7
1.8
1.1
<1
<1
25.1
17.9
14.7
9.2
7.1
4.7
2.9
1.8
0.6
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.7
7.7
7.1
5.7
4.9
3.6
2.2
<1
-
25.1
17.9
14.7
9.2
7.1
4.7
2.9
1.8
1.4
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.8
10.7
10.1
8.7
7.9
6.6
5.2
3.8
1.2
25.1
17.9
14.7
9.2
7.1
4.7
2.9
1.8
0.6
16.7%
9.7%
35.6%
4.5%
32.7%
0.7%
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
b "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-28
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.5
3.5
3.1
2.2
1.8
1.3
<1
<1
<1
10.0
7.7
6.8
4.8
3.9
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.6
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.2
5.5
5.2
4.2
3.7
2.9
1.9
<1
-
10.0
7.7
6.8
4.8
3.9
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.7
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.9
8.2
7.9
6.9
6.4
5.6
4.6
3.6
1.6
10.0
7.7
6.8
4.8
3.9
2.9
2.0
1.4
0.6
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.5
3.6
3.2
2.4
2.0
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
12.0
9.5
8.5
6.2
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.0
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
July 2007
K-29
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.5
5.8
5.4
4.5
4.0
3.1
2.1
1.2
<1
12.0
9.5
8.5
6.2
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.1
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.5
8.8
8.5
7.5
7.0
6.2
5.2
4.2
2.1
12.0
9.5
8.5
6.2
5.3
4.0
2.9
2.1
1.0
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.9
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
<1
<1
<1
10.9
8.5
7.5
5.2
4.3
3.1
2.2
1.5
0.6
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.4
5.8
5.4
4.4
3.9
3.1
2.1
1.1
-
10.9
8.5
7.5
5.2
4.3
3.1
2.2
1.5
0.5
15.4%
9.0%
43.7%
11.1%
38.3%
0.1%
July 2007
K-30
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.1
8.5
8.1
7.1
6.6
5.8
4.8
3.8
1.7
10.9
8.5
7.5
5.2
4.3
3.1
2.2
1.5
0.6
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.0
4.0
3.6
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.2
<1
<1
13.1
10.5
9.4
6.8
5.7
4.3
3.2
2.3
1.1
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.7
6.1
5.7
4.7
4.2
3.4
2.4
1.4
-
13.1
10.5
9.4
6.8
5.7
4.3
3.2
2.3
0.9
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.8
9.1
8.8
7.8
7.3
6.4
5.4
4.5
2.2
13.1
10.5
9.4
6.8
5.7
4.3
3.2
2.3
1.1
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
July 2007
K-31
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.0
5.2
5.0
3.1
2.4
1.5
<1
<1
<1
20.3
13.5
11.2
6.8
5.2
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.1
7.0
6.5
5.2
4.5
3.2
1.9
<1
-
20.3
13.5
11.2
6.8
5.2
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.7
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.8
9.7
9.2
7.9
7.2
5.9
4.6
3.2
<1
20.3
13.5
11.2
6.8
5.2
3.3
2.0
1.2
0.4
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.5
5.5
5.2
3.4
2.7
1.7
1.1
<1
<1
25.1
17.2
14.5
9.1
7.0
4.6
2.9
1.8
0.6
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
July 2007
K-32
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.7
7.6
7.0
5.6
4.8
3.6
2.1
<1
-
25.1
17.2
14.5
9.1
7.0
4.6
2.9
1.8
1.2
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.7
10.6
10.1
8.7
7.9
6.6
5.2
3.8
1.2
25.1
17.2
14.5
9.1
7.0
4.6
2.9
1.8
0.6
16.8%
9.8%
35.8%
13.2%
23.3%
1.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.8
5.1
4.8
3.0
2.4
1.6
<1
<1
<1
18.6
12.7
10.6
6.7
5.2
3.4
2.2
1.4
0.4
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.9
6.9
6.4
5.1
4.5
3.3
2.1
<1
-
18.6
12.7
10.6
6.7
5.2
3.4
2.2
1.4
0.9
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
July 2007
K-33
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-6. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.6
9.6
9.1
7.8
7.2
6.0
4.8
3.5
1.2
18.6
12.7
10.6
6.7
5.2
3.4
2.2
1.4
0.4
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.2
6.0
5.5
4.0
3.0
1.9
1.2
<1
<1
31.4
20.9
17.2
10.5
8.0
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.6
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.4
8.1
7.6
6.1
5.2
3.9
2.4
<1
-
31.4
20.9
17.2
10.5
8.0
5.1
3.1
1.9
1.2
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
12.4
11.2
10.6
9.1
8.3
6.9
5.4
3.9
1.2
31.4
20.9
17.2
10.5
8.0
5.1
3.1
1.9
0.6
15.4%
9.0%
32.9%
3.4%
38.3%
1 .0%
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-34
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.1
3.1
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
9.1
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.5
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.0
5.2
4.8
3.9
3.3
2.5
1.5
<1
-
9.1
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.7
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.7
7.9
7.5
6.6
6.0
5.2
4.2
3.2
1.4
9.1
6.8
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.5
1.7
1.2
0.5
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.1
3.1
2.8
2.1
1.7
1.3
<1
<1
<1
10.8
8.3
7.5
5.4
4.6
3.4
2.5
1.8
0.8
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
July 2007
K-35
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.1
5.3
5.0
4.0
3.5
2.7
1.7
-
<1
10.8
8.3
7.5
5.4
4.6
3.4
2.5
1.8
1.1
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.2
8.4
8.1
7.1
6.6
5.7
4.7
3.8
1.8
10.8
8.3
7.5
5.4
4.6
3.4
2.5
1.8
0.8
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.5
3.4
3.0
2.0
1.7
1.2
<1
<1
<1
9.9
7.5
6.5
4.5
3.7
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.6
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.1
3.6
2.7
1.7
<1
-
9.9
7.5
6.5
4.5
3.7
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.8
17.9%
10.4%
43.7%
11.1%
27.0%
0.1%
July 2007
K-36
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.9
8.2
7.8
6.8
6.3
5.4
4.4
3.4
1.5
9.9
7.5
6.5
4.5
3.7
2.7
1.9
1.3
0.6
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4.5
3.5
3.1
2.2
1.9
1.4
1.0
<1
<1
11.8
9.3
8.2
5.9
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.0
0.9
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.4
5.7
5.3
4.3
3.8
2.9
1.9
<1
-
11.8
9.3
8.2
5.9
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.0
1.2
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.5
8.7
8.3
7.3
6.8
5.9
5.0
4.0
1.9
11.8
9.3
8.2
5.9
5.0
3.7
2.7
2.0
0.9
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
July 2007
K-37
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.6
5.0
4.5
2.7
2.0
1.3
<1
<1
<1
17.0
11.7
9.9
5.9
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.3
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.6
6.7
6.2
4.8
4.1
2.9
1.5
<1
-
17.0
11.7
9.9
5.9
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.6
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.3
9.4
8.9
7.5
6.8
5.6
4.2
2.9
<1
17.0
11.7
9.9
5.9
4.5
2.9
1.8
1.1
0.3
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.0
5.2
4.8
3.0
2.3
1.5
<1
<1
<1
20.9
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.0
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
July 2007
K-38
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.2
7.1
6.6
5.2
4.4
3.1
1.7
<1
-
20.9
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.0
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.9
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.2
10.1
9.7
8.2
7.4
6.2
4.7
3.3
1.1
20.9
14.8
12.6
7.8
6.0
4.0
2.5
1.6
0.5
19.7%
1 1 .5%
41 .9%
15.5%
10.9%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.8
5.1
4.8
2.9
2.2
1.4
<1
<1
<1
18.3
12.6
10.6
6.4
4.9
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.3
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.8
6.8
6.4
5.0
4.3
3.1
1.7
<1
-
18.3
12.6
10.6
6.4
4.9
3.1
1.9
1.1
1.0
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
July 2007
K-39
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-7. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.5
9.5
9.1
7.7
7.0
5.8
4.4
3.1
<1
18.3
12.6
10.6
6.4
4.9
3.1
1.9
1.1
0.3
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
6.2
5.4
5.1
3.2
2.5
1.6
1.0
<1
<1
22.6
16.0
13.6
8.5
6.6
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.5
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.4
7.3
6.8
5.4
4.6
3.4
1.9
<1
-
22.6
16.0
13.6
8.5
6.6
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.9
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.4
10.4
9.9
8.4
7.7
6.4
5.0
3.6
1.1
22.6
16.0
13.6
8.5
6.6
4.3
2.7
1.7
0.5
17.9%
10.4%
38.2%
6.0%
27.0%
0.5%
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-40
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
3.6
2.8
2.5
1.8
1.5
1.0
<1
<1
<1
7.9
6.3
5.5
3.9
3.2
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.5
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.6
5.0
4.6
3.7
3.1
2.3
1.3
<1
-
7.9
6.3
5.5
3.9
3.2
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.5
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.3
7.7
7.3
6.4
5.8
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.3
7.9
6.3
5.5
3.9
3.2
2.3
1.6
1.1
0.5
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
3.6
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.6
1.2
<1
<1
<1
9.4
7.6
6.8
5.0
4.2
3.1
2.3
1.7
0.8
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
July 2007
K-41
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.7
5.1
4.7
3.8
3.3
2.4
1.4
-
<1
9.4
7.6
6.8
5.0
4.2
3.1
2.3
1.7
0.8
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.8
8.1
7.8
6.8
6.3
5.4
4.5
3.5
1.6
9.4
7.6
6.8
5.0
4.2
3.1
2.3
1.7
0.8
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
3.9
3.0
2.7
1.8
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
8.5
6.7
5.9
4.1
3.4
2.4
1.7
1.2
0.5
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.8
5.1
4.8
3.8
3.3
2.4
1.4
<1
-
8.5
6.7
5.9
4.1
3.4
2.4
1.7
1.2
0.8
20.5%
11.9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
July 2007
K-42
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.5
7.8
7.5
6.5
6.0
5.1
4.1
3.1
1.3
8.5
6.7
5.9
4.1
3.4
2.4
1.7
1.2
0.5
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
3.8
3.1
2.7
2.0
1.7
1.3
<1
<1
<1
10.0
8.1
7.2
5.2
4.4
3.3
2.4
1.7
0.8
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.9
5.3
4.9
3.9
3.4
2.5
1.6
<1
-
10.0
8.1
7.2
5.2
4.4
3.3
2.4
1.7
1.2
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
9.0
8.3
8.0
7.0
6.5
5.6
4.6
3.7
1.7
10.0
8.1
7.2
5.2
4.4
3.3
2.4
1.7
0.8
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
July 2007
K-43
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.5
5.0
4.2
2.5
1.9
1.2
<1
<1
<1
15.8
11.2
9.2
5.5
4.2
2.7
1.6
1.0
0.3
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.5
6.5
6.0
4.6
3.9
2.7
1.3
-
-
15.8
11.2
9.2
5.5
4.2
2.7
1.6
0.7
0.7
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.2
9.2
8.7
7.3
6.6
5.4
4.0
2.6
<1
15.8
11.2
9.2
5.5
4.2
2.7
1.6
1.0
0.3
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.8
5.1
4.4
2.7
2.1
1.4
<1
<1
<1
19.3
14.0
11.7
7.2
5.6
3.7
2.3
1.4
0.5
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
July 2007
K-44
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.9
6.9
6.4
4.9
4.1
2.9
1.4
<1
-
19.3
14.0
11.7
7.2
5.6
3.7
2.3
1.4
1.0
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air-only Regression-based), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.0
10.0
9.4
8.0
7.2
5.9
4.5
3.1
<1
19.3
14.0
11.7
7.2
5.6
3.7
2.3
1.4
0.5
21 .5%
12.5%
45.8%
17.0%
3.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.5
5.0
4.3
2.6
2.0
1.3
<1
<1
<1
16.2
11.5
9.5
5.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
1.0
0.3
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
7.5
6.6
6.1
4.7
4.0
2.7
1.4
<1
-
16.2
11.5
9.5
5.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
1.0
0.7
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
July 2007
K-45
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-8. General Urban Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 fig/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB (ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution a
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other b
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.1), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
10.2
9.3
8.8
7.4
6.7
5.4
4.1
2.7
<1
16.2
11.5
9.5
5.7
4.4
2.8
1.7
1.0
0.3
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
5.9
5.2
4.6
2.8
2.2
1.4
<1
<1
<1
19.9
14.4
12.1
7.5
5.9
3.8
2.4
1.5
0.5
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
8.0
7.0
6.5
5.0
4.3
3.0
1.5
<1
-
19.9
14.4
12.1
7.5
5.9
3.8
2.4
1.5
1.1
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
Dust Model (Hybrid), GSD (2.0), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
11.0
10.1
9.5
8.1
7.3
6.0
4.6
3.2
1.0
19.9
14.4
12.1
7.5
5.9
3.8
2.4
1.5
0.5
20.5%
1 1 .9%
43.7%
11.1%
12.6%
0.1%
a Pathway contributions apply to all percentiles. See text for further discussion.
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources
(including historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels (either by inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor
ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-46
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
K.2. PRIMARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
K.2.1. Description of Scenarios Analyzed
For the primary Pb smelter case study, Exhibit K-9 lists the NAAQS scenarios, along
with the PbB metrics and IQ functions that were used to generate IQ estimates for the primary Pb
smelter case study. As discussed in Appendix I, PbB results were generated using the site-
specific H6 model for the U.S. Census blocks and block groups within 1.5 kilometer (km) of the
source. Dust concentration estimates in more distant U.S. Census blocks and block groups were
derived using the U.S. EPA air+soil regression-based model, as discussed in Appendix G. Inter-
individual variability was incorporated using a single GSD for each PbB metric (i.e., concurrent
and lifetime). Three different IQ functions (two-piece linear, log linear with cutpoint, and
loglinear with linearization) were used to estimate the IQ decrements for each for each of the five
NAAQS scenarios, as summarized in the Exhibit K-9.
Exhibit K-9. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
NAAQS Scenario
Current NAAQS
(1.5 pg/m3, max
quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 1
(0.2 ug/m3, max
quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2
(0.5 ug/m3, max
monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3
(0.2 ug/m3, max
monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4
(0.05 ug/m3, max
monthly average)
Dust Model
H6 or air+soil
regression-based
model
H6 or air+soil
regression-based
model
H6 or air+soil
regression-based
model
H6 or air+soil
regression-based
model
H6 or air+soil
regression-based
model
GSD
(ug/dL)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
IQ Functions
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
K.2.2. IQ Decrement Results for the Primary Pb Smelter Case Study
Exhibits K-10 through K-14 summarize the IQ modeling distribution estimates for the
NAAQS scenarios associated with the primary Pb smelter case study. Just as for the general
urban case study, IQ decrements less than one IQ point are considered to be indistinguishable
from zero within the expected error of the PbB and IQ models, and are reported as "<1." IQ
losses that were exactly zero because the estimated PbB was below the cutpoint are reported as
"-." The PbB values corresponding to the given IQ percentile are also given. The exhibits also
July 2007
K-47
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 present estimates of the proportional contribution of each exposure pathway to the total Pb
2 uptake. The contributions from the policy-relevant air and background pathways are estimated
3 as described in Section K. 1.2. Just as in the general urban case study, because of nonlinearities
4 in the IQ functions, the estimated pathway contributions to IQ impacts are only approximate. In
5 addition, use of the two-piece linear IQ function results in the lowest estimated IQ losses, while
6 the log-linear model with linearization results in the highest IQ losses.
July 2007 K-48 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-10. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
5.8
5.0
4.2
2.2
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
18.8
11.7
9.2
4.8
3.6
2.3
1.5
1.0
0.4
3.0%
4.0%
6.3%
21.6%
15.1%
32.9%
30.9%
36.9%
30.9%
1.7%
2.3%
3.7%
12.6%
8.8%
19.1%
18.0%
21.5%
18.0%
11.5%
14.7%
6.8%
39.1%
48.5%
22.6%
27.1%
18.9%
27.1%
27.0%
35.9%
56.7%
17.1%
17.1%
17.2%
17.5%
17.7%
17.5%
56.0%
42.5%
25.9%
9.0%
9.8%
7.6%
6.1%
4.6%
6.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
7.9
6.7
6.0
4.2
3.5
2.3
1.1
-
-
18.8
11.7
9.2
4.8
3.6
2.3
1.5
0.9
0.9
3.0%
4.0%
6.3%
21.6%
15.1%
32.9%
30.9%
21.9%
21.9%
1.7%
2.3%
3.7%
12.6%
8.8%
19.1%
18.0%
12.8%
12.8%
11.5%
14.7%
6.8%
39.1%
48.5%
22.6%
27.1%
37.8%
37.8%
27.0%
35.9%
56.7%
17.1%
17.1%
17.2%
17.5%
16.9%
16.9%
56.0%
42.5%
25.9%
9.0%
9.8%
7.6%
6.1%
9.8%
9.8%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.4%
0.8%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
10.6
9.4
8.7
6.9
6.2
5.0
3.8
2.7
1.0
18.8
11.7
9.2
4.8
3.6
2.3
1.5
1.0
0.4
3.0%
4.0%
6.3%
21.6%
15.1%
32.9%
11.1%
36.9%
30.9%
1.7%
2.3%
3.7%
12.6%
8.8%
19.1%
6.5%
21.5%
18.0%
11.5%
14.7%
6.8%
39.1%
48.5%
22.6%
53.9%
18.9%
27.1%
27.0%
35.9%
56.7%
17.1%
17.1%
17.2%
16.9%
17.7%
17.5%
56.0%
42.5%
25.9%
9.0%
9.8%
7.6%
10.8%
4.6%
6.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.4%
0.4%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
6.4
5.3
4.7
2.5
1.8
1.2
<1
<1
<1
24.3
15.4
12.5
6.5
4.8
3.2
2.1
1.4
0.6
4.9%
4.9%
18.0%
12.4%
18.0%
32.9%
15.0%
32.9%
31.7%
2.9%
2.8%
10.5%
7.2%
10.5%
19.1%
8.7%
19.1%
18.5%
9.8%
8.2%
45.1%
49.3%
44.7%
22.6%
47.7%
22.6%
28.0%
44.6%
44.2%
17.3%
16.3%
17.2%
17.2%
16.8%
17.2%
18.1%
37.2%
39.2%
8.5%
13.7%
8.9%
7.6%
10.9%
7.6%
3.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.6%
0.3%
July 2007
K-49
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-10. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m , Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
8.6
7.2
6.6
4.6
3.7
2.4
1.1
-
-
24.3
15.4
12.5
6.5
4.8
3.2
2.1
1.4
1.4
4.9%
4.9%
18.0%
12.4%
18.0%
32.9%
15.0%
21.9%
21.9%
2.9%
2.8%
10.5%
7.2%
10.5%
19.1%
8.7%
12.8%
12.8%
9.8%
8.2%
45.1%
49.3%
44.7%
22.6%
47.7%
37.8%
37.8%
44.6%
44.2%
17.3%
16.3%
17.2%
17.2%
16.8%
16.9%
16.9%
37.2%
39.2%
8.5%
13.7%
8.9%
7.6%
10.9%
9.8%
9.8%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
11.6
10.3
9.6
7.6
6.8
5.5
4.2
3.0
1.2
24.3
15.4
12.5
6.5
4.8
3.2
2.1
1.4
0.6
4.9%
4.9%
18.0%
12.4%
18.0%
32.9%
36.9%
32.9%
31.7%
2.9%
2.8%
10.5%
7.2%
10.5%
19.1%
21.5%
19.1%
18.5%
9.8%
8.2%
45.1%
49.3%
44.7%
22.6%
18.9%
22.6%
28.0%
44.6%
44.2%
17.3%
16.3%
17.2%
17.2%
17.7%
17.2%
18.1%
37.2%
39.2%
8.5%
13.7%
8.9%
7.6%
4.6%
7.6%
3.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
0.7%
0.6%
0.4%
0.6%
0.3%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels).
July 2007
K-50
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-ll. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
5.0
3.6
3.0
1.9
1.5
<1
<1
<1
<1
11.3
7.8
6.6
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.9
0.4
5.3%
10.3%
12.2%
16.5%
23.9%
12.2%
32.5%
16.5%
38.4%
3.1%
6.0%
7.1%
9.6%
13.9%
7.1%
18.9%
9.6%
22.4%
26.8%
63.1%
59.3%
52.8%
41.2%
59.3%
28.6%
52.8%
19.7%
15.5%
18.9%
18.6%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.4%
48.9%
1.6%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.6%
1 .4%
2.3%
1.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
6.5
5.6
5.1
3.8
3.2
2.1
<1
-
-
11.3
7.8
6.6
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
5.3%
10.3%
12.2%
16.5%
23.9%
12.2%
32.5%
12.2%
12.2%
3.1%
6.0%
7.1%
9.6%
13.9%
7.1%
18.9%
7.1%
7.1%
26.8%
63.1%
59.3%
52.8%
41.2%
59.3%
28.6%
59.3%
59.3%
15.5%
18.9%
18.6%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.6%
48.9%
1 .6%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.6%
1 .4%
2.6%
2.6%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
9.2
8.3
7.8
6.5
5.9
4.8
3.6
2.5
<1
11.3
7.8
6.6
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.9
0.4
5.3%
10.3%
12.2%
16.5%
23.9%
12.2%
32.5%
16.5%
38.4%
3.1%
6.0%
7.1%
9.6%
13.9%
7.1%
18.9%
9.6%
22.4%
26.8%
63.1%
59.3%
52.8%
41.2%
59.3%
28.6%
52.8%
19.7%
15.5%
18.9%
18.6%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.5%
18.6%
18.4%
48.9%
1 .6%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.6%
1 .4%
2.3%
1.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
5.2
3.9
3.3
2.1
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
14.3
10.2
8.6
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
7.1%
16.0%
6.0%
7.7%
12.2%
25.5%
38.4%
22.7%
31.9%
4.2%
9.3%
3.5%
4.5%
7.1%
14.8%
22.4%
13.2%
18.6%
68.5%
53.8%
16.9%
17.0%
59.3%
39.7%
19.7%
43.4%
28.9%
19.0%
18.7%
17.7%
22.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.3%
1.1%
2.1%
55.3%
47.8%
2.6%
1.3%
1.0%
2.0%
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
July 2007
K-51
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-ll. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
7.0
6.0
5.5
4.1
3.4
2.2
<1
-
-
14.3
10.2
8.6
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
1.3
7.1%
16.0%
6.0%
7.7%
12.2%
25.5%
34.3%
23.9%
23.9%
4.2%
9.3%
3.5%
4.5%
7.1%
14.8%
20.0%
13.9%
13.9%
68.5%
53.8%
16.9%
17.0%
59.3%
39.7%
25.7%
41.2%
41.2%
19.0%
18.7%
17.7%
22.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
18.5%
18.5%
1.1%
2.1%
55.3%
47.8%
2.6%
1.3%
1 .4%
2.3%
2.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
10.0
9.0
8.5
7.1
6.4
5.2
4.0
2.8
1.2
14.3
10.2
8.6
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
7.1%
16.0%
6.0%
7.7%
12.2%
25.5%
34.3%
22.7%
31.9%
4.2%
9.3%
3.5%
4.5%
7.1%
14.8%
20.0%
13.2%
18.6%
68.5%
53.8%
16.9%
17.0%
59.3%
39.7%
25.7%
43.4%
28.9%
19.0%
18.7%
17.7%
22.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.3%
1.1%
2.1%
55.3%
47.8%
2.6%
1.3%
1.4%
2.0%
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels).
July 2007
K-52
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-12. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust)
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
5.3
4.1
3.3
2.0
1.5
1.0
<1
<1
<1
14.1
9.1
7.4
4.3
3.4
2.2
1.4
1.0
0.4
4.8%
4.8%
10.2%
25.6%
18.9%
16.1%
35.9%
34.4%
35.9%
2.8%
2.8%
5.9%
14.9%
11.0%
9.4%
20.9%
20.1%
20.9%
18.5%
18.5%
7.3%
37.3%
47.6%
51.5%
22.6%
23.7%
22.6%
23.9%
23.9%
50.4%
18.1%
18.2%
18.1%
18.2%
18.0%
18.2%
49.4%
49.4%
25.7%
3.8%
3.9%
4.6%
2.2%
3.5%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
7.1
6.0
5.4
4.0
3.3
2.1
<1
-
-
14.1
9.1
7.4
4.3
3.4
2.2
1.4
0.7
0.7
4.8%
4.8%
10.2%
25.6%
18.9%
16.1%
35.9%
25.1%
25.1%
2.8%
2.8%
5.9%
14.9%
11.0%
9.4%
20.9%
14.6%
14.6%
18.5%
18.5%
7.3%
37.3%
47.6%
51.5%
22.6%
39.2%
39.2%
23.9%
23.9%
50.4%
18.1%
18.2%
18.1%
18.2%
18.4%
18.4%
49.4%
49.4%
25.7%
3.8%
3.9%
4.6%
2.2%
2.5%
2.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
9.8
8.7
8.1
6.7
6.0
4.8
3.7
2.6
<1
14.1
9.1
7.4
4.3
3.4
2.2
1.4
1.0
0.4
4.8%
4.8%
10.2%
25.6%
18.9%
16.1%
35.9%
34.4%
35.9%
2.8%
2.8%
5.9%
14.9%
11.0%
9.4%
20.9%
20.1%
20.9%
18.5%
18.5%
7.3%
37.3%
47.6%
51.5%
22.6%
23.7%
22.6%
23.9%
23.9%
50.4%
18.1%
18.2%
18.1%
18.2%
18.0%
18.2%
49.4%
49.4%
25.7%
3.8%
3.9%
4.6%
2.2%
3.5%
2.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
5.7
4.6
3.7
2.2
1.7
1.1
<1
<1
<1
18.4
12.2
9.7
5.8
4.5
3.0
2.0
1.3
0.6
11.7%
3.7%
4.8%
11.9%
7.9%
16.0%
32.0%
34.4%
25.6%
6.8%
2.1%
2.8%
6.9%
4.6%
9.3%
18.7%
20.1%
14.9%
56.1%
18.5%
18.5%
57.6%
15.7%
51.1%
28.1%
23.7%
37.3%
17.7%
18.1%
23.9%
18.1%
38.9%
18.0%
18.2%
18.0%
18.1%
7.1%
57.0%
49.4%
5.1%
32.5%
5.1%
2.8%
3.5%
3.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
July 2007
K-53
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-12. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust)
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
7.8
6.5
5.8
4.3
3.5
2.3
<1
-
-
18.4
12.2
9.7
5.8
4.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
11.7%
3.7%
4.8%
11.9%
7.9%
16.0%
32.0%
25.1%
25.1%
6.8%
2.1%
2.8%
6.9%
4.6%
9.3%
18.7%
14.6%
14.6%
56.1%
18.5%
18.5%
57.6%
15.7%
51.1%
28.1%
39.2%
39.2%
17.7%
18.1%
23.9%
18.1%
38.9%
18.0%
18.2%
18.4%
18.4%
7.1%
57.0%
49.4%
5.1%
32.5%
5.1%
2.8%
2.5%
2.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
10.8
9.6
8.9
7.3
6.5
5.3
4.0
2.8
1.2
18.4
12.2
9.7
5.8
4.5
3.0
2.0
1.3
0.6
11.7%
3.7%
4.8%
11.9%
7.9%
16.0%
32.0%
34.4%
25.6%
6.8%
2.1%
2.8%
6.9%
4.6%
9.3%
18.7%
20.1%
14.9%
56.1%
18.5%
18.5%
57.6%
15.7%
51.1%
28.1%
23.7%
37.3%
17.7%
18.1%
23.9%
18.1%
38.9%
18.0%
18.2%
18.0%
18.1%
7.1%
57.0%
49.4%
5.1%
32.5%
5.1%
2.8%
3.5%
3.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
3 "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-54
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-13. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
4.9
3.5
3.0
1.9
1.4
<1
<1
<1
<1
10.9
7.8
6.5
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.9
0.4
12.3%
16.6%
14.1%
19.8%
14.1%
26.1%
14.1%
24.0%
34.5%
7.2%
9.7%
8.2%
11.5%
8.2%
15.2%
8.2%
14.0%
20.1%
58.8%
52.8%
56.1%
48.2%
56.1%
37.7%
56.1%
41.4%
25.3%
18.5%
18.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.6%
18.4%
18.6%
18.5%
18.4%
3.0%
2.1%
2.8%
1.7%
2.8%
2.5%
2.8%
1.9%
1.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
6.5
5.5
5.1
3.8
3.1
2.1
<1
-
-
10.9
7.8
6.5
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.4
0.4
12.3%
16.6%
14.1%
19.8%
14.1%
26.1%
35.2%
36.4%
36.4%
7.2%
9.7%
8.2%
11.5%
8.2%
15.2%
20.5%
21.2%
21.2%
58.8%
52.8%
56.1%
48.2%
56.1%
37.7%
24.3%
22.9%
22.9%
18.5%
18.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.6%
18.4%
18.4%
18.5%
18.5%
3.0%
2.1%
2.8%
1.7%
2.8%
2.5%
1.4%
0.9%
0.9%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
9.2
8.2
7.8
6.5
5.8
4.8
3.6
2.5
<1
10.9
7.8
6.5
4.1
3.2
2.2
1.4
0.9
0.4
12.3%
16.6%
14.1%
19.8%
14.1%
26.1%
14.1%
24.0%
34.5%
7.2%
9.7%
8.2%
11.5%
8.2%
15.2%
8.2%
14.0%
20.1%
58.8%
52.8%
56.1%
48.2%
56.1%
37.7%
56.1%
41.4%
25.3%
18.5%
18.6%
18.6%
18.7%
18.6%
18.4%
18.6%
18.5%
18.4%
3.0%
2.1%
2.8%
1.7%
2.8%
2.5%
2.8%
1.9%
1.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
5.1
3.8
3.2
2.1
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
14.0
10.0
8.5
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
10.4%
5.8%
16.6%
16.6%
12.2%
35.2%
26.3%
16.6%
35.2%
6.0%
3.4%
9.7%
9.6%
7.1%
20.5%
15.3%
9.6%
20.5%
63.3%
29.5%
52.8%
53.1%
24.2%
24.3%
38.2%
53.1%
24.3%
18.9%
14.7%
18.6%
18.7%
30.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
1.3%
46.2%
2.1%
1.9%
25.6%
1 .4%
1.5%
1.9%
1 .4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
July 2007
K-55
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-13. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
6.9
5.9
5.4
4.1
3.3
2.2
<1
-
-
14.0
10.0
8.5
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
0.7
0.7
10.4%
5.8%
16.6%
16.6%
12.2%
35.2%
20.6%
36.4%
36.4%
6.0%
3.4%
9.7%
9.6%
7.1%
20.5%
12.0%
21.2%
21.2%
63.3%
29.5%
52.8%
53.1%
24.2%
24.3%
46.9%
22.9%
22.9%
18.9%
14.7%
18.6%
18.7%
30.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.5%
18.5%
1.3%
46.2%
2.1%
1.9%
25.6%
1 .4%
1.7%
0.9%
0.9%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
10.0
9.0
8.5
7.1
6.4
5.2
4.0
2.8
1.2
14.0
10.0
8.5
5.5
4.3
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
10.4%
5.8%
16.6%
16.6%
12.2%
35.2%
26.3%
16.6%
35.2%
6.0%
3.4%
9.7%
9.6%
7.1%
20.5%
15.3%
9.6%
20.5%
63.3%
29.5%
52.8%
53.1%
24.2%
24.3%
38.2%
53.1%
24.3%
18.9%
14.7%
18.6%
18.7%
30.7%
18.4%
18.6%
18.7%
18.4%
1.3%
46.2%
2.1%
1.9%
25.6%
1.4%
1.5%
1.9%
1 .4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels).
July 2007
K-56
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-14. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
4.4
3.2
2.7
1.8
1.4
<1
<1
<1
<1
9.8
7.1
6.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
1.4
0.9
0.4
16.4%
7.6%
16.8%
16.6%
23.1%
28.5%
32.9%
14.4%
19.1%
9.6%
4.5%
9.8%
9.7%
13.5%
16.6%
19.2%
8.4%
11.1%
45.0%
68.4%
53.9%
54.1%
44.1%
35.9%
29.0%
57.4%
38.0%
14.9%
19.2%
19.0%
19.0%
18.9%
18.8%
18.7%
19.0%
17.3%
14.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.7%
14.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
6.2
5.3
4.9
3.7
3.0
2.0
<1
-
-
9.8
7.1
6.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
1.4
0.9
0.9
16.4%
7.6%
16.8%
16.6%
23.1%
28.5%
32.9%
35.6%
35.6%
9.6%
4.5%
9.8%
9.7%
13.5%
16.6%
19.2%
20.8%
20.8%
45.0%
68.4%
53.9%
54.1%
44.1%
35.9%
29.0%
24.6%
24.6%
14.9%
19.2%
19.0%
19.0%
18.9%
18.8%
18.7%
18.6%
18.6%
14.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
8.9
8.0
7.6
6.4
5.7
4.7
3.6
2.5
<1
9.8
7.1
6.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
1.4
0.9
0.4
16.4%
7.6%
16.8%
16.6%
23.1%
28.5%
32.9%
14.4%
19.1%
9.6%
4.5%
9.8%
9.7%
13.5%
16.6%
19.2%
8.4%
11.1%
45.0%
68.4%
53.9%
54.1%
44.1%
35.9%
29.0%
57.4%
38.0%
14.9%
19.2%
19.0%
19.0%
18.9%
18.8%
18.7%
19.0%
17.3%
14.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.7%
14.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
4.6
3.4
3.0
1.9
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
12.2
9.0
7.8
5.1
4.1
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
8.7%
35.6%
35.6%
18.7%
36.0%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
5.1%
20.8%
20.8%
10.9%
21.0%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
66.8%
24.6%
24.6%
50.9%
24.1%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.2%
18.6%
18.6%
19.0%
18.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
July 2007
K-57
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-14. Primary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
6.5
5.6
5.2
3.9
3.2
2.1
<1
-
-
12.2
9.0
7.8
5.1
4.1
2.9
1.9
1.2
1.2
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
8.7%
35.6%
35.6%
35.6%
35.6%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
5.1%
20.8%
20.8%
20.8%
20.8%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
66.8%
24.6%
24.6%
24.6%
24.6%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.2%
18.6%
18.6%
18.6%
18.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
4
19
39
194
388
970
1940
2910
3841
9.6
8.6
8.2
6.9
6.3
5.1
3.9
2.8
1.1
12.2
9.0
7.8
5.1
4.1
2.9
1.9
1.3
0.5
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
14.4%
8.7%
35.6%
35.6%
18.7%
36.0%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
8.4%
5.1%
20.8%
20.8%
10.9%
21.0%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
57.4%
66.8%
24.6%
24.6%
50.9%
24.1%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.0%
19.2%
18.6%
18.6%
19.0%
18.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels).
July 2007
K-58
Draft - Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
K.3. SECONDARY PB SMELTER CASE STUDY
K.3.1. Description of Scenarios Analyzed
Exhibit K-15 lists the secondary Pb smelter case study scenarios, along with the PbB
metrics and IQ functions used to estimate IQ decrements. As discussed in Appendix I, PbB
results were generated for a single dust model and the GSD for each PbB metric (concurrent and
lifetime). Three IQ functions (two-piece linear, log linear with cutpoint, and loglinear with
linearization) were used to estimate the IQ decrements for each of the five NAAQS scenarios, as
summarized in the Exhibit K-15.
Exhibit K-15. IQ Decrement Scenarios Run for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
NAAQS Scenario
Current Conditions
Alternative NAAQS 1
(0.2 |jg/m3, max
quarterly average)
Alternative NAAQS 2
(0.5 ug/m3, max
monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 3
(0.2 ug/m3, max
monthly average)
Alternative NAAQS 4
(0.05 ug/m3, max
monthly average)
Dust Model
Air-only regression-
based model
Air-only regression-
based model
Air-only regression-
based model
Air-only regression-
based model
Air-only regression-
based model
GSD
(ug/dL)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
PbB Metric
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
Concurrent
Lifetime
IQ Functions
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization ion
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
Two-piece linear, log-linear with cutpoint,
and log-linear with linearization
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
K.3.2. IQ Decrement Results Tables for the Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study
Exhibits K-16 through K-20 summarize the IQ change distribution estimates for the
secondary Pb smelter case study. As in the general urban case study and primary Pb smelter case
study, IQ decrements less than one IQ point are considered to be indistinguishable from zero
within the expected error of the PbB and IQ models, and are reported as "<1." The PbB values
corresponding to the given IQ percentile are also given. The exhibits also present estimates of
the proportional contribution of each exposure pathway to the total Pb uptake, as for the other
two case studies. The contributions from the policy-relevant air and background pathways are
estimated as described in the previous section. Again, these serve as proxy estimates of the
proportional contribution of each pathway to overall IQ loss. As for the other two case studies,
use of the two-piece linear IQ function results in the lowest estimated IQ losses, while the log-
linear model with linearization results in the highest IQ losses.
July 2007
K-59
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-16. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.4
1.8
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.3
4.0
3.5
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
39.7%
33.4%
42.0%
41.1%
29.4%
37.9%
41.8%
41.8%
41.8%
23.1%
19.4%
24.5%
24.0%
17.1%
22.1%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
4.5%
17.6%
0.3%
1.9%
25.1%
8.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
31.3%
26.3%
33.1%
32.5%
23.2%
29.9%
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
1.3%
3.1%
0.2%
0.5%
5.0%
1.9%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.5
3.7
3.4
2.4
1.8
<1
-
-
-
5.3
4.0
3.5
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
39.7%
33.4%
42.0%
41.1%
29.4%
37.9%
41.7%
41.7%
41.7%
23.1%
19.4%
24.5%
24.0%
17.1%
22.1%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
4.5%
17.6%
0.3%
1.9%
25.1%
8.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
31.3%
26.3%
33.1%
32.5%
23.2%
29.9%
32.9%
32.9%
32.9%
1.3%
3.1%
0.2%
0.5%
5.0%
1.9%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.2
6.4
6.1
5.1
4.5
3.6
2.7
1.9
<1
5.3
4.0
3.5
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
39.7%
33.4%
42.0%
41.1%
29.4%
37.9%
41.8%
41.8%
41.8%
23.1%
19.4%
24.5%
24.0%
17.1%
22.1%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
4.5%
17.6%
0.3%
1.9%
25.1%
8.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
31.3%
26.3%
33.1%
32.5%
23.2%
29.9%
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
1.3%
3.1%
0.2%
0.5%
5.0%
1.9%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.9
4.5
4.0
2.9
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
13.8%
38.7%
39.3%
41.6%
38.7%
39.6%
41.4%
40.4%
41.7%
8.0%
22.5%
22.9%
24.2%
22.5%
23.0%
24.1%
23.5%
24.3%
46.9%
6.2%
5.4%
1.0%
6.2%
4.9%
1.3%
3.1%
0.8%
10.9%
30.5%
31.0%
32.8%
30.5%
31.2%
32.6%
31.9%
32.9%
19.3%
2.0%
1.3%
0.3%
2.0%
1 .2%
0.5%
1.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
July 2007
K-60
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-16. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Current Conditions Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.3
3.5
3.1
2.1
1.6
<1
-
-
-
5.9
4.5
4.0
2.9
2.4
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
13.8%
38.7%
39.3%
41.6%
38.7%
39.6%
41.7%
41.7%
41.7%
8.0%
22.5%
22.9%
24.2%
22.5%
23.0%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
46.9%
6.2%
5.4%
1.0%
6.2%
4.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
10.9%
30.5%
31.0%
32.8%
30.5%
31.2%
32.9%
32.9%
32.9%
19.3%
2.0%
1.3%
0.3%
2.0%
1 .2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.4
6.5
6.2
5.2
4.6
3.7
2.8
2.0
<1
5.9
4.5
4.0
2.9
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
13.8%
38.7%
39.3%
41.6%
38.7%
39.6%
41.4%
40.4%
41.7%
8.0%
22.5%
22.9%
24.2%
22.5%
23.0%
24.1%
23.5%
24.3%
46.9%
6.2%
5.4%
1.0%
6.2%
4.9%
1.3%
3.1%
0.8%
10.9%
30.5%
31.0%
32.8%
30.5%
31.2%
32.6%
31.9%
32.9%
19.3%
2.0%
1.3%
0.3%
2.0%
1.2%
0.5%
1.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
"Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb
levels).
July 2007
K-61
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-17. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.3
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
40.1%
39.7%
41.0%
41.9%
41.6%
40.7%
38.8%
40.1%
41.9%
23.3%
23.1%
23.9%
24.4%
24.2%
23.7%
22.6%
23.3%
24.4%
4.6%
5.5%
2.7%
0.6%
1 .2%
3.1%
7.4%
4.6%
0.6%
31.6%
31.3%
32.3%
33.0%
32.8%
32.1%
30.6%
31.6%
33.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.4
3.6
3.3
2.3
1.8
<1
-
-
-
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.3
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
40.1%
39.7%
41.0%
41.9%
41.6%
40.7%
39.3%
39.3%
39.3%
23.3%
23.1%
23.9%
24.4%
24.2%
23.7%
22.9%
22.9%
22.9%
4.6%
5.5%
2.7%
0.6%
1.2%
3.1%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
31.6%
31.3%
32.3%
33.0%
32.8%
32.1%
31.0%
31.0%
31.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.1
6.3
6.0
5.0
4.5
3.6
2.6
1.9
<1
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.3
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
40.1%
39.7%
41.0%
41.9%
41.6%
40.7%
38.8%
40.1%
41.9%
23.3%
23.1%
23.9%
24.4%
24.2%
23.7%
22.6%
23.3%
24.4%
4.6%
5.5%
2.7%
0.6%
1 .2%
3.1%
7.4%
4.6%
0.6%
31.6%
31.3%
32.3%
33.0%
32.8%
32.1%
30.6%
31.6%
33.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.1
1.7
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.6
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
32.9%
40.4%
37.0%
37.5%
40.1%
38.7%
40.6%
39.9%
41.3%
19.2%
23.5%
21.6%
21.9%
23.3%
22.5%
23.6%
23.2%
24.0%
20.5%
3.9%
11.3%
10.4%
4.5%
7.7%
3.5%
5.1%
1.9%
26.0%
31.9%
29.2%
29.6%
31.6%
30.5%
32.0%
31.4%
32.6%
1.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
July 2007
K-62
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-17. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 1 (0.2 ug/m, Maximum
Quarterly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.2
3.4
3.1
2.0
1.5
<1
-
-
-
5.6
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
32.9%
40.4%
37.0%
37.5%
40.1%
38.7%
39.3%
39.3%
39.3%
19.2%
23.5%
21.6%
21.9%
23.3%
22.5%
22.9%
22.9%
22.9%
20.5%
3.9%
11.3%
10.4%
4.5%
7.7%
6.3%
6.3%
6.3%
26.0%
31.9%
29.2%
29.6%
31.6%
30.5%
31.0%
31.0%
31.0%
1.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.2
6.5
6.1
5.1
4.6
3.7
2.7
2.0
<1
5.6
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
32.9%
40.4%
37.0%
37.5%
40.1%
38.7%
40.6%
39.9%
41.3%
19.2%
23.5%
21.6%
21.9%
23.3%
22.5%
23.6%
23.2%
24.0%
20.5%
3.9%
11.3%
10.4%
4.5%
7.7%
3.5%
5.1%
1.9%
26.0%
31.9%
29.2%
29.6%
31.6%
30.5%
32.0%
31.4%
32.6%
1.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-63
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-18. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.4
1.8
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
15.2%
40.1%
41.7%
35.0%
41.4%
39.2%
35.4%
41.2%
39.2%
8.8%
23.3%
24.3%
20.4%
24.1%
22.8%
20.6%
24.0%
22.8%
51.5%
4.2%
0.9%
14.9%
1.5%
6.2%
13.9%
2.0%
6.2%
12.0%
31.6%
32.9%
27.6%
32.7%
30.9%
27.9%
32.5%
30.9%
11.9%
0.7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.2%
0.8%
2.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.5
3.7
3.3
2.3
1.8
<1
-
-
-
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
2.0
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
15.2%
40.1%
41.7%
35.0%
41.4%
39.2%
41.8%
41.8%
41.8%
8.8%
23.3%
24.3%
20.4%
24.1%
22.8%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
51.5%
4.2%
0.9%
14.9%
1.5%
6.2%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
12.0%
31.6%
32.9%
27.6%
32.7%
30.9%
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
11.9%
0.7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.2%
0.8%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.2
6.4
6.0
5.0
4.5
3.6
2.7
1.9
<1
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
2.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
15.2%
40.1%
41.7%
35.0%
41.4%
39.2%
35.4%
41.2%
39.2%
8.8%
23.3%
24.3%
20.4%
24.1%
22.8%
20.6%
24.0%
22.8%
51.5%
4.2%
0.9%
14.9%
1.5%
6.2%
13.9%
2.0%
6.2%
12.0%
31.6%
32.9%
27.6%
32.7%
30.9%
27.9%
32.5%
30.9%
11.9%
0.7%
0.2%
2.1%
0.2%
0.8%
2.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.9
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
35.4%
39.0%
18.3%
39.1%
39.0%
41.7%
41.4%
41.1%
39.8%
20.6%
22.7%
10.6%
22.8%
22.7%
24.3%
24.1%
23.9%
23.2%
13.5%
6.2%
50.4%
6.2%
6.2%
0.9%
1.5%
2.1%
4.9%
28.0%
30.8%
14.4%
30.9%
30.8%
32.9%
32.7%
32.4%
31.4%
2.4%
1.1%
6.0%
1.0%
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
July 2007
K-64
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-18. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 2 (0.5 ug/m, Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.3
3.5
3.1
2.1
1.5
<1
-
-
-
5.9
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
35.4%
39.0%
18.3%
39.1%
39.0%
41.7%
41.8%
41.8%
41.8%
20.6%
22.7%
10.6%
22.8%
22.7%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
24.3%
13.5%
6.2%
50.4%
6.2%
6.2%
0.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
28.0%
30.8%
14.4%
30.9%
30.8%
32.9%
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
2.4%
1.1%
6.0%
1.0%
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.3
6.5
6.1
5.1
4.6
3.7
2.7
2.0
<1
5.9
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
35.4%
39.0%
18.3%
39.1%
39.0%
41.7%
40.1%
41.1%
39.8%
20.6%
22.7%
10.6%
22.8%
22.7%
24.3%
23.3%
23.9%
23.2%
13.5%
6.2%
50.4%
6.2%
6.2%
0.9%
4.3%
2.1%
4.9%
28.0%
30.8%
14.4%
30.9%
30.8%
32.9%
31.6%
32.4%
31.4%
2.4%
1.1%
6.0%
1.0%
1.1%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-65
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-19. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.3
1.8
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
19.0%
41.8%
32.0%
33.9%
42.0%
39.4%
38.8%
38.8%
36.2%
11.1%
24.3%
18.6%
19.7%
24.5%
23.0%
22.6%
22.6%
21.1%
52.3%
0.8%
22.6%
18.3%
0.3%
6.1%
7.4%
7.4%
13.3%
15.0%
33.0%
25.2%
26.8%
33.2%
31.1%
30.7%
30.7%
28.5%
2.5%
0.1%
1.5%
1 .2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.4
3.7
3.3
2.3
1.8
<1
-
-
-
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
19.0%
41.8%
32.0%
33.9%
42.0%
39.4%
41.9%
41.9%
41.9%
11.1%
24.3%
18.6%
19.7%
24.5%
23.0%
24.4%
24.4%
24.4%
52.3%
0.8%
22.6%
18.3%
0.3%
6.1%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
15.0%
33.0%
25.2%
26.8%
33.2%
31.1%
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
2.5%
0.1%
1.5%
1.2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.1
6.4
6.0
5.0
4.5
3.6
2.6
1.8
<1
5.2
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
19.0%
41.8%
32.0%
33.9%
42.0%
39.4%
38.8%
38.8%
36.2%
11.1%
24.3%
18.6%
19.7%
24.5%
23.0%
22.6%
22.6%
21.1%
52.3%
0.8%
22.6%
18.3%
0.3%
6.1%
7.4%
7.4%
13.3%
15.0%
33.0%
25.2%
26.8%
33.2%
31.1%
30.7%
30.7%
28.5%
2.5%
0.1%
1.5%
1 .2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.8
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
39.4%
37.6%
41.3%
41.3%
33.7%
38.6%
41.8%
37.0%
42.0%
23.0%
21.9%
24.1%
24.1%
19.6%
22.5%
24.4%
21.5%
24.5%
6.1%
10.4%
1.9%
1.9%
19.4%
7.9%
0.7%
11.7%
0.3%
31.1%
29.6%
32.6%
32.6%
26.6%
30.5%
33.0%
29.2%
33.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
July 2007
K-66
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-19. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 3 (0.2 ug/m , Maximum
Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.3
3.5
3.0
2.1
1.5
<1
-
-
-
5.8
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
39.4%
37.6%
41.3%
41.3%
33.7%
38.6%
41.9%
41.9%
41.9%
23.0%
21.9%
24.1%
24.1%
19.6%
22.5%
24.4%
24.4%
24.4%
6.1%
10.4%
1.9%
1.9%
19.4%
7.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
31.1%
29.6%
32.6%
32.6%
26.6%
30.5%
33.0%
33.0%
33.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.3
6.5
6.1
5.1
4.6
3.7
2.7
2.0
<1
5.8
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
39.4%
37.6%
41.3%
41.3%
33.7%
38.6%
41.8%
37.0%
42.0%
23.0%
21.9%
24.1%
24.1%
19.6%
22.5%
24.4%
21.5%
24.5%
6.1%
10.4%
1.9%
1.9%
19.4%
7.9%
0.7%
11.7%
0.3%
31.1%
29.6%
32.6%
32.6%
26.6%
30.5%
33.0%
29.2%
33.1%
0.4%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-67
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-20. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05 ug/m ,
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Two-piece
Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.3
1.8
1.6
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
41.9%
41.8%
37.6%
41.9%
17.1%
39.6%
39.8%
41.8%
37.6%
24.4%
24.4%
21.9%
24.4%
10.0%
23.0%
23.2%
24.3%
21.9%
0.6%
0.8%
10.7%
0.6%
58.0%
6.1%
5.5%
0.8%
10.7%
33.1%
33.0%
29.7%
33.1%
13.5%
31.2%
31.4%
33.0%
29.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Cutpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.4
3.7
3.3
2.3
1.8
<1
-
-
-
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
41.9%
41.8%
37.6%
41.9%
17.1%
39.6%
41.9%
41.9%
41.9%
24.4%
24.4%
21.9%
24.4%
10.0%
23.0%
24.4%
24.4%
24.4%
0.6%
0.8%
10.7%
0.6%
58.0%
6.1%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
33.1%
33.0%
29.7%
33.1%
13.5%
31.2%
33.1%
33.1%
33.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.7), PbB Metric (Concurrent), IQ Function (Log-linear
with Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.1
6.4
6.0
5.0
4.5
3.6
2.6
1.8
<1
5.1
3.9
3.4
2.4
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.3
41.9%
41.8%
37.6%
41.9%
17.1%
39.6%
39.8%
41.8%
37.6%
24.4%
24.4%
21.9%
24.4%
10.0%
23.0%
23.2%
24.3%
21.9%
0.6%
0.8%
10.7%
0.6%
58.0%
6.1%
5.5%
0.8%
10.7%
33.1%
33.0%
29.7%
33.1%
13.5%
31.2%
31.4%
33.0%
29.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Two-piece Linear)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
5.7
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
40.2%
40.3%
39.5%
41.9%
40.2%
39.8%
39.5%
40.2%
41.9%
23.4%
23.5%
23.0%
24.4%
23.4%
23.2%
23.0%
23.4%
24.4%
4.6%
4.3%
6.3%
0.6%
4.7%
5.5%
6.2%
4.7%
0.6%
31.7%
31.8%
31.2%
33.1%
31.7%
31.4%
31.2%
31.7%
33.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
July 2007
K-68
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit K-20. Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study: Alternative NAAQS 4 (0.05
Maximum Monthly Average) Estimated IQ Losses
ug/m3,
IQ Loss
Percentile
Population
Above
Predicted
IQ Loss
Predicted
PbB
(ug/dL)
Pathway Contribution
Ingestion
Diet
Drinking
Water
Outdoor
Soil/Dust
Indoor Dust
Other3
Recent
Air
Inhalation
(Recent Air)
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Outpoint)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
4.2
3.4
3.1
2.1
1.5
<1
-
-
-
5.7
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
40.2%
40.3%
39.5%
41.9%
40.2%
39.8%
41.9%
41.9%
41.9%
23.4%
23.5%
23.0%
24.4%
23.4%
23.2%
24.4%
24.4%
24.4%
4.6%
4.3%
6.3%
0.6%
4.7%
5.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
31.7%
31.8%
31.2%
33.1%
31.7%
31.4%
33.1%
33.1%
33.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Dust Model (Air+Soil Regression-based and H6), GSD (1.6), PbB Metric (Lifetime), IQ Function (Log-linear with
Linearization)
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
2
8
17
85
170
425
849
1274
1681
7.3
6.5
6.1
5.1
4.6
3.7
2.7
2.0
<1
5.7
4.4
3.9
2.8
2.4
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.4
40.2%
40.3%
39.5%
41.9%
40.2%
39.8%
40.1%
40.2%
41.9%
23.4%
23.5%
23.0%
24.4%
23.4%
23.2%
23.3%
23.4%
24.4%
4.6%
4.3%
6.3%
0.6%
4.7%
5.5%
4.9%
4.7%
0.6%
31.7%
31.8%
31.2%
33.1%
31.7%
31.4%
31.6%
31.7%
33.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
a "Other" refers to contributions to indoor dust Pb from indoor paint, outdoor soil/dust, and additional sources (including
historical air), and "recent air" refers to pathway contributions associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels (either by
inhalation of ambient air Pb or ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with outdoor ambient air Pb levels).
July 2007
K-69
Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
-------
July 25, 2007
Appendix L. Sensitivity Analysis Approach and Results
Prepared by:
ICF International
Research Triangle Park, NC
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Contract No. EP-D-06-115
Work Assignment No. 0-4
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents L-i
List of Exhibits L-ii
L. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS METHODS AND RESULTS L-l
L.I. OVERVIEW OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS L-l
L.2. BASELINE AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS CASES L-5
L.3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS L-9
L.3.1. Absolute Changes in IQ Loss Estimates Associated with the
Sensitivity Cases L-ll
L.3.2. Relative IQ Loss Associated with the Sensitivity Cases L-l3
L.3.3. Change in IQ Loss Associated with Recent Air Exposures L-15
REFERENCES L-18
July 2007 L-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit L-l. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis - Percent Change in IQ Loss
Compared to Baseline L-3
Exhibit L-2. Summary of Baseline and Sensitivity Analysis Model Inputs and
Assumptions L-6
Exhibit L-3. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis IQ Loss Estimates L-10
Exhibit L-4. Absolute Differences in IQ Loss Estimates Between the Sensitivity and
Baseline Cases L-12
Exhibit L-5. Percent Difference in IQ Loss Estimates between the Sensitivity and
Baseline Cases L-14
Exhibit L-6. Percentage of IQ Loss Contributed from the Recent Air Pathways
Associated with the Sensitivity Cases L-l6
Exhibit L-7. Percent Differences in IQ Loss Estimates Between the Sensitivity and
Baseline Cases - Recent Air Pathways L-l7
July 2007 L-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 L. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS METHODS AND RESULTS
2 L.I. OVERVIEW OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
3 This appendix describes the results of a series of modeling runs that were performed to
4 evaluate the sensitivity of intelligence quotient (IQ) loss estimates to changes in specific models
5 and input parameter values. The overall objective of these model runs was to identify specific
6 models and inputs that contribute the most uncertainty to the IQ loss estimates and to help
7 develop insights concerning the overall level of uncertainty in the estimates.
8 This sensitivity analysis is structured to involve "one-at-a-time" variations on given
9 models or parameter values. In addition, in order to determine the impact of multiple parameter
10 changes on a single model element, several cases involve simultaneous variations in more than
11 one modeling assumption and/or parameter value. The results of the sensitivity runs are
12 compared to the IQ loss distribution estimated for a "baseline" case, which while not a formal
13 "central tendency" estimate, has been derived using models and parameter values which
14 experience has demonstrated are reasonable and representative of the exposure patterns and
15 receptors for which the analysis is being conducted (see Exhibit L-l). The baseline case
16 (described more completely in Section L. 1) generally consists of the IEUBK modeled current
17 conditions (mean) NAAQS case using the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model, a geometric
18 standard deviation (GSD) value of 1.6 |ig/dL, the concurrent blood lead (PbB) metric, and the
19 two-piece linear IQ change function.
20 The baseline case is based on the general urban case study because this case has the
21 potential to characterize potential exposures for a larger number of exposed children than either
22 the primary or secondary Pb smelter case studies. In addition, analyses of available data suggest
23 that exposure patterns for urban children are highly variable and less well-documented than those
24 near Pb smelters. In particular, the relative importance of the contribution of recent air Pb to
25 indoor dust exposures, compared to historical outdoor soil/dust contamination and Pb paint, is
26 not well-defined in the literature (see Appendix G), and a range of alternative assumptions
27 regarding indoor dust models are evaluated in the sensitivity analysis, as described in
28 Section L.2.
29 Exhibit L-l provides an overview of the results of the sensitivity analysis. This exhibit
30 describes the variables varied in the analysis, the percent change in the total IQ loss compared to
31 the baseline case for the median and 95th percentile, and the percent change in the IQ loss arising
32 from the "recent air" (both inhalation and ingestion) pathways compared to the baseline case for
33 the median and 95th percentile. Recent air is used here to refer to Pb exposures in the general
July 2007 L-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 urban case study that are derived from the estimate of outdoor ambient air Pb concentration (i.e.,
2 inhalation of ambient Pb and ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with recent
3 air Pb concentrations). Analyses are presented with exposure concentration variations near the
4 top, with the results progressing through the PbB modeling assumptions and the IQ loss
5 modeling assumptions. Further details about all the cases run are provided below.
July 2007 L-2 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit L-l. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis - Percent Change in IQ Loss Compared to Baseline
Variable
Air conversion ratio
Outdoor soil/dust Pb
concentration
Mechanistic portion of the hybrid
mechanistic-empirical model
Empirical portion of the hybrid
mechanistic-empirical model
Hybrid mechanistic-empirical
model
PbB model
Diet and drinking water absorption
Outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust
fraction
Outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust
absorption
Description of Sensitivity Analysis Performed
Maximum quarterly average to annual average air
concentration conversion ratio of 7.6 (95th percentile)
compared to 2.5 (baseline, mean)
648 ug/g (95th percentile) compared to 198 microgram per
gram (ug/g) (baseline, mean)
Alternate inputs for key variables (i.e., cleaning
frequency, cleaning efficiency, deposition, and air
exchange rate [AER]) in the mechanistic portion of the
hybrid model compared to the baseline inputs.
Total dust Pb estimate of 1 2.2 ug/ft2 (75th percentile total
dust estimate) compared to 5.32 micrograms per square
foot (ug/ft2) (baseline, median)
The air-only regression-based model compared to the
hybrid mechanistic-empirical model (baseline)
The International Commission for Radiation Protection
(ICRP) model (or Leggett model) compared to the
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for
Children (baseline)
Diet and drinking water absorption fraction of 40% (lower)
(60%) (higher) compared to 50% (baseline)
Percentage of soil from outdoor soil/dust+indoor dust
ingestion of 58% compared to 45% (baseline)
Percentage of outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust intake
that is absorbed of 18% compare to a 30% (baseline)
absorption fraction
Total Percent Change in IQ Loss
Compared to Baseline a
Median
(Baseline IQ
Loss < 1)
-1 1 %
73%
-9 to 45%
11%
-8%
279%
-7 to 6%
-7%
-7%
95th Percentile
(Baseline IQ
Loss = 2.1)
-1 1 %
71%
-9 to 45%
10%
-8%
1 70%
-7 to 6%
-8%
-7%
Percent Change in IQ Loss
from Recent Air b Pathway
Contributions Compared to
Baseline
Median
(Baseline IQ
Loss< 1)
-49%
-7%
-19 to 139%
-31%
-60%
279%
1%
-30%
-21%
95th Percentile
(Baseline IQ
Loss< 1)
-50%
-8%
-1 9 to 1 39%
-31%
-60%
1 70%
0%
-31%
-21%
July 2007
L-3
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit L-l. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis - Percent Change in IQ Loss Compared to Baseline
Variable
PbB metric
GSD
IQ change function
Description of Sensitivity Analysis Performed
Lifetime metric compared to concurrent metric (baseline)
Lower-bound (1.6 ug/dL) and upper-bound (2.1 ug/dL)
values compared to 1 .7 microgram per deciliter (ug/dL)
(baseline)
Log-linear with cutpoint and log-linear with linearization
functions compared to two-piece linear (baseline) function
Total Percent Change in IQ Loss
Compared to Baseline a
Median
(Baseline IQ
Loss < 1)
20%
0%
102 to 41 2%
95th Percent! le
(Baseline IQ
Loss = 2.1)
9%
-1 0 to 40%
97 to 226%
Percent Change in IQ Loss
from Recent Air b Pathway
Contributions Compared to
Baseline
Median
(Baseline IQ
Loss< 1)
20%
0%
102 to 41 2%
95th Percent! le
(Baseline IQ
Loss< 1)
9%
40%
97 to 226%
1 aThe baseline case consists of the IEUBK modeled current conditions (mean) NAAQS case using the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model, a GSD value of 1.6
2 ug/dL, the concurrent PbB metric, and the two-piece linear IQ change function.
3 b Recent air is used here to refer to Pb exposures in the general urban case study that are derived from the estimate of outdoor ambient air Pb concentration (i.e.,
4 inhalation of ambient air Pb and ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with ambient air Pb concentrations).
July 2007
L-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 L.2. BASELINE AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS CASES
2 The "Baseline Parameter Value" column of Exhibit L-2. summarizes the baseline case
3 which served as the basis for comparison for all of the sensitivity case results. As shown in the
4 exhibit, the current conditions (mean) general urban case study NAAQS scenario was selected as
5 the baseline for comparison of IQ loss estimates. The major models and assumptions associated
6 with the baseline case are as follows:
7 Exposures were estimated for a single exposed (hypothetical) population cohort, rather
8 than for residents of many U.S. Census blocks. Thus, the output distribution of IQ loss
9 includes no contribution from explicitly modeled variations in exposure.
10 Urban annual average ambient air Pb concentrations were estimated based on analyses of
11 maximum quarterly concentration data for 2003 to 2005 from monitors in urban areas
12 with more than 1 million population (see Appendix C). The mean ratio of maximum
13 quarterly average to annual average concentration of Pb in total suspended paniculate
14 matter (TSP) was used to convert the maximum quarterly average concentration to an
15 annual average equivalent.
16 The baseline outdoor soil/dust Pb exposure concentration was the arithmetic mean
17 estimated from the interim National Survey of Lead and Allergens in housing (NSLAH)
18 data (198 ug/g) (Westat Inc., 2002).
19 The indoor dust Pb exposure concentration was estimated using the hybrid model (see
20 Appendix G), with the non-air dust Pb concentration based on the median wipe dust
21 loading from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) National
22 Survey (USEPA, 1995) and the ambient air Pb contribution estimated using the
23 mechanistic portion of the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model.
24 PbB levels were estimated using the IEUBK model (USEPA, 2005), with the baseline
25 exposure factor values and policy-relevant background pathways (drinking water and
26 diet) Pb concentration and intake estimates described in Appendix H.
27 The concurrent PbB metric (average of the results at 75 and 81 months in the seventh
28 year of life) was used as input to the IQ loss model.
29 Distributions of PbB concentrations (percentiles) were derived assuming a lognormal
30 distribution of concurrent PbB levels with a GSD of 1.7 (background for this estimate can
31 be found in Appendix H).
32 IQ loss percentiles were derived by applying a two-piece linear IQ loss model derived
33 from the Lanphear et al. (2005) pooled analysis of epidemiological studies of PbB and IQ
34 (see Section 4.1.1 of the main body of this report).
July 2007 L-5 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit L-2. Summary of Baseline and Sensitivity Analysis Model Inputs and Assumptions
Variable
Case study/NAAQS scenario
Outdoor soil/dust Pb
concentration
Annual average ambient air
Pb concentration
Indoor dust Pb concentration
model
PbB estimation model
Exposure/ intake/uptake
factors
PbB metric
Inter-individual PbB variability
(GSD)
IQ model
Baseline Parameter Value
General urban case study, current conditions (mean)
Arithmetic mean (198 ug/g) from NSLAH (see
Appendix C)
Maximum quarterly-averaged Pb concentrations from
urban TSP monitoring sites converted to equivalent
annual average concentrations using the mean ambient
air ratio (2.5) of maximum quarterly average to annual
average Pb-TSP concentrations (see Appendix C)
. Mechanistic portion of the hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model estimate, using inputs as
described in Appendix G
. Empirical portion of the hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model, using total indoor dust estimate
based on HUD National Survey median
IEUBK (batch mode age profile) model
Baseline exposure factor values and policy-relevant
background contributions (see Appendix H)
Concurrent (average of results at 75 and 81 months
during the seventh year of life)
Central tendency value (1 .7 |ig/dl_) estimated from
epidemiological studies (see Appendix H)
Two-piece linear model (break point =13 ug/dL),
derived from Lanphear et al. (2005) as described in
Section 4.1 .1 of the main body of this report
Sensitivity Analysis Variations
Unchanged
Estimated 95th percentile (648 ug/g) from NSLAH
Ambient air ratio varied from the mean ratio of maximum quarterly
average to annual average Pb-TSP concentrations (2.5) to the 95th
percentile ratio of maximum quarterly average to annual average Pb-
TSP concentrations (7.6)
. Air-only regression-based model
. Empirical portion of the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model, using
total indoor dust estimate based on the HUD National Survey 75'
percentile (12.5 ug/ft2)
. Multiple cases, each with variations in the mechanistic portion of
the mechanistic-empirical model. Each case was run with an
alternate value of a single parameter. The cases run include: low
(1 cleaning per month [m 1j) and high (1 cleaning per week [w 1])
cleaning frequency, low cleaning efficiency (12.5%), lower-bound
Pb deposition (0.39 per hour [h )], and upper-bound AER (1 .26 h"1)
values. An overall upper-bound case was developed by
simultaneously using the low cleaning frequency, low cleaning
efficiency, upper bound AER, and the base case Pb deposition.
Leggett (batch mode) model
. Absolute diet, drinking water pathway absorption fractions varied
from baseline 50% to 40 and 60%
. Outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust weighting factor changed from
baseline 45% to 58% (von Lindern et al., 2003)
. Outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust absorption fraction changed from
baseline 30% to 18% (von Lindern et al., 2003)
Lifetime Average
(average of results from 6 to 84 months of age)
Baseline GSD varied to a lower-bound value of 1 .6 |ig/dL and an upper-
bound value of 2.1 |ig/dL, estimated from epidemiological studies
. Log-linear with cutpoint model
. Log-linear with linearization model
July 2007
L-6
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The "Sensitivity Analysis Variations" column of Exhibit L-2 summarizes the alternative
2 modeling assumptions and parameter values that were used as inputs to each of the sensitivity
3 analysis cases. Note that the sensitivity analysis covers only a very small portion of the credible
4 combinations of modeling assumptions and parameter values that could be tested. A full
5 analysis of the uncertainty contributions from each model and parameter would require the use of
6 Monte Carlo analysis or a related probabilistic method. However, data and resource limitations
7 prevented such a full-scale probabilistic model analysis at this time.
8 Instead, credible alternative models and parameter values for each step in the modeling
9 process were selected for the sensitivity analysis. The derivation of sensitivity analysis cases
10 was informed by the results of the pilot assessment and by additional research conducted in
11 support of this assessment. The alternative parameter values were chosen based on professional
12 judgment, supported by quantitative data to the extent possible. Where parameters were known
13 to be variable, but the range of variability was poorly constrained (e.g., gastrointestinal [GI]
14 absorption fractions for Pb in diet and drinking water), reasonable upper and lower values were
15 chosen to cover a substantial proportion of the overall variability in long-term average values.
16 For the exposure Pb concentrations, alternate values for both the outdoor soil/dust and the
17 ambient air Pb concentrations were explored. For example, the alternative ("upper") outdoor
18 soil/dust Pb exposure concentration estimate was taken as the estimated 95th percentile (rather
19 than the baseline arithmetic mean) from the NSLAH survey (as cited in U.S. EPA (2000)). This
20 value was estimated using the geometric mean (GM) and GSD in the NSLAH survey and
21 assuming a lognormal distribution. For the ambient air Pb concentration, an alternate value was
22 used to convert the maximum quarterly-averaged Pb concentrations from urban TSP monitoring
23 sites to equivalent annual average concentrations. Rather than using mean ambient air ratio of
24 maximum quarterly to annual average Pb-TSP concentrations (2.5), the sensitivity analysis used
25 the 95th percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average Pb-TSP concentrations (7.6).
26 That is, the annual ambient air Pb concentration estimate is lower when the 95th percentile ratio
27 is used.
28 In addition, the method for determining indoor dust Pb concentrations was also
29 investigated. Because of the importance of determining the contribution of ambient air Pb to
30 indoor dust concentrations, a range of sensitivity analyses were performed wherein various
31 aspects of the indoor dust Pb estimation model were varied. Three major alternative models
32 were evaluated, with varying assumptions related to input parameters:
33 IQ estimates from the hybrid (baseline) model were compared to those obtained when
34 indoor dust Pb concentrations were estimated using an empirical (air-only regression-
Jufy 2007 L-7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 based model) derived through analysis of air-indoor dust Pb relationships at Pb smelting
2 and mining sites (see Appendix G).
3 IQ estimates were developed by applying the hybrid (baseline) model, but using the 75th
4 percentile indoor dust Pb loading (12.2 ug/ft2) from the HUD National Survey (USEPA,
5 1995), instead of the survey baseline case median value (5.3 ug/ft2) to derive the non-air
6 estimate of Pb loading.
7 The hybrid (baseline) model was applied, varying the inputs to the mechanistic portion of
8 the model affecting indoor dust Pb deposition and removal rates. The parameter values
9 that were varied included cleaning frequency, cleaning efficiency, AER, and the average
10 Pb deposition rate.
11 For the third bullet above, the mechanistic portion of the hybrid model requires inputs
12 (such as the AER, the deposition rate, the cleaning frequency, and the cleaning efficiency) as
13 discussed in Appendix G. In the sensitivity analysis, two approaches were taken. First, single
14 inputs were varied one at a time to investigate the effects of that parameter on the overall IQ
15 change. In general, the parameter values selected were based on alternate values in the literature
16 deemed appropriate for urban scenarios, and these values caused the overall dust exposure to
17 either increase or decrease, depending on the value chosen. Second, a combination of these
18 alternate values was used in which each alternate parameter value caused the dust exposure to
19 increase. This second method then represented an overall high-end estimate of dust exposure.
20 For the AER, an upper-bound of 1.26 h"1 was used, reflecting the 90th percentile AER for all
21 regions of the country (USEPA, 1997; Table 17-10). For the Pb deposition rate, a lower-bound
22 value of 0.39 h"1 was used, reflecting an estimate for particulate matter (PM) that is 2.5
23 micrometers (urn) or smaller (PM2.5) (USEPA, 1997; Table 17-12). This value is lower than the
24 Pb-specific value of 1.11 h"1 used in the baseline case. For the cleaning frequency, both a lower
25 value (1 m"1) and an upper value (1 w"1) were compared with the baseline cleaning of 2 cleanings
26 m"1. Finally, for the cleaning efficiency, an upper-bound value of 25 percent was compared with
27 the baseline cleaning efficiency of 12.5 percent. In each of these sensitivity cases, the
28 mechanistic recent air contribution to total indoor dust loading was added to the other sources
29 portion to get a total Pb dust loading. To get this other sources portion for the sensitivity
30 analysis cases, the ratio of these two portions was calculated for the baseline case. Then, this
31 ratio was applied to each of the sensitivity mechanistic model estimates to generate a total indoor
32 Pb dust loading estimate for each.
33 Alternative PbB estimates were derived using a range of different PbB models and
34 parameter values from those used in the baseline case, and these differences were carried through
35 to the IQ losses using the two-piece linear model. First, the International Commission for
36 Radiation Protection (ICRP) PbB model (hereafter referred to as the "Leggett model"), (Leggett,
July 2007 L-8 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 1993) (see Appendix H) was applied (instead of the baseline IEUBK model (USEPA, 2005) with
2 the same exposure factor and policy-relevant non-air exposure concentrations and intakes as
3 those used in the baseline case. The differences in results from the baseline case thus reflect only
4 differences in the biokinetic predictions of the two models. In addition, the impacts of varying
5 the GI absorption fractions for diet, drinking water, outdoor soil/dust, and indoor dust exposure,
6 and the relative amounts of outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust ingestion inputs to the IEUBK
7 model were also estimated. The IEUBK model was used to estimate both concurrent and
8 lifetime PbB metrics, and the impacts of using these different measures of PbB impacts on
9 estimated IQ losses were also evaluated. The effect of applying a low-end and high-end estimate
10 of the PbB GSD (1.6 ug/dL and 2.1 ug/dL, instead of the baseline estimate of 1.7) on estimated
11 IQ loss percentiles was also evaluated.
12 In addition, IQ loss predictions derived using two alternative forms of the IQ loss model
13 were compared to the baseline estimates. The derivation of the alternative IQ functions (log-
14 linear with cutpoint and log-linear with linearization) was discussed in Section 4.1.1 of the main
15 body of this report.
16 L.3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
17 Exhibit L-3 provides a summary of the sensitivity case outputs. Selected percentile IQ
18 loss estimates are presented for each case, with the cases ranked in decreasing order of the
19 estimated 95th percentile values, and the baseline case results indicated in bold.
July 2007 L-9 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit L-3. Summary of Sensitivity Analysis IQ Loss Estimates
Sensitivity Case
Log-linear with linearization IQ loss model
Leggett PbB model
Log-linear with outpoint IQ loss model
Urban soil 95th percentile (648 ug/g)
High-end hybrid model parameters
Hybrid model with low cleaning frequency (1 m 1)
Hybrid model with low cleaning efficiency (0.1 25)
Hybrid model based on 75th percentile total indoor dust Pb (12.2 ug/ft2)
Lifetime PbB metric
High PbBGSD(2.1 ug/dL)
Hybrid model with high AER (1 .26 h"1)
Diet/drinking water Gl absorption fraction (60%)
Low PbB GSD (1.6 ug/dL)
Baseline
Hybrid model with low Pb deposition rate (0.39 h"1)
Diet/Water Gl absorption fraction (40%)
Outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust Gl absorption Fraction (0.18)
Outdoor soil/dust ingestion weighting factor (58%)
Air-only regression-based indoor dust model
Hybrid model with high cleaning frequency (1 w 1)
95th Percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average Pb-TSP
concentrations (7.6)
Percentile IQ Estimate
99.9th
8.9
8.0
6.2
5.5
5.3
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.4
5.7
4.8
4.8
3.7
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
99.5th
8.2
6.9
5.5
5.1
4.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.6
5.1
3.6
3.6
2.9
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
99th
7.8
6.5
5.1
5.0
4.3
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.1
4.7
3.2
3.2
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
95th
6.8
5.7
4.1
3.6
3.0
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.9
2.3
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
90th
6.3
5.3
3.6
2.9
2.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.2
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
Median a
4.5
3.3
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1 Values less than 1.0 should be interpreted with caution (see text following this exhibit).
July 2007
L-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 The estimated median, 95th, and 99.5th percentile IQ loss estimates for the baseline case
2 are approximately 0.9, 2.1, and 3.5 points, respectively. Quantitative estimates are presented in
3 this appendix in order to support estimates of absolute and relative differences between the
4 baseline sensitivity analysis case estimates discussed in the following sections.
5 Because more high than low parameter values were tested, the majority of the sensitivity
6 analysis runs yielded IQ loss estimates higher than the results from the baseline case. It can be
7 seen from the estimates in Exhibit L-2. that the cases resulting in the highest estimated IQ loss
8 are those derived using different PbB and/or IQ loss estimation models. Use of the log-linear
9 with linearization IQ loss model and the Leggett PbB model yield by a large margin the highest
10 median and higher percentile IQ losses among all of the sensitivity cases. Smaller impacts are
11 associated with cases assuming the 95th percentile soil concentration estimates and high-end
12 mechanistic portion of the indoor hybrid mechanistic-empirical model inputs.
13 L.3.1. Absolute Changes in IQ Loss Estimates Associated with the Sensitivity Cases
14 This section discusses and compares the absolute changes in IQ loss relative to the
15 baseline that are associated with the sensitivity cases.
16 Exhibit L-4 summarizes the differences between the percentile IQ loss estimated for the
17 baseline case and the analogous percentile losses for the sensitivity analysis. The cases are again
18 listed by decreasing order of the estimated differences in the absolute values of the 95th
19 percentile IQ estimates relative to baseline. Cases giving the largest differences in the 95th
20 percentile estimates compared to the baseline are at the top of the table.
21 As noted in the previous section, the largest "across-the-board" differences from the
22 baseline IQ loss estimates come from the use of other than baseline IQ loss estimation models
23 (i.e., the log-linear with linearization IQ loss model and the Leggett PbB model) to estimate PbB
24 or IQ. Impacts of these model selections on the various percentiles range from 2.4 IQ points (the
25 increase in the median associated with the use of the Leggett model) to 4.7 IQ points (increase in
26 the 95th and 99.5th percentile associated with use of the log-linear with linearization IQ loss
27 model). Application of the log-linear with cutpoint model is associated with an estimated
28 increase in IQ loss relative to the baseline of 2.0 points at both the 99.5th and 95th percentile, and
29 with an increase in estimated median IQ loss of 0.9 points.
July 2007 L-ll Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit L-4. Absolute Differences in IQ Loss Estimates Between the
Sensitivity and Baseline Cases
Sensitivity Case
Log-linear with linearization IQ loss model
Leggett PbB model
Log-linear with outpoint IQ loss model
Urban soil 95th percentile (648 ug/g)
High-end hybrid model parameters
Hybrid model with low cleaning frequency (1 m 1)
Hybrid model with low cleaning efficiency (0.1 25)
Hybrid model based on 75th percentile total indoor dust Pb (12.2
ug/ft2)
Lifetime PbB metric
High PbBGSD(2.1 ug/dL)
Hybrid model with high AER (1 .26 h"1)
Diet/drinking water Gl absorption fraction (60%)
LowPbBGSD(1.6ug/dL)
Hybrid model with low Pb deposition rate (0.39 h"1)
Diet/Water Gl absorption fraction (40%)
Outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust Gl absorption Fraction (0.18)
Outdoor soil/dust ingestion weighting factor (58%)
Air-only regression-based indoor dust model
Hybrid model with high cleaning frequency (1 w 1)
95th Percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average Pb-
TSP concentrations (7.6)
Absolute Change (IQ Points) in Percentile
Estimates Relative to Baseline
99.5th
Percentile
(Baseline=3.5)
4.7
3.4
2.0
1.7
1.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.1
1.7
0.2
0.1
-0.6
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
95th
Percentile
(Baseline = 2.1)
4.7
3.6
2.0
1.5
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
-0.2
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
Median
(Baseline = 0.9)
3.6
2.4
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
4
5
6
7
Two cases involving changes to specific exposure concentration or exposure factor
values generate substantially different percentile IQ loss values at the higher percentiles, but not
in the median value, compared to the baseline case. Using the 95th percentile soil Pb
concentration estimate from the NSLAH data (instead of the mean), and applying a combination
of high input values to the mechanistic portion of the hybrid mechanistic-empirical model results
in changes in the 95th and 99.5th percentile IQ estimates ranging from 0.9 to 1.7 points. The
July 2007
L-12
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 increases in the predicted median IQ values relative to the baseline associated with these two
2 cases were 0.6 and 0.4 points, respectively.
3 Cases that include a high-end assumption related to inter-individual PbB variability (GSD
4 =2.1 ug/dL) also strongly affect the estimated upper (95th and 99th) percentile IQ estimates, but
5 as expected, have minimal impact on the estimated medians. When the high-end GSD is applied
6 along with the baseline (two-piece linear) IQ model, the estimated 95th and 99th percentile IQ
7 estimates are 0.8 and 1.7 points higher than the corresponding estimates from the baseline (GSD
8 =1.7 ug/dL) case. When the high-end GSD is applied in a case along with the log-linear with
9 linearization model, the 95th and 99.5th percentile IQ estimates are 0.9 and 1.4 points higher than
10 the baseline estimates.
11 None of the other cases result in IQ percentile estimates that differ by more than 0.6
12 points from the baseline estimates, and most of the impacts, even on the higher percentile
13 estimates, are much lower.
14 L.3.2. Relative IQ Loss Associated with the Sensitivity Cases
15 Exhibit L-5 summarizes the relative differences between the IQ percentiles estimated in
16 the sensitivity cases and the corresponding estimates from the baseline. This approach
17 "normalizes," or scales the differences between the estimated IQ percentiles in terms of the
18 baseline values. The cases are arranged in decreasing order according to the absolute values of
19 the differences in the 95th percentile values between the sensitivity cases and the baseline case.
July 2007 L-13 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit L-5. Percent Difference in IQ Loss Estimates between the
Sensitivity and Baseline Cases
Sensitivity Case
Log-linear with linearization IQ loss model
Leggett PbB model
Log-linear with outpoint IQ loss model
Urban soil 95th percentile (648 ug/g)
High-end hybrid model parameters
Hybrid model with low cleaning frequency (1 m1)
Hybrid model with low cleaning efficiency (0.1 25)
Hybrid model based on 75th percentile total indoor dust Pb
(12.2ug/ft2)
Lifetime PbB metric
High PbB GSD (2.1 ug/dL)
Hybrid model with high AER (1.26 h"1)
Diet/drinking water Gl absorption fraction (60%)
Low PbB GSD (1 .6 ug/dL)
Hybrid model with low Pb deposition rate (0.39 h"1)
Diet/Water Gl absorption fraction (40%)
Outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust Gl absorption Fraction (0.18)
Outdoor soil/dust ingestion weighting factor (58%)
Air-only regression-based indoor dust model
Hybrid model with high cleaning frequency (1 w 1)
95th Percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual
average Pb-TSP concentrations (7.6)
Relative Change in Percentile Estimate Compared to
Baseline
99.5th
(Baseline = 3.5)
137%
99%
59%
49%
43%
10%
9%
11%
3%
49%
5%
4%
-17%
-8%
-9%
-9%
-9%
-10%
-11%
-12%
95th
(Baseline = 2.1)
226%
1 70%
97%
71%
45%
11%
11%
10%
9%
40%
8%
6%
-10%
-7%
-7%
-7%
-8%
-8%
-9%
-11%
Median
(Baseline = 0.9)
412%
279%
1 02%
73%
45%
12%
12%
11%
20%
0%
9%
6%
0%
-6%
-7%
-7%
-7%
-8%
-9%
-11%
4
5
6
7
As expected, the proportional differences between the sensitivity case and baseline
estimates closely parallel the pattern of the absolute differences shown in Exhibit L-3. The
exhibit shows how some of the relatively small absolute changes in the median IQ estimates
associated with the sensitivity analysis cases correspond to large proportional changes from the
low baseline value.
July 2007
L-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 L.3.3. Change in IQ Loss Associated with Recent Air Exposures
2 In addition to the total predicted IQ loss, an analysis was performed on how changes in
3 modeling assumptions and parameters affected the proportions of IQ loss associated with the
4 "recent air" exposure pathways. As discussed in Appendix K, the estimated contributions to IQ
5 loss associated with specific exposure pathways are estimated from the estimated contributions
6 to total Pb intake. Given the nonlinearity of the IQ loss model, the proportional contributions are
7 therefore approximate. In addition, because the baseline case involves derivation of IQ loss
8 distributions based on a single exposure value, the point estimate of the pathway contribution to
9 IQ loss is the same across all the estimated percentiles within each case.
10 Exhibit L-6 summarizes the estimated changes in recent air pathway contributions (i.e.,
11 ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to be associated with ambient air Pb concentrations,
12 inhalation of ambient air Pb, and the sum of the two) associated with the various sensitivity
13 cases. These results indicate the percentage of the total IQ that comes from the recent air
14 pathways for each case. The exhibit provides results for only 14 of the 21 sensitivity cases
15 because cases that do not involve changes in exposure models or parameter values result in no
16 change in the recent air contribution compared to the baseline value. This is true of all the cases
17 that assume different PbB GSDs and different PbB and IQ loss models. In these cases, as in the
18 baseline, the estimated contribution of recent air pathways to the total IQ loss is 29 percent
19 (rounded), 28 percent associated with indoor dust ingestion and 0.5 percent associated with
20 inhalation exposures.
July 2007 L-15 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
Exhibit L-6. Percentage of IQ Loss Contributed from the Recent Air Pathways Associated
with the Sensitivity Cases
Case
High-end hybrid model parameters
Hybrid model with low cleaning efficiency (0.1 25)
Hybrid model with low cleaning frequency (1 m 1)
Hybrid model with high AER (1 .26 h"1)
Diet/Water G I absorption fraction (40%)
Baseline
Diet/drinking water Gl absorption fraction (60%)
Hybrid model with low Pb deposition rate (0.39 h"1)
Outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust Gl absorption Fraction (0.1 8)
Hybrid model with high cleaning frequency (1 w 1)
Outdoor soil/dust inqestion weiqhtinq factor (58%)
Hybrid model based on 75m percentile total indoor dust Pb (12.2
uq/ft2)
95m Percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average Pb-
TSP concentrations (7.6)
Urban soil 95th percentile (648 uq/q)
Air-only regression-based indoor dust model
Recent Air a Contribution to IQ Loss
Indoor Dust
Ingestion
47%
35%
35%
33%
30%
28%
27%
24%
24%
22%
21%
18%
16%
15%
12%
Ambient Air
Inhalation
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.3%
0.6%
Total
Contribution
48%
35%
35%
34%
31%
29%
27%
25%
25%
23%
22%
18%
16%
16%
13%
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
a Recent air is used here to refer to Pb exposures in the general urban case study that are derived from the estimate of
outdoor ambient air Pb concentration (i.e., inhalation of ambient air Pb and ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted to
be associated with ambient air Pb concentration).
The data in Exhibit L-6 illustrate that changing parameters in a number of exposure
models can have a large impact on the proportion of IQ loss attributed to the recent air pathway.
Assuming high parameter values in the mechanistic portion of the hybrid mechanistic-empirical
model can substantially increase the estimated recent air contribution relative to baseline.
Assuming low cleaning efficiency, low cleaning frequency, or higher air exchange rates
increases the estimated recent air contribution to between 33 and 35 percent from the baseline
value of 29 percent. Assuming high values for all of these values simultaneously (i.e., the high-
end indoor dust model) increases the total "recent air" contribution (ingestion of indoor dust plus
inhalation) to 48 percent of total IQ loss (subject to the limitations noted above).
Assumptions that significantly reduce the proportion of IQ loss attributed to recent air
exposure pathways include use of the air-only regression-based model to estimate indoor dust Pb
concentrations (13 percent), use of the 95th percentile urban outdoor soil/dust Pb concentration or
95th percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual average Pb-TSP concentrations (16 percent
each), or use of the 75th percentile total indoor dust Pb estimate from the HUD National Survey
(18 percent). The remaining sensitivity cases have less impact on the estimated proportion of IQ
loss attributable to recent air exposure pathways.
July 2007
L-16
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Exhibit L-7 shows the relative changes in the IQ loss from the "recent air" pathways.
This exhibit is similar to Exhibit L-5, but it shows the change relative to the baseline IQ for the
IQ derived from recent air pathways only. The rank order in the table is the same as that in
Exhibit L-5. In some cases, changes that result in an increase in total IQ loss compared to the
baseline case cause a decrease in recent air-related IQ loss (e.g., the urban soil 95th percentile
case). Percent changes tend to be larger for the recent air portion of IQ loss, compared with the
total. However, the recent air portion of the IQ loss tends to be small (usually less than one IQ
point), and thus the overall effect on IQ is usually small.
Exhibit L-7. Percent Differences in IQ Loss Estimates Between the Sensitivity and
Baseline Cases - Recent Air Pathways
Sensitivity Case
Log-linear with linearization IQ loss model
Leggett PbB model
Log-linear with outpoint IQ loss model
Urban soil 95th percentile (648 ug/g)
High-end hybrid model parameters
Hybrid model with low cleaning frequency (1 m 1)
Hybrid model with low cleaning efficiency (0.1 25)
Hybrid model based on 75th percentile total indoor dust
Pb(12.2ug/ft2)
Lifetime PbB metric
High PbB GSD (2.1 ug/dL)
Hybrid model with high AER (1.26 h"1)
Diet/drinking water Gl absorption fraction (60%)
Low PbB GSD (1.6ug/dL)
Hybrid model with low Pb deposition rate (0.39 h"1)
Diet/Water Gl absorption fraction (40%)
Outdoor soil/dust, indoor dust Gl absorption Fraction
(0.18)
Outdoor soil/dust ingestion weighting factor (58%)
Air-only regression-based indoor dust model
Hybrid model with high cleaning frequency (1 w 1)
95th Percentile ratio of maximum quarterly to annual
average Pb-TSP concentrations (7.6)
Relative Change in Percentile Estimate Compared
to Baseline for Recent Aira Pathways
99.5tn
(Baseline = 3.5)
137%
99%
59%
-20%
1 36%
35%
33%
-31%
3%
49%
24%
-1%
-1 7%
-1 9%
-3%
-23%
-32%
-61 %
-29%
-50%
95tn
(Baseline = 2.1)
226%
1 70%
97%
-8%
1 39%
36%
36%
-31%
9%
40%
27%
0%
-1 0%
-1 9%
-2%
-21%
-31%
-60%
-28%
-50%
Median
(Baseline = 0.9)
412%
279%
1 02%
-7%
1 39%
37%
37%
-31%
20%
0%
28%
1%
0%
-1 9%
-1%
-21%
-30%
-60%
-27%
-49%
9
10
11
a Recent air is used here to refer to Pb exposures in the general urban case study that are derived from the estimate
of outdoor ambient air Pb concentration (i.e., inhalation of ambient air Pb and ingestion of indoor dust Pb predicted
to be associated with ambient air Pb concentration).
July 2007
L-17
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Lanphear, B. P.; Hornung, R.; Khoury, J.; Yolton, K.; Baghurst, P.; Bellinger, D. C.; Canfield, R. L.; Dietrich, K.
3 N.; Bornschein, R.; Greene, T.; Rothenberg, S. J.; Needleman, H. L.; Schnaas, L.; Wasserman, G.;
4 Graziano, J.; Robe, R. (2005) Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual
5 Function: An International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113(7)
6 Leggett, R. W. (1993) An Age-Specific Kinetic Model of Lead Metabolism in Humans. Environ Health Perspect.
1 101:598-616.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995) Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in
9 Housing: Appendix I: Design and Methodology. EPA 747-R95-004. Office of Pollution Prevention and
10 Toxics.
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook Vol. Ill: Activity Factors. 1-
12 74. USEPA; August.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000) Hazard Standard Risk Analysis Supplement - TSCA
14 Section 403. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/403risksupp.htm.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2005) Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in
16 Children, Windowsฎ Version (lEUBKwin VI.0 Build 263). Available online at:
17 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/lead/products.htm.
18 von Lindern, I.; Spalinger, S.; Petrosyan, V.; and von Braun, M. (2003) Assessing Remedial Effectiveness Through
19 the Blood Lead: Soil/Dust Lead Relationship at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in the Silver Valley of
20 Idaho. Sci. Total Environ. 303: 139-170.
21 Westat Inc. (2002) National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing. Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Final
22 Report. Revision 7.1. Washington, D. C.: Office of Health Homes and Lead Hazard Control, U.S.
23 Department of Housing and Urban Development.
24
25
July 2007 L-18 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 July 25, 2007
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Appendix M. Qualitative Discussion of Sources of Uncertainty and Quantitative Analysis of
11 Two Design Features
12
13
14
15
16 Prepared by:
17
18 ICF International
19 Research Triangle Park, NC
20
21
22
23
24
25 Prepared for:
26
27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
28 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
29 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
30
31
32 Contract No. EP-D-06-115
33 Work Assignment No. 0-4
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
-------
-------
1 Table of Contents
2 Table of Contents M-i
3 List of Exhibits M-ii
4 M. QUALITATIVE SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY AND DESIGN UNCERTAINTY
5 ANALYSES M-l
6 M. 1. QUALITATIVE SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTIES IN THE EXPOSURE
7 CONCENTRATIONS AND RISK ANALYSES MODELS M-l
8 M.2. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO DESIGN ELEMENTS M-13
9 M.2.1. Comparison of the Primary and Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study IQ Loss
10 Estimates M-13
11 M.2.2. Stability of the Upper Percentiles in the Probabilistic Model Run M-15
12 REFERENCES M-17
13
July 2007 M-i Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 List of Exhibits
2 Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this
3 Assessment M-2
4 Exhibit M-2. Comparison of the 5th Percentile IQ Loss Estimates for the Primary and
5 Secondary Pb Smelter Case Studies M-l4
6 Exhibit M-3. Summary of Simulation Uncertainty for IQ Loss Estimates M-15
July 2007 M-ii Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 M. QUALITATIVE SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY AND DESIGN
2 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSES
3 This appendix presents an overview of the qualitative uncertainties in the risk analysis.
4 For many of the uncertainties discussed, a full quantitative uncertainty analysis is not possible
5 because the uncertainty in many of the exposure lead (Pb) concentrations or prediction models is
6 not well-quantified. However, where possible, attempts have been made to account for these
7 uncertainties by running multiple models and looking at the range of results. For example, for
8 the general urban case study, two different indoor dust models were used to estimate indoor dust
9 Pb concentrations; two different geometric standard deviations (GSDs) were used to estimate
10 inter-individual variability; two different blood Pb (PbB) metrics were used to estimate PbB
11 concentrations; and three different intelligence quotient (IQ) change functions were used to
12 generate IQ loss estimates. Comparison across all these different cases does, however, provide
13 some estimate of the overall uncertainty in the risk results. This appendix further delineates
14 individual sources of uncertainty in each step of the risk analyses for each case study. Section
15 M. 1 presents a summary of the uncertainties in the Pb exposure concentrations and risk analysis
16 models, and Section M.2 further discusses uncertainties specific to the design of the risk
17 analyses.
18 M.l. QUALITATIVE SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTIES IN THE EXPOSURE
19 CONCENTRATIONS AND RISK ANALYSES MODELS
20 M-l presents a summary of limitations contributing uncertainty to the assessment that are
21 associated with the following:
22 The general (vs. specific) case study strategy (i.e., of general urban case study),
23 Emissions characterization,
24 Ambient air Pb concentrations,
25 Roll-back approach for alternative NAAQS scenarios,
26 Inhalation Pb exposure concentrations,
27 Outdoor soil/dust Pb exposure concentrations,
28 Indoor dust Pb exposure concentrations,
29 Other sources of exposure,
30 The PbB estimation model,
31 Biokinetic exposure/intake/uptake factors,
32 The PbB metric,
33 Inter-individual PbB variability (i.e., GSD),
34 The IQ loss model for each case study, and
35 The apportionment of PbB concentrations and IQ loss to different exposure pathways.
July 2007 M-l Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Case Study''
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
General (vs. specific)
Case Study Strategy
- In considering the general urban case study,
uncertainty results from a reliance on a general
approach to characterize conditions in urban areas
across the United States. Although the approach
provides a reasonable approximation of average
conditions within urbanized areas in the United States, it
is unlikely that it could be used to accurately represent
individual cities when they are considered outside the
framework of this average across cities.
Emissions
Characterization
- Emission estimates for the current NAAQS
scenario reflect the proposed Missouri
Department of Natural Resources [MDNR] 2007
State Implementation Plan [SIP] [(2007). The
U.S. EPA has not completed its review of this
proposed SIP. Further, actual emissions from Pb
sources in this case study occurring when the
current or alternative NAAQS is attained may
differ.
- Process-related Pb emissions for
the current conditions scenario were
obtained from 2005 to 2006 stack
tests, and fugitive Pb emissions were
estimated based on 1987 data.
These estimates may differ from
actual emissions from this facility.
Ambient Air Pb
Concentrations
- Although the general approach provides bounds on the
current situation by examining mean and 95th percentile
current conditions, it does not bound the conditions under
each alternative NAAQS scenario. The use of single
NAAQS values for the alternative NAAQS standards does
not allow for consideration of the fact that attainment of an
alternative NAAQS is likely to result in a non-uniform
ambient air surface, including areas with levels below that
standard.
- The spatial pattern of air concentrations
predicted from the dispersion modeling for the
current NAAQS attainment scenario is used for all
scenarios.
- The spatial pattern of air
concentrations predicted from the
dispersion modeling for the current
conditions scenario is used for all
scenarios.
July 2007
M-2
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Ambient Air Pb
Concentrations
(Continued)
Roll-back Approach for
Alternative NAAQS
Scenarios
Inhalation Pb Exposure
Concentrations
Case Study a
General Urban
- Mean and 95th percentile ratios of maximum quarterly to
annual average Pb-total suspended particulates (TSP)
concentration estimates for all air monitors were used to
convert the quarterly maximum concentration to an annual
equivalent for current conditions. The use of these ratios
incorporates uncertainty into the analysis. In addition, lower-
bound estimates of these ratios were not generated, which
limits the ability of this assessment to represent locations
with smaller ratios.
-
Primary Pb Smelter
- In dispersion modeling used to predict air
concentrations for the current NAAQS scenario,
only two years of meteorological data were
modeled (as compared to the more traditional
five), which limited the ability of the analysis to
capture year-to-year variability in meteorological
conditions. However, the data that were used
were site-specific data, which are generally
considered preferable to five years of data from
the closest National Weather Service (NWS)
station.
Secondary Pb Smelter
- In dispersion modeling used to
predict air concentrations for the
current conditions scenario, no
site-specific meteorological data
were available, thus data from the
nearest NWS station were used.
- The roll-back approach used in this assessment assumes a proportional reduction
(relative to the reduction necessary for the maximum concentration location to meet the
alternative standard) for all locations across the study area. This approach does not
explicitly consider the spatial differences in concentrations that may occur under different
control strategies.
- Concentrations were not modeled using an exposure-event model (e.g., APEX). Instead, this analysis used conversion factors developed from the
U.S. EPA's 1999 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (USEPA, 2006a) ambient and inhalation Pb exposure concentrations to develop a rough
estimate of how these Pb concentrations relate to each other for each case study.
- The NATA results for the entire United States, rather than
those specific to only urban locations, were used.
- The U.S. Census tract results from NATA were assumed to be sufficient for representing
ambient Pb-exposure relationships for all U.S. Census blocks or block groups within the
tract.
- The NATA age group used to estimate the ambient-to-inhalation Pb exposure concentration conversion was specific to 0 to 4 year olds. However, this
assessment is focused on 0 to 7 year old children. The uncertainty associated with this assumption is dependent on the extent to which the activity
patterns of 0 to 4 years olds does not represent 0 to 7 year olds. It is unclear whether this uncertainty results in over- or under-estimates of inhalation
exposure concentrations.
- The penetration factor, which was used in the HAPEM modeling for NATA to estimate the fraction of Pb in outdoor air that reaches indoor air, was
based on a study that examined the penetration of hexavalent chromium particles, which are generally more reactive than Pb particles (Long et al.,
2004).
- The arithmetic mean of ambient-to-inhalation Pb exposure concentration ratios was assumed appropriate for all case studies. This approach does not
capture the variability in this relationship across different individuals.
July 2007
M-3
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Case Study''
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
Outdoor Soil/Dust Pb
Exposure
Concentrations
Based on time and resource constraints, this analysis used a
data point from a readily available interim version of the
National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing (NSLAH)
rather than a point from the final study data, which is
contained in a less user-friendly format. The primary
difference between the survey versions is that the interim
version contains data from 706 housing units (USEPA,
2000), while the final version uses data from 831 housing
units (Westat Inc., 2002). Since the interim soil Pb
concentration is calculated using weighting designed to
produce a nationally representative value (the same
procedure would be used for the calculation from the final
version data), it is expected that the concentrations from the
two versions would differ but the magnitude of the difference
is expected to be small.
- For this case study, post-excavation data
were used to characterize soil/dust Pb
concentrations within the remediation zone
(i.e., within 1.5 kilometers [km] of the facility)
and pre-excavation data were used to
characterize concentrations outside of the
remediation zone. The post-excavation data
were collected immediately following
excavation, priorto the yards being backfilled
with clean soil. It is unclear how these
measurements compare to the current, post-
backfill soil/dust concentrations. In addition,
none of the soil/dust concentration estimates
used for this case study include consideration
for continuing contamination that has
occurred since the measurements were taken.
Given the relatively high emissions from this
facility, it is expected that these limitations
result is an overall underestimate of soil/dust
concentrations for this case study.
- No direct soil measurement data for
Pb were identified in the vicinity of the
secondary Pb smelter case study
location; therefore, it was not possible
to characterize Pb levels in outdoor
soil/dust around the secondary Pb
smelter using strictly site-specific
empirical data. Instead, soil/dust Pb
concentrations were estimated using
air and soil mixing models and
measurement data collected around a
similar facility. Without site-specific
soil/dust measurements, the
representativeness of the resulting
concentrations could not be fully
evaluated.
- The interim NSLAH survey is not focused on urban homes,
but is based on a nationally-representative survey of
residential locations, which impacts the ability of these data
to be used to represent urban locations.
- Current soil measurements were not available
for the area outside of the soil cleanup area.
Outdoor soil/dust concentrations in this area were
estimated using a regression equation of the
available pre-excavation soil concentrations based
on distance to the main stack. Due to the soil
cleanup within 1 mile of the stack, the calculated
and measured soil Pb concentrations near the
primary Pb smelter were in some cases lower
than the soil concentrations calculated or
measured in locations without soil cleanup. This
likely contributes uncertainty to the risk results
(e.g., underestimating the contribution from the
outdoor soil/dust pathway close to the facility).
However, the impact of this limitation on results
was likely reduced by the selection of different
indoor dust Pb prediction models for the two
different parts of the study area.
-The soil mixing modeling performed
for this case study uses deposition
outputs from the air modeling. Thus,
the limitations and uncertainties
associated with the air modeling are
carried through to the soil/dust Pb
concentration estimates and will
introduce uncertainties there as well.
July 2007
M-4
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Case Study''
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
Outdoor Soil/Dust Pb
Exposure
Concentrations
(Continued)
- There is a significant amount of variation across cities, with
regard to soil Pb levels. There is also significant variation
across houses in a given city depending on housing vintage,
whether renovation activities occurred on the site, historical
usage of the land on which a house is built, etc. A single
value (as used in the urban case study) does not capture
this inter-city and inter-house variability. Consequently, risk
predictions generated using this hypothetical case study
could misrepresent exposures and risks for cities where soil
Pb levels demonstrate a significantly different trend form the
central-tendency value used in this analysis.
- The yard-wide average used in this analysis, which
incorporates samples from throughout the yard, may not be
the optimal way to characterize the outdoor soil/dust Pb
concentrations to which children may be exposed. Children
may spend significantly more time in a particular part of the
yard. NSLAH sampled in the play areas for some homes,
but play area data were not used in this analysis because
these samples were only taken for approximately half of the
homes assessed. It is unclear whether the yard-wide
averages generally over- or under-estimate soil/dust
concentrations to which children are exposed. However,
since U.S. EPA (2000) indicates that NSLAH play area
samples are assumed to come from remote areas of the
yard, which generally have lower Pb soil concentrations than
locations closer to the building, it is expected that the use of
yard-wide averages would bias the concentration high.
- Site-specific input parameters for
the U.S. EPA (1998) Multiple
Pathways of Exposure (MPE) soil
mixing model were used when
feasible. However, for some
parameters, assumptions were made
based on suggested values in the
database of input parameters
included with the U.S. EPA's Human
Health Risk Assessment Protocol
(HHRAP) (USEPA, 2005). It is
unknown whether these assumptions
adequately reflect site conditions.
- MPE-generated soil/dust Pb
concentrations were scaled up (based
on distance from the secondary Pb
smelter) using soil measurements
available for another secondary Pb
smelter. It is unknown whether these
MPE -generated and surrogate-
scaled soil Pb concentrations over- or
under-estimate actual soil Pb
concentrations around the secondary
Pb smelter.
July 2007
M-5
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Case Study''
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
Indoor Dust Pb
Exposure
Concentrations
- The cleaning efficiency and frequency inputs used in
the mechanistic portion of the hybrid model (i.e., the
part of the model that calculates the contribution to the
total indoor dust Pb loading from the ambient air) were
developed based on limited data from the available
literature and have significant associated uncertainties.
Given the relatively high sensitivity of the model to
changes in these two inputs, these limitations
contribute to the uncertainties in the indoor dust Pb
concentration estimates. It is unclear whether these
uncertainties result in over- or under-estimates of these
concentrations.
- For locations within 1.5 km of the primary Pb
smelter, a site-specific model was used to
generate indoor dust Pb concentration
estimates. This model will only capture
central tendency indoor dust Pb
concentrations and is relatively uncertain for
U.S. Census blocks or block groups with
atypical exposure patterns. In addition, the
model does not explicitly capture the
relationships between outdoor soil/dust Pb
and indoor dust Pb or road dust Pb and indoor
dust Pb because no statistical relationships
were identified in the data. These limitations
introduce uncertainty into the estimated dust
Pb concentrations, although it is unclear
whether they result in over- or under-
estimates.
-The air-only regression-based
model was used to estimate the
indoor dust Pb concentrations for this
case study due to greater uncertainty
associated with characterizing
outdoor soil Pb levels for this case
study. Use of the air-only model
reflects consideration for the longer-
term impacts of ambient air Pb on
outdoor soil, with subsequent effects
of that soil Pb on indoor dust.
Consideration for this longer-term
indirect effect of ambient air Pb on
indoor dust Pb through the
intermediate soil media has not been
considered in modeling for the other
case studies.
- The Pb deposition rate and air exchange rate (AER)
used in the mechanistic portion of the hybrid model
were fairly well characterized by data in the literature;
however, their variability, which is excepted to be fairly
high, is not fully captured by the model and may
contribute to uncertainties in the indoor dust Pb
concentration estimates.
- For locations greater than 1.5 km from the
primary Pb smelter, the air+soil regression-based
model was used for this case study. This model
was developed primarily using data from the
1980s for Pb smelters in the United States and
Canada. The conditions at these smelters in the
1980s may not match those currently existing at
the primary Pb smelter case study. It is unclear
how these uncertainties may bias the estimated
indoor dust Pb concentrations.
-The air-only regression model used
for this case study was developed
primarily using data from the 1980s
for Pb smelters in the United States
and Canada. The conditions at these
smelters in the 1980s may not match
those currently existing at the
secondary Pb smelter case study, n
is unclear how these uncertainties
may bias the estimated indoor dust
Pb concentrations.
- Resuspension is not explicitly modeled in the
mechanistic portion of the hybrid model. For higher
indoor dust Pb loadings, resuspension may be
considerable and its exclusion tends to bias the indoor
dust Pb loadings high. Direct quantification of the bias
is not possible, however, because resuspension will
depend on the total dust Pb loading, not just the portion
arising from the ambient air Pb, and the mechanistic
portion of the model only addresses the latter.
- Any uncertainties in the ambient air Pb
concentrations and in the outdoor soil/dust
concentrations for locations greater then 1.5 km
from the facility will result in uncertainties in the
indoor dust Pb concentration estimates.
- Any uncertainties in the ambient air
Pb concentrations will result in
uncertainties in the indoor dust Pb
concentration estimates.
July 2007
M-6
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Case Study''
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
Indoor Dust Pb
Exposure
Concentrations
(Continued)
- The empirical portion of the hybrid model uses
estimates of total dust Pb loading from the median
values in the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) survey (USEPA, 1995) as the basis
for deriving non-air related indoor dust Pb
concentrations. The HUD survey is designed to be
representative of housing for the United States'
population and thus does not represent exclusively
urban homes. As a result, the variability in the indoor
dust Pb loadings across the study homes is large. The
median Pb background used for this case study does
not capture any variability due to higher ambient Pb air,
indoor Pb paint, outdoor soil/dust concentrations, or
atypical cleaning habits. In addition, the HUD study was
conducted over a decade ago, and background
conditions may have changed between the study time
period and today. The limitations in these values
introduce uncertainty into the estimated dust Pb
concentrations, although it is unclear whether they
result in over- or under-estimates.
- The mechanistic portion of the hybrid model requires input
of an Pb ambient air concentration that represents the
conditions in the homes in the HUD study (USEPA, 1995) to
ensure that the ambient air and indoor dust loadings used in
the model are consistent. The ambient air concentration
selected was a national average of all air monitors in urban
environments operating during the time of the HUD study.
However, this ambient air Pb concentration may not actually
correspond to the typical air Pb concentration near the HUD
study homes.
July 2007
M-7
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Case Study''
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
Indoor Dust Pb
Exposure
Concentrations
(Continued)
- In the hybrid model, the total indoor dust Pb loading is
converted to a total Pb dust concentration using a
regression equation developed from the HUD survey
data (USEPA, 1995). This equation was fit by log
transforming both the indoor dust Pb loading and the
indoor dust Pb concentration measurements and fitting
a linear equation to the data. Because the regression
was done in log space, small changes to the intercept
result in large changes to the predicted indoor dust Pb
concentration. The use of this equation assumes the
nature of the indoor dust Pb in the house in question is
similar to the composition of indoor dust Pb in a typical
HUD study home. Differences in percent contributions
from indoor Pb paint, outdoor soil/dust, or ambient air
could result in different indoor dust Pb concentrations
for the same indoor dust Pb loading. Thus, there is a
large degree of uncertainty associated with the
conversion equation. It is unclear whether this
uncertainty results in over- or under-estimates.
- In the hybrid model, contributions from air-related
sources to indoor dust Pb loadings varied across the
different NAAQS scenarios. Contributions from other
(non-air) sources, however, were constant across
NAAQS scenarios. As a result, there are differences in
the percent contributions of these sources to indoor
dust Pb loadings. These percent contributions are used
in the pathway apportionment and result in limitations in
the resulting apportionment of PbB and IQ loss, which
are discussed below.
July 2007
M-8
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Indoor Dust Pb
Exposure
Concentrations
(Continued)
Other Sources of
Exposure
Case Study a
General Urban
-As part of the effort to consider uncertainty in key modeling
steps, indoor dust Pb concentrations were estimated with
both the hybrid model and the air-only regression-based
model (same model used for the secondary Pb smelter case
study - see above). Several of the locations included in the
data used to generate the air-only regression-based model
were in urban environments, but the data were dominated by
point sources. Thus, this equation's application in urban
environments is limited by the representativeness of the
locations included in the original pooled analysis and the
extent to which current conditions are represented by
conditions in the 1980s when the data were collected. It is
unclear how these uncertainties may bias the estimated
indoor dust Pb concentrations.
- Any uncertainties associated with the ambient air Pb
concentrations for this case study will be carried through to
the indoor Pb dust calculations and will introduce
uncertainties there as well.
Primary Pb Smelter
-
-
Secondary Pb Smelter
-
-
- There is uncertainty associated with estimates of the amounts of foods eaten (by age, ethnicity) used in the generation of PbB results. Patterns of
children's food consumption and thus potential dietary Pb exposures have changed overtime. Limited data were available regarding differences across
ethnic groups that could identify highly exposed population subgroups which may not be well represented by the modeling conducted for this analysis (in
terms of background exposures).
- Representative residue levels of Pb in specific foods (commercial and homegrown) for each case study were not obtained. All exposed children were
assumed to receive the age-specific estimates of dietary Pb intake developed by the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006b). The U.S. EPA developed these estimates by analyzing food consumption data
from the NHANES III, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics , and food residue data from the U.S. FDA Total Dietary Study from 2001
(USFDA, 2001). These estimates may either over- or under-estimate the actual central tendency dietary Pb intake in each case study.
- There is uncertainty associated with estimates of the amounts of drinking water consumed. Existing study data were interpolated to determine age-
specific consumption for each year modeled in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. In addition, only residential drinking water
consumption was included; any consumption from non-residential sources is not reflected in this analysis.
July 2007
M-9
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Other Sources of
Exposure (Continued)
PbB Estimation Model
Biokinetic
Exposure/Intake/Uptake
Factors
Case Study a
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter Secondary Pb Smelter
-The Pb concentration in drinking water used in this assessment was taken from samples using a limited number of children whose sample homes were
built after Pb piping was banned. Consequently, this analysis does not address elevated background exposures related to drinking water containing Pb.
In addition, the central tendency drinking water Pb concentration estimates will necessarily exclude any regional variations or short-term peaks in the
drinking water Pb exposure. Finally, any systematic differences in background Pb water concentrations between the Pb smelter sites and the general
urban case study have not been captured.
- Contributions of Pb to indoor dust from indoor paint were not explicitly captured, although they are covered to some extent by elements of the indoor
dust Pb models used in the analysis. For the primary and secondary Pb smelter case studies, this contribution is implicitly included in the intercept of
the indoor dust calculation equations. For the general urban case study hybrid model, the indoor paint contribution is captured by the calculated
empirical non-air portion of the hybrid model. Any regional or temporal changes in the contribution of indoor Pb paint will not be captured.
- Folk medicines, toys, enamelware, and other sources are not likely to be major sources of Pb exposure for most children, and these potential
exposures were not characterized for this assessment. Specific ethnic or social groups may have high risks of Pb exposure from these sources;
however, the magnitude of these risks for these groups is unknown.
- Of the two biokinetic models considered, the IEUBK model generates PbB estimates that are three times lower than the Leggett model
(1993) when the same Pb uptake assumptions are used. No concrete explanation for this discrepancy currently exists. However, based on
the limited data available for performance evaluation, the IEUBK model appears to give estimates close to those measured in children with
known Pb exposure concentrations. Because of the wide discrepancy between the models, considerable uncertainty is introduced due to the
choice of the PbB model.
- As described above, uncertainties are introduced due to the
Pb concentrations (see "Other Sources of Exposure" above).
selection of food intake, Pb concentration in food, drinking water intake, and drinking water
- The defaults for indoor dust and outdoor soil/dust ingestion rates and the fraction of outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust ingestion from soil from IEUBK
were retained in this analysis. No urban-specific or Pb smelter-specific values could be determined. Thus, these values may either over- or under-
estimate the outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust parameters.
- The Gl absorption fraction of Pb from drinking water (and diet) was retained at the IEUBK default value. These absorption estimates did not account
for temporal or inter-individual variations and may either over- or under-estimate the actual Gl absorption rate.
July 2007
M-10
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
Biokinetic
Exposure/Intake/Uptake
Factors (Continued)
PbB Metric
Inter-Individual PbB
Variability (i.e., GSD)
Case Study a
General Urban
- For this case study, the IEUBK generic default value
for gastrointestinal (Gl) absorption of Pb from outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust was used. This value is
generally consistent with more recently reported values,
although estimates vary widely. Thus, these estimates
may either over- or under-estimate the actual Gl
absorption for a child in these study areas.
Primary Pb Smelter
Site-specific absorption factors for outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust were derived for this
case study using relative bioavailability (RBA)
estimates generated based on swine studies
involving outdoor soil/dust and indoor dust
samples collected in the study area (Casteel et al.,
2005). These site-specific absorption factors
showed uptake rates that were contrary to the
typical pattern seen with outdoor soil/dust and
indoor dust given that the estimated Gl absorption
fraction for outdoor soil/dust Pb (0.48) was higher
than that for indoor dust (0.26.) Because the
estimated indoor dust PB concentrations were so
much higher than the outdoor soil/dust Pb
concentrations for the same U.S. Census blocks,
use of these site-specific values probably resulted
in slightly lower estimated Pb uptakes than
would have resulted from using the default Gl
absorption fraction value of 0.30 for both outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust.
Secondary Pb Smelter
- For this case study, the IEUBK
generic default value for Gl
absorption of Pb from outdoor
soil/dust and indoor dust was
used. This value is generally
consistent with more recently
reported values, although
estimates vary widely. Thus, these
estimates may either over- or
under-estimate the actual Gl
absorption for a child in these
study areas.
- In the Lanphear et al. (2005) study, the concurrent metric was shown to provide an empirical relationship with the highest predictive power. However,
any errors associated with using one metric over the other are not quantified and introduce uncertainty in the IQ loss estimates calculated from them.
-A range of GSDs were considered for the general urban
case study including values reflective of a) a more
homogenous population of children (in terms of Pb exposure
(GSDs of 1 .6 to 1.7 ug/dL) and b) a more heterogeneous
population of children (GSDs of 2.0 to 2.1). There is
uncertainty in inclusion of the larger values since these are
based on the United States' population and may well over-
state variability for any size urban population exposed to a
fairly uniform ambient air Pb level (as is the case with the
-A range of GSDs reflecting a more homogenous (local) population of children (GSDs of
1 .6 to 1.7) was used for the two point source case studies. Given that exposure analysis
for both point source case studies is based on application of a spatial template that
stratifies the modeled population prior to the application of PbB GSDs, this may result in
an over-prediction of PbB level variability. Specifically, because a key source of variability
in underlying PbB levels (i.e., gradients in air-related media Pb concentrations) is already
addressed through the spatial template, GSDs would ideally only cover remaining sources
of variability (e.g., variability in non air-related Pb sources and variability in biokinetics and
behavior related to Pb exposure).
- Any variations in the inter-individual variability in different age groups, genders, ethnic groups, or other categories were not captured in the calculated
GSD values. Thus, any differences between the population in the data from which the GSD values were derived and the populations captured by the
case studies used in this analysis introduce uncertainty in the GSD estimates.
- The GSD was observed to increase in recent years, potentially due to the persistence of a small "tail" of high-exposure children while exposures are
falling for the vast majority of children. The effects of this change were not explored in this analysis.
July 2007
M-ll
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
Exhibit M-l. Summary of Limitations Contributing Uncertainty to Various Aspects of this Assessment
Modeling
Element
IQ Loss Model
Pathway
Apportionment
Case Study a
General Urban
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
- Any effects of covariates on the Lanphear et al. (2005) model predictions are unknown, and the IQ change functions used in this analysis were derived
from this Lanphear study. Thus, any inherent differences between the Lanphear et al. population of children and the children captured in the case
studies used in this analysis introduce uncertainty in the IQ estimates.
- Any errors introduced during the estimation of Pb exposure concentrations or PbB levels discussed above will be carried through and introduce
uncertainty in the IQ loss predictions.
- A key source of uncertainty related to IQ loss modeling is the degree of health decrement associated with lower exposure levels (i.e., PbB
levels less than 5 ug/dL). The Lanphear pooled analysis did not provide data that pointed to a clear functional form for IQ loss at these low
exposure levels and consequently, several candidate functions were included in this analysis.
- It was assumed that the central tendency pathway apportionment of PbB levels holds for higher percentiles in an exposure range (based on
the pattern seen for central-tendency PbB level estimates generated for that same exposure range). In reality, pathway apportionment may
shift as higher exposure percentiles are considered (e.g., Pb paint and/or drinking water exposures may increase in importance, with air-
related contributions decreasing as an overall percentage of PbB levels).
- As discussed above, the apportionment of PbB and IQ loss from sources of indoor dust Pb loading is based on percent contributions from
air and other sources. This approach leads to estimates of other source contributions to PbB and IQ loss that are not constant across
NAAQS scenarios, even though the actual sources are the same. This results from a number of factors, including non-linearities in the PbB
and IQ loss modeling. The limitation generally results in higher contributions from other sources for scenarios with lower relative air source
contributions.
- The percentage of IQ arising from different exposure pathways was assumed to be the same as the percentage of Pb uptake from each
pathway. Because the IQ loss model is non-linear, this method produces approximate pathway contributions only, and the potential
magnitude of the errors introduced by this assumption is unknown.
1 a Those sources of uncertainty anticipated to have a particular significant impact on risk results generated for this analysis (based either on consideration for the results
2 of the sensitivity analysis, where applicable, or input from the analysis team) have been bolded. Efforts to enhance the analysis through further analysis and/or
3 research would likely be focused on these specific analytical steps/inputs.
July 2007
M-12
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 M.2. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO DESIGN ELEMENTS
2 In addition to the uncertainties listed in Section M. 1, other uncertainties are introduced to
3 the overall analyses due to specific aspects of the design. Two key elements of the analysis
4 design which are subject to uncertainty are: (1) the extent of the modeling domains for the
5 primary and secondary Pb smelter case studies (see Section M.2.1) and (2) the number of times
6 the probabilistic model is run (see Section M.2.2).
7 M.2.1. Comparison of the Primary and Secondary Pb Smelter Case Study IQ Loss
8 Estimates
9 The two point source case studies both have study areas that include populations living
10 within a 10-kilometers (km) radius of the facility. Due to the differences in overall emissions
11 from the two facilities associated with these case studies (with the primary Pb smelter emissions
12 significantly greater than those from the secondary Pb smelter), there are concerns that the study
13 population for each case study may not be comparable in terms of the range of air-related
14 exposures, particularly for median and lower percentiles. Specifically, if the primary Pb smelter
15 has significantly higher air impacts across the majority of the study area compared with the
16 secondary Pb smelter, then the majority of the modeled individuals considered for the primary
17 Pb smelter would have relatively high air-related exposures compared to the population
18 associated with the secondary Pb smelter. This could result in risk distributions reflecting very
19 different magnitudes of exposure for the two case studies, with estimates for the secondary Pb
20 smelter being biased down (relative to the primary Pb smelter) by inclusion of children with
21 relatively low air-related exposures. In this situation, a case could be made for extending the
22 primary Pb smelter study area further out to include children whose air-related air exposure is
23 more similar to lesser exposed children associated with the secondary Pb smelter, or for limiting
24 the extent of the secondary Pb smelter case study to include only children whose air-related
25 exposures are greater than or equal to the lesser exposed children associated with the primary Pb
26 smelter.
27 To examine this issue, the various aspects of low-end population percentile risk estimates
28 (IQ loss values) were compared for the two case studies given their current study areas (i.e., both
29 representing 10 km radius areas surrounding the facilities). Specifically, Exhibit M-2 compares
30 the 5th percentile estimates of IQ loss for both case studies in all NAAQS scenarios. The full IQ
31 loss estimate shown is based on the concurrent PbB metric (average of the results at 75 and 81
32 months of age in the seventh year of life) and the two-piece linear IQ loss model. In addition,
33 the portion of IQ loss arising from the "inhalation (recent air)" and "ingestion (recent air)"
34 pathways are also shown. The 5th percentile is calculated before the application of the GSD and
July 2007 M-13 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
thus reflects the 5th percentile value from all modeled U.S. Census blocks or block groups in
each case study. The total 5th percentile estimated IQ loss is approximately the same for both
case studies across all NAAQS scenarios. The 5th percentile estimated IQ loss derived from the
recent air pathways (combined inhalation and ingestion) tends to be higher for the primary Pb
smelter case study compared to the secondary Pb smelter case study, reflecting the fact that
ambient air Pb concentrations are higher in this case study for the lower percentiles. However,
the actual contribution to IQ is very low in both case studies, indicating that the air-related
exposures for the lesser exposed populations are fairly similar for the two case studies. Thus, it
is unlikely that the choice of modeling both case studies to 10 km is biasing the risk distribution
downward in the secondary Pb smelter case study to a significant extent.
-th
Exhibit M-2. Comparison of the 5 Percentile IQ Loss Estimates for the
Primary and Secondary Pb Smelter Case Studies
Case Study
Estimated IQ Loss
5th Percentile
5th Percentile from
"Inhalation (Recent Air)"
and "Ingestion (Recent Air)"
Percentage of 5th Percentile
Comprised by "Inhalation (Recent
Air)" and "Ingestion (Recent Air)"
Current NAAQS (1.5 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Primary Pb Smelter
0.5
2.0E-02
4.0%
Current Conditions
Secondary Pb Smelter
0.4
7.0E-04
0.2%
Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3, max quarterly average)
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
0.4
0.4
4.0E-03
2.0E-04
1.0%
0.05%
Alternative NAAQS (0.5 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
0.4
0.4
8.0E-03
4.0E-04
2.0%
0.1%
Alternative NAAQS (0.2 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
0.4
0.4
3.0E-03
2.0E-04
0.8%
0.05%
Alternative NAAQS (0.05 ug/m3, max monthly average)
Primary Pb Smelter
Secondary Pb Smelter
0.4
0.4
8.0E-04
1.0E-04
0.2%
0.03%
13
July 2007
M-14
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
M.2.2. Stability of the Upper Percentiles in the Probabilistic Model Run
All of the IQ loss distributions discussed in this appendix were derived based on the
probabilistic simulation model described in Appendices H and I. In this model, PbB statistics
(percentiles) were derived by sampling from log-normal distributions centered on the geometric
mean (GM) PbB levels estimated for the entire exposed populations (general urban case study)
or the populations residing in specific U.S. Census blocks or block groups (primary and
secondary Pb smelter case studies). Then, the IQ loss estimates were generated for each of the
PbB statistics.
In addition to the sources of uncertainty mentioned above, the probabilistic modeling
process itself introduces a degree of uncertainty into the output IQ loss statistics, and that
contribution can be quantified, as shown in Exhibit M-3. This exhibit summarizes the observed
variability in estimated IQ loss percentiles produced by repeating each run of the probabilistic
model (which consists of 50,000 sampling iterations) 100 times. For this analysis, the model was
run using input data from a general urban case study scenario using the hybrid mechanistic-
empirical model ("hybrid" model for short), a GSD of 1.7 microgram per deciliter (|ig/dL), and
the concurrent PbB metric.
Exhibit M-3. Summary of Simulation Uncertainty for IQ Loss Estimates
Percentile
99.9th
99.5th
99th
95th
90th
75th
Median
25th
1st
Distribution of IQ Loss Estimates from 100 Replicate Model Runs
5th
Percentile
4.3
3.3
2.9
2.1
1.7
1.2
<1
<1
<1
Median
4.5
3.4
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.2
<1
<1
<1
Mean
4.5
3.4
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.2
<1
<1
<1
95th
Percentile
4.7
3.5
3.0
2.1
1.7
1.3
<1
<1
<1
Standard
Deviation
0.110
0.046
0.031
0.012
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.002
Coefficient
of Variation
2.47%
1.35%
1.02%
0.56%
0.47%
0.34%
0.27%
0.30%
0.86%
The rows of Exhibit M-3 correspond to the various IQ loss statistics (i.e., 99.9th to 1st
percentile) that were estimated from the simulations. The columns of Exhibit M-3 show the
distribution of the percentile estimates across the 100 repeated model runs. It can be seen that
July 2007
M-15
Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 the simulation uncertainty throughout the majority of the IQ loss distribution (i.e., 99.9th to 1st
2 percentile) is quite small. The coefficients of variation for the individual estimates (i.e., the ratio
3 of the standard deviation to the mean) are on the order of 1 percent or less for percentiles up to
4 the 95th percentile.1 For the higher percentiles, the estimated simulation errors are greater. The
5 coefficients of variation for the individual 99th, 99.5th, and 99.9th percentile estimates are 1.02,
6 1.35, and 2.47 percent, respectively. The difference between the median and 95th percentile
7 estimates tend to be about the same as the differences between the median and 5th percentile
8 estimates.
9 Note that the ultimate limits on the degree of accuracy with which the various percentile
10 values can be estimated is determined by the total number of iterations and/or replicates; the
11 standard errors of the percentile estimates can be reduced to a degree that is proportional to the
12 square root of the number of iterations. The above analysis suggests that the existing modeling
13 approach and number of iterations can provide IQ loss percentile estimates in which the
14 simulation uncertainty will be far less than the uncertainty associated with, for example, the
15 selection of PbB models or input parameter values.
1 This result can be interpreted to mean that successive estimates of these percentiles generated by
individual model runs can be expected to vary by approximately these amounts.
July 2007 M-16 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
1 REFERENCES
2 Casteel, S. W.; Tessman R.; Brattin W.J.; Wahlquist A.M. (2005) Relative Bioavailability of Lead in House Dust
3 and Soil From the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Site in Herculaneum, Missouri. Prepared for Black &
4 Veatch Special Projects Corporation; May.
5 Lanphear, B. P.; Hornung, R.; Khoury, I; Yolton, K.; Baghurst, P.; Bellinger, D. C.; Canfield, R. L.; Dietrich, K.
6 N.; Bornschein, R.; Greene, T.; Rothenberg, S. J.; Needleman, H. L.; Schnaas, L.; Wasserman, G.;
7 Graziano, J.; Robe, R. (2005) Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual
8 Function: An International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 113(7)
9 Leggett, R. W. (1993) An Age-Specific Kinetic Model of Lead Metabolism in Humans. Environ Health Perspect.
10 101:598-616.
11 Long, T.; Johnson, T.; Laurenson, J.; Rosenbaum, A. (2004) Development of Penetration and Proximity
12 Microenvironment Factor Distributions for the HAPEM5 in Support of the 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics
13 Assessment (NATA). Memorandum prepared for Ted Palma, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
14 and Standards (OAQPS); April 5.
15 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2007) Doe Run - Herculaneum State Implementation Plan
16 (SIP) Dispersion Modeling Review. Memorandum From Jeffry D. Bennett to John Rustige. February 12,
17 2007. Available online at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/herculaneumsip.htm.
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1995) Report on the National Survey of Lead-Based Paint in
19 Housing: Appendix I: Design and Methodology. EPA 747-R95-004. Office of Pollution Prevention and
20 Toxics.
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998) Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated With
22 Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Update to EPA/600/6-90/003, EPA/NCEA (EPA
23 600/R-98/137). Cincinnati, OH: National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). Available online
24 at: oaspub.epa. gov/eims/eimscomm. getfile?p download id=4273 39.
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000) Hazard Standard Risk Analysis Supplement - TSCA
26 Section 403: Risk Analysis to Support Standards to Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil: Supplemental Report.
27 EPA 747-R-00-004. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/403risksupp.htm.
28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2005) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) for
29 Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA530-R-05-006. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
30 Response; September. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/risk.htm.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006a) 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Available
32 online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/nsata99.html.
33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2006b) Specific Estimates of Dietary Pb Intake Developed by
34 EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available online at:
35 http://www.epa.gov/superfand/lead/ieubkfaq.htnrfFDA.
36 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). (2001) Total Diet Study. Center for Food Safety and Applied
37 Nutrition, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages; June. Available online at:
38 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/tds-toc.html.
3 9 Westat Inc. (2002) National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing. Volume I: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Final
40 Report. Revision 7.1. Washington, D.C.: Office of Health Homes and Lead Hazard Control, U.S.
41 Department of Housing and Urban Development.
42
July 2007 M-l7 Draft- Do Not Quote or Cite
-------
O po
o &.
-J O
I
W
e
o
O
o
------- |