Interim Record of Decision Operable Unit 2 Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site Clearfield and Jefferson County Pennsylvania


INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2

JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE

CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

sr^

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 3
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
APRIL 2023

-------
[Page intentionally left blank]

2

-------
Table of Contents

I.	DECLARATION	7

II.	DECISION SUMMARY	13

1.0 Site Name, Location and Description	14

2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities	14

2.1	Site-wide History of Contamination	14

2.2	OU2 Previous Environmental Investigations and Response Actions	15

3.0 Community Participation	15

4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit	16

5.0 Site Characteristics	16

5.1	Overview of the Site	16

5.2	OU2 Geology and Hydrogeology	17

5.3	OU2 Nature and Extent of Contamination and Conceptual Site Model	17

6.0 Current and Future Potential Land Use and Water Use	20

7.0 Summary of Site Risks	20

7.1	Human Health Risk Assessment	22

7.2	Ecological Risk Assessment	23

7.3	Basis for Remedial Action	23

8.0 Remedial Action Objectives	23

8.1 Remediation Goals	24

9.0 Description of Alternatives	25

9.1	Remedial Alternatives	26

9.2	Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy	29

10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives	29

10.1	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	31

10.2	Compliance with ARARs	31

10.3	Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence	33

10.4	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment	33

10.5	Short-term Effectiveness	34

10.6	Implementability	35

10.7	Cost	35

10.8	State Acceptance	36

3

-------
10.9 Community Acceptance	36

11.0 Principal Threat Waste	37

12.0 Selected Remedy	37

12.1	Summary of the Rationale for Selected Remedy	37

12.2	Description of the Selected Remedy	38

12.3	Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy	40

12.4	Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy	40

13.0 Statutory Determinations	41

13.1	Protection of Human Health and the Environment	41

13.2	Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements	41

13.3	Cost Effectiveness	42

13.4	Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable	42

13.5	Five-Year Review Requirements	42

14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes	42

15. State Role	42

III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY	43

FIGURES, TABLES, APPENDICES

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Site Layout

Figure 2 - Layout of Operable Unit 2

APPENDICES

Appendix A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Concurrence Letter
Appendix B Risk Assessment Tables and Rationale
Appendix C Detailed Cost Estimate

Appendix D Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

4

-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALM

Adult Lead Model

ARARs

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

bgs

Below Ground Surface

BLL

Blood Lead-Level

B&P

Buffalo Pittsburgh Railroad

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

COC

Contaminant of Concern

COPC

Contaminant of Potential Concern

CY

Cubic Yards

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

ERA

Ecological Risk Assessment

FFS

Focused Feasibility Study

FL

Former Lagoon

FS

Feasibility Study

FYR

Five-Year Review

HHRA

Human Health Risk Assessment

HI

Hazard Index

ICs

Institutional Controls

IEUBK

Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic model

IVBA

In Vitro Bioaccessibility

LDR

Land Disposal Requirements

mg/kg

Milligrams per Kilogram

NCP

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL

National Priorities List

OU

Operable Unit

OU1

Operable Unit 1

-------
0U2

Operable Unit 2

0U3

Operable Unit 3

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

PADEP

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PADER

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

ppm

Parts Per Million

RAO

Remedial Action Objective

RCRA

Resource Conservation Recovery Act

RG

Remediation Goal

RI

Remedial Investigation

RI/FS

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD

Record of Decision

RSL

Regional Screening Levels

TBC

To Be Considered

TCLP

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

1-ig/dL

Micrograms per Deciliter

voc

Volatile Organic Compound

-------
I. DECLARATION

JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2

CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

-------
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 2

I. DECLARATION
Site Name and Location

The Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site (Site) is located in the southern portion of the Borough of
Falls Creek (the Borough), Pennsylvania. It consists of approximately 233 acres and extends into
both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former china manufacturing facility
that operated from 1917 to 1985. The National Superfund Database Identification Number for
the Site is PADOO1222025. A Site Location Map is included as Figure 1 and the Site Layout is
included as Figure 2.

Statement of Basis and Purpose

The Site has been subdivided into three Operable Units (OUs) and each OU is being addressed
separately.

• OU1 encompasses approximately 37 acres of soil, sediment and surface water affected by
former manufacturing activities west of and including the Buffalo Pittsburgh Railroad (B&P)
property. OU1 includes the area where the former manufacturing facility was located. This
portion of the Site is located in Jefferson County. The Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1
was signed on March 21, 2021.

• OU2 encompasses approximately 197 acres of the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain (Floodplain)
that lies immediately downstream of OU1. OU2 is bounded by wooded land to the north,

Wolf Run to the northeast, Sandy Lick Creek to the east and south, and the B&P rail line
property to the west. The OU2 Floodplain is a mixture of forests and wetlands, including
forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and meadows. OU2 is primarily
located in Clearfield County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County.

• OU3 encompasses the overburden and bedrock aquifers underlying OU1 and OU2. OU3 is
located in Clearfield County and Jefferson County. OU3 is currently in the Feasibility Study
phase and will be addressed following removal of source material present in OU1 and OU2.

The focus of this Interim ROD is the ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations exceeding
1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilograms) in soil and sediment present in the OU2 wetlands that
are acting as a continuing source of contamination. Observations of white silty-clay sludge
material originating from the china manufacturing processes are associated with areas where lead
concentrations are above 1,000 mg/kg, and based on treatability studies conducted by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), also coincide with where lead cannot be treated

-------
in place. EPA has defined the ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations exceeding 1,000
mg/kg as source material or principal threat waste. A source material is material that includes or
contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of
contamination, for example, to groundwater. Principal threat wastes are those source materials
considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which would present a significant risk to human
health or the environment should exposure occur.

After source material is addressed, remaining Contaminants of Concern (COCs) in Site media
will have cleanup levels proposed in a separate Proposed Plan and selected in a final ROD for
OU2 after the requisite public comment period. A final ROD for OU2 will be necessary in the
future to identify protections to human health and the environment through the extent of OU2.

The Selected Remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq. as
amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, as amended. This Interim ROD is based on the
Administrative Record for the Site, which was developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(k).

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) concurred with the
Selected Remedy (Appendix A) in a letter dated March 23, 2023.

Assessment of the Site

The Selected Remedy in this Interim ROD is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or
the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the
environment.

Description of the Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy in this Interim ROD will address ceramic waste and elevated levels of lead
contamination exceeding 1,000 mg/kg in the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain within OU2. While
the specific treatment area will be further refined during the design, EPA will target the lateral
area (or footprint) where lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg. Within the designated
treatment area (or 1,000 mg/kg footprint) lead will be treated vertically to the Remediation Goals
(RGs) identified in this Interim ROD. EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will be the
most effective approach for addressing lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg as 'source
material' or 'principal threat waste.'

The Selected Remedy for OU2 is Alternative 2 - Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of
Sediments, Off Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration, and consists of the following
components to address ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations:

• Clear vegetation in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands in areas impacted by source material.

-------
• Conduct limited removal of mature trees and vegetation in forested wetlands impacted by
source material.

• Utilize equipment to access partially saturated soils, allowing excavation equipment to
maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting the soils.

• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater flooded areas as much as possible, likely
performing the excavation activities in phases. Dewatering the flooded areas would allow
excavation activities to proceed under drier conditions.

• Collect in situ waste characterization samples for disposal profiling at a frequency to be
determined during remedial design.

• Excavate source material/lead-contaminated soil considered to be hazardous1 (from 0 to 2 ft
below ground surface (bgs)) and directly load in dump trucks that are licensed to transport
hazardous waste (estimate of 58,000 tons). Trucks would be lined and covered. Waste would
be transported to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste
disposal facility. After the source material (lead exceeding 1,000 mg/kg) is removed,
excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soil is no greater than 99.4 mg/kg in
confirmation samples submitted to an accredited analytical lab. Existing data does not
provide vertical delineation to the soil RG of 99.4 mg/kg in most of the area covered by
source material, which is a data gap that will be addressed during pre-design sampling.
Overall, refinement of lateral and vertical extent will be needed prior to implementing the
Interim Remedial Action (Interim RA). It is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials
located approximately 2 to 4 ft bgs will not be hazardous. The materials at these depths and
other nonhazardous material will be directly loaded in lined/covered dump trucks and
transported to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility (estimate of 32,000 tons).

• Construct a dewatering containment area to dry out dredged sediment prior to disposal.

• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediment and place in a dewatering containment area.

• Treat dewatered fluid through a skid-mounted treatment system. Treated water could be
either discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a frequency
to be determined during remedial design.

• Excavate dewatered sediment from the dewatering containment area and load into dump
trucks. If the results of the waste characterization analysis determine that the dewatered
sediment is classified as nonhazardous waste, then it would be transported off-Site for
disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If the soil contains concentrations of lead
above the regulatory limit of 5 parts per million (ppm) using the TCLP, then it would be
transported to a RCRA Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal.

• Collect confirmation samples from the sidewalls and subfloor of the excavation areas at a
frequency to be determined during remedial design to confirm that contaminated
soils/sediments with concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg laterally and the RGs vertically for
soils and sediments are removed. If confirmation samples show that the remaining

1 Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).

-------
soils/sediments exceed 1,000 mg/kg laterally or the RGs vertically, additional soils/sediments
would be removed until concentrations are met.

• Restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands habitat.
Excavated areas may be backfilled with approved backfill material or regraded, depending on
estimates of the original elevations of the wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, it was
assumed that 50 percent of the excavations would be backfilled, but backfilling may not be
necessary since removal of the waste could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal
elevations. This determination would be made based on modeling during the remedial design
phase. Restoring the wetlands to their original elevations will increase the wetlands storage
capacity over current conditions so they will be more resilient to climate change
vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall and storm events).2

Statutory Determinations

The Selected Remedy for OU2 in this Interim ROD is protective of human health and the
environment, cost effective, and utilizes a permanent solution for removal of principal threat
waste.

ROD Data Certification Checklist

The following information is included in the Decision Summary (Part II) of this Interim ROD.
Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record for the Site:

ROD CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

Information

Location/Page Number

COCs and respective concentrations

Section 5.3, pages 17-19

Baseline risk represented by COCs

Section 7, pages 20-23

Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for
these levels

Section 8.1, pages 24-25

How source materials constituting principal threat are
addressed

Section 11.0, page 37

Current and reasonably anticipated future land use
assumptions and potential future beneficial uses of
groundwater used in the baseline risk assessment and
ROD

Section 6.0, page 20

2 EPA is conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design. This
assessment will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in consideration
of climate changes and the health of the wetland.

11

-------
Potential land use that will be available at the Site as a
result of the Selected Remedy

Section 6,0, page 20

Estimated capital, annual Operation & Maintenance
(O&M), and total present worth exists, discount rate, and
the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates
are projected

Section 12.2, pages 38-40
Section 12.3, page 40

Key factors that led to selecting the remedy

Section 12.1, page 37

DAI 11 1 COM A Rn Digitally signed by PAUL LEONARD
r nUL LLUIMnnU Date: 2023.04,28 15:17:43 -04'00'

Paul Leonard, Director	Date

Superfund and Emergency Management Division
EPA Region III

12

-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY

JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2

CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY

1.0 Site Name, Location and Description

The Site is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls Creek (the Borough),
Pennsylvania. The City of Dubois is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Site. The Site
extends into both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former manufacturing
facility that operated from 1917 until 1985. The Site has been subdivided into three Operable
Units (OUs) and each OU is being addressed separately. OU1 is in Jefferson County and is
where former manufacturing operations took place. While some remnants of building
foundations still exist in the subsurface at the Site, the only remaining structure on OU1 is a
former china shop in the southwest corner of the Site property. OU2 encompasses approximately
197 acres of the Floodplain that lies immediately downstream of OU1. OU2 is bounded by
wooded land to the north, Wolf Run to the northeast, Sandy Lick Creek to the east and south, and
the B&P rail line property to the west. The OU2 Floodplain is a mixture of forests and wetlands,
including forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and meadows. OU2 is
primarily located in Clearfield County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County. OU3 is
the overburden and bedrock aquifers underlying OU1 and OU2. OU2 is the focus of this Interim
ROD. The National Superfund Database Identification Number for the Site is PAD001222025.

2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities

This section of the Interim ROD provides the history of the Site and a discussion of EPA and
PADEP investigations and response activities. The "Proposed Rule" proposing the Site to the
National Priorities List (NPL) was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2005. The
"Final Rule" adding the Site to the NPL was published in the Federal Register on September 14,
2005. EPA has not identified any liable, financially viable potentially responsible parties at the
Site and all response actions at the Site have been conducted by EPA as fund-lead actions.

2.1 Site-wide History of Contamination

A former china manufacturing facility operated from 1917 until 1985. After operations ceased,
the facility was abandoned. A fire in October 1989 destroyed about 75 percent of the facility,
including the main building. The china manufacturing process involved the production of
decorated, vitrified china plates, cups, saucers, and a variety of other chinaware. This process
involved a variety of chemicals including chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, paint
compounds, as well as lead and other metals. Undecorated chinaware was initially molded in the
mold shop and fired in kilns to create china blanks. A glazing compound, typically containing
lead (i.e., frit) was then sprayed onto the china blanks in the glaze spray area (also known as the
slip house). During wash-down cycles and daily cleanup in the glaze spray area, wastewater
containing unheated glaze was discharged to a former 7,200 square-foot unlined sludge settling
lagoon (now the OU1 Former Lagoon, also known as FL). In addition, wastewater from other
operating areas within the facility, including the slip house (china manufacturing process area)
and the paint process line, were also discharged to the FL via the former drainage ditch. The
wastewater was documented to be laden with production sludge consisting of sand, clay,

-------
unheated glazing product, and paints containing oxides of aluminum, tin, chromium, manganese,
lead, and possibly copper. These materials were discharged to the FL until the facility closed in
1985. During periods of high precipitation, overflow from the FL discharged into the Floodplain
(OU2) via a 48-inch diameter drainage pipe. Off-specification and broken china debris were
stockpiled around the china manufacturing facility and mapped during previous investigations.

2.2 OU2 Previous Environmental Investigations and Response Actions

The previous Site investigations determined that china manufacturing processes and waste
handling practices resulted in the release of organic and inorganic contaminants to soils,
drainages, and groundwater and several surrounding properties. EPA and PADEP conducted
removal actions at OU1; however, no removal actions have occurred at OU2.

In 1995, the Federal Emergency Management Agency concluded that a 100-year peak discharge
flow would pose potential risk of inundation, scouring, and transport of waste deposits in the
Floodplain (OU2). At the time of the evaluation, there were no stream gauge or flow records for
the Borough. The flow for the 100-year flood was developed using multiple regression formulae
based on factors including drainage area, stream length, stream slope, and basin shape. The study
determined that, in general, the Sandy Lick Creek 100-year floodplain south and east of the B&P
rail line tracks roughly coincides with an elevation of up to 1,395 ft above mean sea level.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), now PADEP, conducted
sludge sampling on April 1, 1996, using soil pits to determine sludge thicknesses within the
Floodplain. Based on the data provided, the sludge was observed to be widely distributed and
noted to be 2 to 12 inches thick. Based on field investigation results and previous investigations
of the OU2 Floodplain, the report estimated that approximately 11,360 cubic yards (CY) of
ceramic waste sludge was present in the Floodplain. The Site was added to the NPL on
September 14, 2005, due to approximately 20 acres of wetlands that remained contaminated with
lead. From the EPA 2005 Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) summary, groundwater migration,
air migration, and the soil exposure pathways were not evaluated because these migration and
exposure pathways were not expected to add significantly to the overall HRS score. In contrast,
the surface water migration pathway is associated with 20 acres of wetlands that have been
primarily contaminated by lead.

3.0 Community Participation

On November 1, 2022, pursuant to Section 113(k)(2)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

§ 9613(k)(2)(B), EPA released the Proposed Plan describing EPA's Preferred Alternative for
OU2 for a 30-day public comment period. The Proposed Plan was based on documents contained
in the Administrative Record File for the Site. EPA held a public meeting on November 15,
2022, to present the Proposed Plan to community members. Representatives from EPA answered
questions about EPA's Preferred Alternative for the Site. Oral comments were documented
during the meeting. This transcript is included in the Administrative Record for the Site. EPA's
response to comments received during the public comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary in this Interim ROD.

-------
Information provided by EPA in the Proposed Plan is based largely on findings of the RI Report
(2018) and Focused Feasibility Study (2022).

The Administrative Record can be found in the Administrative Record File located at the DuBois
Public library in DuBois, Pennsylvania and online at www.epa.gov/superfund/jacksonceramix.
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Courier-Express on
November 1, 2022. The public comment period was held from November 1, 2022, to December
1, 2022.

A fact sheet detailing the Proposed Plan was mailed to local citizens on October 28, 2022.
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit

This Interim ROD focuses on the ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations exceeding
1,000 mg/kg in soils/sediments present in OU2 that are acting as a continuing source of
contamination to soils, sediments, surface water and groundwater. The Interim RA for OU2 will
be followed by a final ROD and RA that will address all contaminated media within OU2, not
just the source material. It is anticipated that any remaining contamination present in OU2
following the Interim RA, will be addressed in a final ROD and RA. The OU1 ROD was signed
March 21, 2021, and OU1 is currently in the Remedial Design Phase, with the next phase being
the Remedial Actions Phase. OU3 groundwater is currently in the Feasibility Study (FS) stage
and will be addressed following the removal of source material present in OU1 and OU2.

5.0 Site Characteristics

This section of the Interim ROD provides an overview of the Site's geology, the sampling
strategy used during Site investigations, and the nature and extent of contamination. Additional
information regarding the nature and extent of contamination can be found in the Administrative
Record.

5.1 Overview of the Site

The Site is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls Creek, Pennsylvania. It
extends into both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former manufacturing
facility that operated from 1917 until 1985. EPA has divided the Site into three OUs and EPA
plans to address each OU separately. OU1 encompasses approximately 37 acres of soil, sediment
and surface water affected by former manufacturing activities west of and including the B&P
railroad property. OU1 includes the area where former manufacturing operations took place, and
while some remnants of building foundations still exist in the subsurface at the Site, the only
remaining structure on OU1 is a building in the southwest corner of the Site property. This
portion of the Site is located in Jefferson County. OU2 encompasses approximately 197 acres of
soil, sediment, and surface water in the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain wetlands that lies
immediately downstream of OU1 and is affected by the migration of waste from the former

-------
manufacturing area to the wetlands area. 0U2 is bounded by wooded land to the north, Wolf Run
to the northeast, Sandy Lick Creek to the east and south, and the B&P rail line property to the
west. The OU2 Floodplain is a mixture of forests and wetlands, including forested wetlands,
scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and meadows. OU2 is primarily located in Clearfield
County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County. OU3 is the overburden and bedrock
aquifers underlying OU1 and OU2. The City of Dubois is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of
the Site. The National Superfund Database Identification Number is PAD001222025. OU2, and
specifically the source area within OU2, is the focus of this Interim ROD.

5.2 OU2 Geology and Hydrogeology

The Floodplain is underlain by the consolidated bedrock of the Millstone Run Formation. The
bedrock topography is highly variable in the wetlands area with bedrock encountered at varying
depths ranging from 19.2 ft bgs to 52 ft bgs. The average depth to bedrock is approximately 30 ft
bgs in OU2. The consolidated subsurface underlying the Floodplain consists of beds of
sandstone, less laterally continuous layers of shale, and coal seams that dip to the southeast. The
saprolite topography overlying bedrock also varies considerably within the Floodplain area, at
varying degrees of weathering.

During dry periods, groundwater appears to be just below the ground surface within the drainage
channels and wetlands. At the higher elevations within OU2, the depth to groundwater ranges
between 4 and 7 ft bgs. During wetter periods, the eastern, southeastern, and central portions of
the Floodplain are inundated with 0.5 to 2 ft of water. The groundwater flow in this area is to the
east and east-southeast direction. Overburden monitoring wells also indicate that the Sandy Lick
Creek is a gaining and losing stream based on the precipitation events. During high precipitation
events or snow melt during spring, surface water from Sandy Lick Creek appears to recharge into
the surrounding alluvium.

During drier seasons, groundwater flows east-southeastward from the OU1 portion of the Site
toward Sandy Lick Creek (OU2). All bedrock wells within OU2 show flowing artesian
conditions, meaning the groundwater tends to rise to the surface as induced by underlying
pressure.

5.3 OU2 Nature and Extent of Contamination and Conceptual Site Model

COCs were determined for each OU during the Remedial Investigation (RI). For the purposes of
this Interim ROD, the primary risk driver and COC is lead in ceramic waste, soils, and
sediments. Lead is the most widespread human health and ecological risk driver in OU2. Lead
concentrations negatively impact all receptors, both human and biological, and affect all
ecological communities.

Ceramic waste within OU2 covers approximately 6.4 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands and 6.1 acres
of forested wetlands as shown on Figure 2. For purposes of the treatability studies EPA divided
several parts of the wetland into a Central Drainage Area, a Main Drainage Channel, a Western
Drainage Channel, a Cattail Area, a Beaver Pond, and an Oxbow Lake. These features are all

-------
depicted on Figure 2 and are based on geographic conditions of the area to assist discussing Site
conditions and locations.

Contamination appears to follow the drainage paths and channels through OU2. As surface water
containing waste within the OU1 Former Lagoon discharged via a 48-inch culvert drainage pipe
to the OU2 Floodplain, it spread throughout OU2 using normal drainage pathways.

Contaminated surface water spread into the Cattail Area of the OU2 Central Drainage Area by a
breach in the beaver pond side wall, as well as flowing south-southeastward through the OU2
Western Drainage Channel into the OU2 Main Drainage Channel. Within the OU2 Central
Drainage Area, deposition of source material and contaminated sediment over time filled in
former drainage pathways and low spots within the floodplain leaving source material from
depth to ground surface.

5.3.1 Remedial Investigation and Treatability Studies

EPA conducted multiple sampling events in OU2 during the RI and treatability studies. EPA
conducted a site-wide RI between 2009 and 2018 and data were collected to supplement two
treatability studies between 2018 and 2021. The summary below discusses data that were
collected during these field events.

Contamination in OU2 was found to generally follow drainage patterns starting at the 48-inch
culvert which drained contaminated surface water from the Former Lagoon into OU2. There are
thin (less than 1 inch) layers of organic material and ceramic waste sludge from former facility
operations mixed with the silty loam in surface and shallow subsurface soils. These layers are
typically underlain by a thick layer of soft gray, mottled clay with some silt to clayey silt.
Deposition of ceramic waste sludge occurs primarily within the OU2 Central Drainage Area
(Figure 2) as well as within and south of the Cattail Area and the northern portion of the OU2
Western Drainage Channel. Further south, deposition of the ceramic waste sludge appears to
have occurred primarily within the OU2 Main Drainage Channel.

Previous investigations indicate that ceramic waste sludge present in the OU2 wetlands is buried
beneath soil and sediment that were deposited after facility operations ceased, suggesting a high
rate of sediment deposition in the wetlands during periods of high surface flow. Currently, the
elevation in the wetlands is consistent and sedimentation of clean sediments is no longer
occuring. Thus, the current exposure to waste in the top 2 ft is unlikely to change over time.

From 0 to 2 ft bgs, lead concentrations in soil range from 0.08 J3 mg/kg to 45,713 mg/kg.
Elevated lead concentrations decrease rapidly below 2 ft bgs, with concentrations ranging from
8.90 mg/kg to 425 mg/kg. The one exception is where the 48-inch culvert (identified above)
connects the OU1 Former Lagoon to OU2. At this location, lead concentrations are as high as
1,310 mg/kg at 2-3 ft bgs.

3 J refers to a concentration that was identified but the amount is estimated.

-------
Sediments are found in surface water bodies that hold standing water year-round (described as
the "beaver pond" and the "Oxbow lake" shown in Figure 2). Lead concentrations in sediments
in the beaver pond ranged from 34.7 mg/kg to 36,800 mg/kg. In sediments from the Oxbow lake,
lead concentrations ranged from to 16.8 mg/kg to 626 J mg/kg. Similar to lead contamination in
soil, the maximum concentrations of lead are found in the upper 2-ft interval of sediments. The
maximum lead concentration in sediment was detected in the beaver pond, with elevated lead
concentrations extending to 4 ft bgs (Figure 2).

Observations of the white silty-clay sludge material originating from the china manufacturing
processes are where lead concentrations are above 1,000 mg/kg, which covers an area of about
23 acres in OU2. The ceramic waste sludge and all soils and sediments containing lead at
concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg are defined in this Interim ROD as "source material" or
"principal threat waste."

Treatment technologies evaluated during the two treatability studies evaluated the use of
amendments to reduce the lead bioavailability but were unable to achieve or even approach
acceptable levels of bioavailable lead derived in the risk assessments at these elevated lead
concentrations. Due to the limited effectiveness of the amendments, soils and sediments
containing lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg have the potential to act as a continuing
source of lead, acting as principal threat waste. Principal threat waste acts as a source of
contamination to downstream soils, sediments, surface water, and groundwater and continue to
negatively impact surrounding and downstream habitats. Therefore, this Interim RA will target
the lateral area (or footprint) where lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg. Within the
designated treatment area (or 1,000 mg/kg footprint), lead will be treated vertically to the RGs
identified in this Interim ROD.

5.3.2 Conceptual Site Model

The Conceptual Site Model is developed by EPA to integrate the different types of information
collected during the RI and during subsequent treatability studies including the physical setting,
the nature and extent of contamination, and the contaminant fate and transport.

The historical source of contamination was from the manufacturing operations that produced
waste streams. Process wastewater and production sludge was discharged to the unlined sludge
settling lagoon (OU1 FL) which subsequently discharged to the OU2 Floodplain via the 48-inch
culvert. Sludge laden process wastewater periodically overflowed the OU1 FL during periods of
high precipitation and discharged into wetland areas within the adjacent OU2 Floodplain via the
48-inch diameter drainage pipe underlying the B&P Railroad tracks (Figure 2). Water from on-
Site septic tanks and catch basins were also believed to have discharged to the OU1 FL (Ogden,
1998). The process wastewater that discharged to the OU1 FL was documented to be laden with
production sludge consisting of sand, clay, unheated glazing product, and paints containing
oxides of aluminum, tin, chromium, manganese, lead, and possibly copper (PADER, 1986).

-------
6.0 Current and Future Potential Land Use and Water Use

The land present in OU2 is currently a mixture of forests, wetlands, vernal pools, channels,
surface water bodies, and has portions of both Sandy Lick Creek and Wolf Run. The Interim RA
includes steps to restore the wetland following remedy implementation, so it is expected the land
will continue to be a mix of forests and wetlands, considering the complexity of building in
wetland areas. Due to the nature of the Interim ROD, contamination will be left in place that will
be addressed by a future decision document. Future potential land use includes private
recreational use and logging. At the time of this ROD's signature there is no known interest in
commercial or residential development of OU2.

The groundwater underlying the Site property is not used for drinking water purposes, although
several groundwater potable wells are present within one-mile of the eastern Site boundary. The
Borough of Falls Creek draws its water from two Dubois reservoirs, the Anderson Creek
Reservoir, and the Munic Reservoir. The Anderson Creek Reservoir is located downgradient of
the Site and 5 miles east of the city of Dubois. The Munic Reservoir is located 0.25 miles
northwest of the Site.

Less than 20 private wells are located 0.9 to 1 mile from the eastern Jackson Ceramix Site
boundary (Sandy Lick Creek). Several of the homeowners have connected to public water, but
still use their private well for outdoor use (e.g., watering lawn, washing cars). Based on
estimated property elevations and well depths provided by the property owners/representatives,
the bottom elevations of the drinking water wells appear to be higher in elevation than the water
bearing zones identified in the bedrock at the Site during geophysical surveying and packer
testing. Based upon the regional grade of the underlying bedrock as mapped in the area of
DuBois, the difference in elevations between the potable water wells and the Site bedrock water
bearing zones suggests OU3 bedrock groundwater is not being utilized by the local population.

7.0 Summary of Site Risks

As part of the RI, a baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk
Assessment (ERA) were conducted by EPA to determine the current and potential future effects
of contaminated media on human health and the environment in the absence of any cleanup
actions at the Site. These baseline risk assessments (before any cleanup) provide the basis for
taking a remedial action and indicate the exposure pathway(s) that need to be addressed by the
remedial action. This section summarizes the results of the HHRA and ERA.

Contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) were identified for each exposure area and each
medium based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations from the RI to health-based
screening values. These health-based screening values are the Regional Screening Levels
(RSLs) developed by EPA, representing a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1 and cancer risk of 10"6. If
the maximum detected concentration was greater than the appropriate RSL, the chemical was
identified by EPA as a COPC for that medium for the exposure area and received a more detailed

-------
site-specific evaluation. Ecological risk was determined using toxicity benchmarks and food
chain modeling.

WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED?

A Superfund human health risk assessment estimates the baseline risk. The baseline risk is an
estimate of the likelihood of health problems occurring if no cleanup action were taken at a
site. To estimate the baseline risk at a Superfund site, EPA undertakes a four-step process:

Step 1: Analyze Contamination
Step 2: Estimate Exposure
Step 3: Assess Potential Health Dangers
Step 4: Characterize Site Risk

In Step 1, EPA looks at the concentrations of contaminants found at a site as well as past
scientific studies on the effects these contaminants have had on people (or animals, when
human studies are unavailable). Comparisons between site-specific concentrations and
concentrations reported in past studies help EPA to determine which contaminants are most
likely to pose the greatest threat to human health.

In Step 2, EPA considers the different ways that people might be exposed to the contaminants
identified in Step 1, the concentrations that people might be exposed to, and the potential
frequency and duration of exposure. Using this information, EPA calculates a "reasonable
maximum exposure" scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could
reasonably be expected to occur.

In Step 3, EPA uses the information from Step 2 combined with information on the toxicity of
each chemical to assess potential risks. EPA considers two types of risk: cancer and non-
cancer risk. The likelihood of any kind of cancer resulting from a Superfund site is generally
expressed as an upper bound probability; for example, a "1 in 10,000 chance." In other words,
for every 10,000 people that could be exposed, one extra cancer may occur as a result of
exposure to site contaminants. An extra cancer case means that one more person could get
cancer than would normally be expected to from all other causes. For non-cancer health
effects, EPA calculates a "hazard index" (HI). The key concept here is that a "threshold level"
(measured as a HI of equal to or less than 1) exists below which non-cancer health effects
would not be expected. For lead, the non-cancer hazard is not represented by an HI because no
threshold has been identified; rather, blood-lead models are used with the goal of minimizing
lead exposure.

In Step 4, EPA determines whether site risks are great enough to cause health problems for
people at or near the Superfund site. The results of the three previous steps are combined,
evaluated, and summarized. EPA adds up the potential risks from the individual contaminants

-------
and exposure pathways and calculates a total site risk. Generally, cancer risks between 10"4
and 10"6, and a non-cancer HI of 1 or less are considered acceptable for EPA Superfund sites.
For lead at this Site, the goal was for no more than 5% of a modeled population to have a
blood lead-level (BLL) of 5 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL).

Multiple contaminants were identified as human health and/or ecological risk drivers. Lead is the
most widespread human health and ecological risk driver, impacting all receptors and ecological
communities present in OU2. Exposure to lead in surface soil, sediment, and surface water may
result in BLLs above target levels for human and ecological receptors. Many other contaminants
are co-located with elevated lead concentrations or are located within the area of the lead-
contaminated soils/sediments. Lead in soils and sediments is the primary risk driver for this
Interim RA. EPA will further evaluate all the risk drivers for OU2 and evaluate them in a
subsequent FS for OU2 that will form the basis of a final ROD for OU2.

7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

A HHRA and ERA were prepared to support the RI. The HHRA evaluated potential human
health risks associated with contact with soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments, and
ingestion of venison and fish. Because lead does not have published toxicity factors, potential
risks associated with lead were evaluated differently from the other contaminants of potential
concern in the HHRA.

Lead toxicity is evaluated by EPA through blood-lead uptake using a physiologically based
pharmacokinetic model called the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. The
IEUBK model predicts the probability of elevated BLLs for children ages 0 to 7 years from
potential exposure to lead in various media. The IEUBK model was used to evaluate potential
risks associated with child exposures to lead in soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater,
venison, and fish. The IUEBK model also considered a site-specific in vitro bioaccessibility
(IVBA) of 86%. The lead exposure risks are expressed as the predicted geometric mean BLLs
for children and the percent of the population potentially experiencing concentrations greater
than a target value. EPA's current recommendation is for less than 5 percent of the population to
exceed a BLL of 10 micrograms per deciliter ([j,g/dL) (EPA, 1994). Current scientific literature
on lead toxicology and epidemiology provides evidence that adverse health effects are associated
with BLLs less than 10 |ig/dL. Concurrent with the acknowledgement that lead exposure in
young children can cause harm at lower levels than previously targeted, EPA is evaluating its
existing policy on human health risks from lead contamination in soil. Should the lead policy
change, EPA will determine if the risk assessment for OU2 needs to be reevaluated.

For adult exposure to lead, the Adult Lead Model (ALM) was used, which was developed by
EPA's Technical Review Workgroup for Lead (EPA, 2003, 2009). The ALM evaluated risks
associated with non-residential adult exposure to lead in soil and sediment. The ALM is a
variation of the IEUBK model and focuses on estimating fetal blood-lead concentrations in

-------
pregnant women exposed to lead in soil. It was used to evaluate risk for potentially sensitive
receptors for the site worker, construction worker, and adolescent recreational user populations
that may be exposed to soil and/or sediment. The lead exposure risks are expressed as the
predicted geometric mean BLLs for adults (that is, women of child-bearing age), the
corresponding 95th percentile fetal blood-lead concentrations, and the percent of the population
potentially experiencing concentrations greater than 10 |ig/dL. EPA considered an RG based on
an evaluation at 5 ug/dl in the human health risk assessment.

7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment

The ERA evaluated the exposure of ecological receptors to Site contaminants. The habitat
assessment determined that OU2 is predominantly floodplain habitat, which includes forested
wetlands and scrub-shrub habitats. Aquatic ecological habitats were included in the evaluation as
part of the OU2 Floodplain habitat, specifically the channels and permanently inundated areas of
the wetlands (i.e., the areas wetted year-round) that could support water column invertebrates.
Other ecological receptors in this habitat include birds and mammals. Ecological receptors in the
Floodplain can be exposed to contaminants in soil, sediment, surface water, overburden
groundwater (through discharge to the surface water bodies), and food items (plants, soil and
benthic invertebrates, small mammals, amphibians, and fish) in which Site contaminants have
bioaccumulated.

7.3 Basis for Remedial Action

In summary, the HHRA and ERA specific to OU2 demonstrated the presence of unacceptable
risks to human health and the environment, and that remedial action is necessary to reduce the
risks to within or below EPA's acceptable risk range. Therefore, EPA has determined that the
Selected Remedy identified in this Interim OU2 ROD is necessary to protect the public health or
welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the
environment.

8.0 Remedial Action Objectives

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are specific goals to protect human health and the
environment. These objectives are based on available information and standards, such as
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), to-be-considered (TBC) guidance,
and site-specific risk-based levels.

This Interim RA is not intended to reduce all contamination in all media types at OU2. However,
the Interim RAOs are designed to be consistent with a final RA that will comply with CERCLA
requirements for cleanup of contaminated media. This Interim RA is intended to address
principal threat waste (ceramic waste and elevated levels of lead exceeding 1,000 mg/kg in soils
and sediments) within OU2. Therefore, the RAOs for this action do not specify cleanup levels
but instead address principal threat waste.

-------
The RAOs for the OU2 Interim RA are as follows:

• RAO 1 - Prevent human exposure via ingestion and dermal contact to Principal Threat

Waste.

• RAO 2 - Minimize migration of Principal Threat Waste into OU2 wetlands, drainage
channels, and the Floodplain.

• RAO 3 - Prevent ecological receptor exposure to Principal Threat Waste.

By addressing principal threat waste within OU2, the Interim RA will reduce risks by ensuring
contamination from principal threat waste within OU2 does not continue to migrate towards
locations where it could impact human and ecological receptors. These RAOs are designed to be
consistent with a final RA which will entail complete restoration of OU2.

8.1 Remediation Goals

RGs are developed to establish an acceptable cleanup level or range of levels for each exposure
route. As stated above, since the Selected Remedy is for an Interim RA, the RAOs for this action
do not specify cleanup levels but instead address principal threat waste. However, as explained
below, while the lateral limits of the Interim RA are defined by the presence of principal threat
waste and not RGs, the vertical extent of lead removal will be determined by RGs for this
Interim RA. While the specific treatment area will be refined during the design, EPA will target
the lateral area (or footprint) where lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg for this Interim RA.
Principal threat waste will define the lateral extent of excavation to ensure the footprint of all
principal threat waste is captured. Within the designated treatment area (or 1,000 mg/kg
footprint), lead will be treated vertically to respective soil and sediment RGs identified below.

The principal threat waste is defined by areas that include where ceramic waste is present and
where lead concentrations in soil and sediment exceed 1,000 mg/kg. While source material with
lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste,4 EPA has defined source material or principal threat waste where lead concentrations
exceed 1,000 mg/kg based on two key factors.

(1) Observations of the ceramic waste sludge/ceramic sludge that looks like white silty-clay
sludge material are associated with where lead concentrations are above 1,000 mg/kg.

(2) Treatment technologies evaluated during the two treatability studies evaluated the use of
amendments to reduce the lead bioavailability but were unable to achieve or even
approach acceptable levels of bioavailable lead derived in the risk assessments at these
elevated lead concentrations. Due to the limited effectiveness of the amendments, soils
and sediments containing lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg have the

4 This is based on historical data and the use of TCLP.

-------
potential to act as a continuing source of lead, acting as principal threat waste. Principal
threat waste acts as a source of contamination to downstream soils, sediments, surface
water, and groundwater and continue to negatively impact surrounding and downstream
habitats.

Source material is present throughout the central portion of the Floodplain, as well as within
some vernal pools, channels, and surface water bodies. In areas wetted year-round that support
water column invertebrates, source material should be addressed until lead concentrations in
sediments are protective of ecological receptors and meet RGs. The lead RG for sediment5 in
OU2 is 69 mg/kg, which is protective of invertebrates as well as highly exposed birds and
mammals that rely on the aquatic food chain. The soil RG for lead of 99.4 mg/kg is a background
number that is consistent with the lead RG established for the OU1 Northern Drainage
Channel/Former Lagoon in the 2021 OU1 ROD. It is protective of all receptors, including human
health-based derived numbers established from the IEUBK model (with the current site-specific
86% IVBA factor) for unrestricted use. It is also protective of recreational use of the Site,
including consumption of fish and venison.

• Sediment RG for lead = 69 mg/kg

• Soil RG for lead = 99.4 mg/kg

After source material is addressed in this Interim RA, EPA will propose cleanup levels for the
remaining COCs on-Site in a separate Proposed Plan and will select them a final ROD for OU2
after the requisite public comment period.

9.0 Description of Alternatives

CERCLA § 121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b)(1), mandates that remedial actions must be
protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, comply with ARARs, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives, to
the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial
actions which employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants at a
site. CERCLA § 121(d), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must attain
a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at
least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to
CERCLA § 121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4). Emphasis is also placed on treating the wastes at
a site whenever possible, and on applying innovative technologies to clean up the contaminant.
Detailed descriptions of the remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination associated
with the Site can be found in the OU2 Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) Report. To facilitate the
presentation and evaluation of the alternatives, the alternatives in the FFS Report were
reorganized in this Interim ROD to formulate the remedial alternatives discussed below.

5 Per this Interim ROD, sediment refers to soils that are permanently inundated or perennially overlain by water.

-------
9.1 Remedial Alternatives

The following Remedial Alternatives were evaluated to determine if they could address principal
threat waste at OU2 as an interim RA:

•	Alternative 1: No Action

•	Alternative 2: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal,
and Wetlands Restoration

•	Alternative 3: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Soil Stabilization
of Characterized Hazardous Waste, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration

Alternative 1: No Action

Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
Estimated Construction Timeframe: N/A

The NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, which governs Superfund response actions, requires that EPA
evaluate a "No Action" alternative for every NPL site in order to establish a baseline for the
comparison of alternatives. The No Action alternative involves no additional remedial activities
to be conducted for source material in OU2, providing an environmental baseline against which
impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared. With this alternative, there would
be no change in the concentrations of COCs in the media because no treatment, containment, or
removal would occur of source material. Lead concentrations would continue to negatively
impact all receptors and affect all ecological communities. The No Action alternative would only
be selected if the existing Site conditions were protective of human health and the environment.

This alternative does not meet the threshold criteria of protectiveness and compliance with
ARARs, which must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for selection.

Alternative 2: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal,
and Wetlands Restoration

Estimated Capital Cost: $19,700,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $19,700,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 8.7 months

The components of this alternative would include the following:

•	Clear vegetation in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands in areas impacted by source material.

•	Conduct limited removal of mature trees and vegetation in forested wetlands impacted by
source material.

26

-------
• Utilize equipment to access partially saturated soils, allowing excavation equipment to
maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting the soils.

• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater the flooded areas as much as possible, likely
performing the excavation activities in phases. Dewater flooded areas to allow excavation
activities to proceed under drier conditions.

• Collect in situ waste characterization samples for disposal profiling at a frequency to be
determined during remedial design.

• Excavate source material/lead-contaminated soils considered to be hazardous6 (from 0 to 2 ft
bgs) and directly load in dump trucks that are licensed to transport hazardous waste (estimate
of 58,000 tons). Trucks would be lined and covered. Waste would be transported to a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility. After the source material (lead exceeding 1,000
mg/kg) is removed, excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soils is no greater
than 99.4 mg/kg in confirmation samples submitted to an accredited analytical lab. Existing
data do not provide vertical delineation to the soils RG of 99.4 mg/kg in most of the area
covered by source material, which is a data gap that will be addressed during pre-design
sampling. Overall, refinement of lateral and vertical extent will be needed prior to
implementing the Interim RA. It is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials located
approximately 2 to 4 ft bgs will not be hazardous. The materials at these depths and other
nonhazardous material will be directly loaded in lined/covered dump trucks and transported
to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility (estimate of 32,000 tons).

• Construct a dewatering containment area to dry out dredged sediments prior to disposal.

• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediments and place the sediments in a dewatering
containment area.

• Treat dewatered fluid through skid-mounted treatment system. Treated water could be either
discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance with NPDES
requirements.

• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a frequency
to be determined during remedial design.

• Excavate sediments from the dewatering containment area and load into dump trucks. If the
results of the waste characterization analysis determine that the dewatered sediments are
classified as nonhazardous waste, then the dewatered sediments would be transported off-Site
for disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If the sediments contain concentrations
of lead above the regulatory limit of 5 ppm using the TCLP, then they would be transported
to a RCRA Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal.

6 Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using TCLP.

-------
•	Restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands habitat.
Excavated areas may be backfilled with approved backfill material or regraded, depending on
estimates of the original elevations of the wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, it was
assumed that 50 percent of the excavations would be backfilled, but backfilling may also not
be necessary since removal of the waste could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal
elevations. This determination would be made based on modeling during the remedial design
phase. Restoring the wetlands to their original elevations will increase the wetlands storage
capacity over current conditions so they will be more resilient to climate change
vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall and storm events).7

Alternative 3: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Soil Stabilization of
Characterized Hazardous Waste, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration

Estimated Capital Cost: $48,400,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $48,400,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 12 months

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that excavated source material
characterized as hazardous would be treated in place with soil stabilization amendments,
rendering it as nonhazardous, and disposing it at an off-Site RCRA Subtitle D solid waste
disposal facility. The primary elements of Alternative 3 that are in addition to those identified in
Alternative 2 include:

•	Add soil stabilization amendment to source material in place and mixing in the top 2 ft of
material with a backhoe or excavator. For costing purposes and based on results from
treatability studies, MetaFix® was assumed to be used at 5 percent by weight to stabilize
material in place.

•	Collect confirmation samples from treated material at a frequency to be determined during
remedial design and submit for laboratory analysis for TCLP metals. If the treated soil
exceeds TCLP concentration limits, additional soil stabilization amendment would be added
and mixed until confirmation samples verify that the material was rendered nonhazardous.

•	Excavate treated and rendered nonhazardous material, load directly into dump trucks and
transport to a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. After the treated source material is removed
from the top 2 ft, excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soil is 99.4 mg/kg from
confirmation samples. It is anticipated that lead concentrations from approximately 2 to 4 ft
bgs are nonhazardous and require no treatment.

7 EPA is conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design. This
assessment will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in consideration
of climate changes and the health of the wetland.

28

-------
Five-Year Reviews

The first five-year review (FYR) for this Site will be completed within five years after the start
of on-Site construction for OU1, which is anticipated to begin in the Summer of 2023, and will
be conducted every five years thereafter. A FYR is necessary for this Site because the Remedial
Actions at OU1 and the Remedial Alternatives evaluated for OU2 will result in hazardous
substances remaining on-Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA will conduct a statutory review no less often than every five years to ensure that
the Selected Remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment pursuant to
Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of theNCP.
FYRs will continue until hazardous substances are no longer present above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

9.2 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy presented herein will remove and prevent exposure to source material,
specifically ceramic waste, soil, and sediment containing lead concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg
in the OU2 wetlands. The removal of this source material will address the most contaminated
areas of the wetlands, significantly reduce risk, and reduce the likelihood of further migration of
contaminants from and within the wetlands. Wetlands restoration in the areas of removal will
mark the start of mitigation of the impacted habitat in OU2. Additionally, removing the source
material may restore wetlands to the pre-disposal elevation which may increase the wetlands
storage capacity over current conditions so the watershed will be more resilient to climate change
(i.e., increased rainfall, storm events). A final remedy for OU2 will be presented in a future ROD
and will address remaining contamination in OU2.

10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

The alternatives discussed above were compared to each other with the nine criteria set forth in
40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP in order to select a remedy for the Site. These nine
criteria are categorized according to three groups: threshold criteria; primary balancing criteria;
and modifying criteria. These evaluation criteria relate directly to the requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, which determine the overall feasibility and acceptability of
the remedy.

Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for selection. Primary
balancing criteria are used to weigh major trade-offs among remedies. State and community
acceptance are modifying criteria formally taken into consideration after public comment is
received on the Proposed Plan. A summary of each of the criteria is presented below, followed
by a summary of the relative performance of the alternatives with respect to each of the nine
criteria. These summaries provide the basis for determining which alternative provides the "best
balance" of trade-offs with respect to the nine criteria.

-------
l Aaluation ( riteria for Superl'iind Ki*inc«li:il \llernali\ es
Threshold criteria: Musi he s;i 1 is lied in order lor a remedy 1» he eligible lor selection.

1.	Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment
through institutional controls (ICs), engineering controls, or treatment.

2.	Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative will meet all ARARs of
Federal and State environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to
the site, and/or justifies a waiver.

Primary balancing criteria: I sed to weigh major IradeolT between remedial
alternatives.

3.	Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the expected residual risk and the
ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human health and the environment over
time.

4.	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment

evaluates the anticipated performance of an alternative's use of treatment to reduce the
harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the
amount of contamination present.

5.	Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative
and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during the
construction and implementation period, until the cleanup goals are achieved.

6.	Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
an alternative, including the availability of goods and services needed to implement a
particular option.

7.	Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs; compared as
present worth cost.

Modifying criteria: Considered In EPA after public commcnl is received on the
Proposed Plan.

30

-------
Kvaluafion Criteria lor Super fund Remedial Alternalives

8. State/ Support Agency Acceptance addresses whether the State concurs or has comments
on the preferred alternative, as described in the Proposed Plan.

9. Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with EPA's
analysis of the preferred alternative, as described in the Proposed Plan.

10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The No Action alternative is required by the NCP and serves as the baseline against which the
other alternatives are compared. Under this alternative, no further efforts, active remediation, or
resources will be expended to remediate OU2. All ceramic waste and lead-contaminated soil will
remain on-Site with this alternative, and no measures will be taken to protect the community.
Because the No Action alternative would not be protective of human health and the environment,
it fails the threshold criteria and is eliminated from further consideration under the remaining
eight criteria.

Alternative 2 and 3 would only be protective to human health and the environment where the
Selected Remedy as discussed in this Interim ROD will occur. A final ROD for OU2 will be
necessary in the future to identify protections to human health and the environment throughout
the extent of OU2.

Alternative 2 would provide protection to human health and the environment where source
material has been identified. The source material would be removed from OU2, transported, and
disposed of at approved permitted facilities. Source material that fails TCLP analysis (anticipated
to be from 0 to 2 ft bgs) would be transported and disposed at a RCRA Subtitle C-licensed
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. For soils/sediments with elevated lead
concentrations but below the TCLP limit, the material would be transported to a nonhazardous
disposal facility (i.e., RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility).

Alternative 3 would provide protection to human health and the environment where source
material has been identified by treating hazardous source material on-Site and rendering it
nonhazardous before transporting and disposing it at a nonhazardous landfill.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would therefore both reduce risks from potential exposure to source
material, protecting human health and the environment where source material has been identified
by removing contaminated soil/sediment and hauling off-Site for proper disposal.

10.2 Compliance with ARARs

Any cleanup alternative selected by EPA must comply with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate federal and state environmental requirements or provide the basis upon which such
requirement(s) can be waived. Applicable requirements are those environmental standards,

-------
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state law that are legally
applicable to the remedial action to be implemented at the Site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements, while not being directly applicable, address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the Site that their application is well-suited to the particular
circumstance. The to be considered category consists of advisories, criteria, or guidance that
were developed by EPA, other federal agencies, or states that may be useful in developing
CERCLA remedies.

ARARs are divided into three categories, chemical specific, location specific, and action
specific. Chemical specific ARARs are usually health or risk based numerical values or
methodologies which, when applied to site-specific conditions, results in the establishment of
numerical values. These values establish the acceptable amount or concentration of chemical that
may be found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment. Location specific ARARs are
restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct of cleanup
activities solely because they are in specific locations. Action specific ARARs are usually
technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to
hazardous wastes. The ARARs are described in detail in Appendix D.

ARARs that have a more significant influence for how Alternatives 2 and 3 are performed,
include:

• Wetlands Protection and Mitigation Regulations (40 C.F.R. § 230.10) - Excavation of
contaminated soil and sediment from the wetlands will need to address and avoid
wherever possible any potential short-term and long-term adverse impacts on the
wetlands. Additionally, restoration/mitigation activities will need to take place following
removal of contaminated material.

• RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (including 40 C.F.R. § 261.24; 25
Pa. Code §§ 261a. 1; 261a.2; 261a.3(b); and 261a.7) - These requirements must be
followed for any remedy that generates and stores hazardous waste.

• Dam Safety and Encroachment Act (25 Pa. Code §§ 105.15; 105.17; 105.18a)-
Disruption to wetlands may occur during the implementation of any remedial
alternative.

• NPDES Requirements (including regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.41;

122.44; 40 C.F.R. Part 423, App. A; 25 Pa. Code §§ 92a.3 and 92a.41) - While
no permit is required, the substantive provisions of these requirements are
applicable to any portion of the remedy that may affect the water quality in the
nearby vernal pools and creeks, such as treatment and discharge of treated water.
Sediment and erosion control features will need to be implemented before the
start of intrusive construction activities.

A more complete description of the specific ARARs identified for the Selected Remedy in this
Interim ROD are set forth in Appendix D.

-------
Alternatives 2 and 3 would require location-specific ARARs (specifically Wetlands Protection
and Mitigation) by performing excavation activities in a wetland and 100-year floodplain. With
respect to complying with action-specific ARARs, Alternatives 2 and 3 would require
stabilization of potentially hazardous source material to render it nonhazardous to meet RCRA
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations and Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs).

Construction of cofferdams or water diversion structures under both Alternatives 2 and 3 would
be performed in accordance with Pennsylvania's Dam Safety and Encroachments Act regulations
and Federal Wetlands Protection and Mitigation ARARs to meet the location-specific ARARs.
Treated water could be either discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in
accordance with NPDES requirements.

10.3	Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Long-term effectiveness would be achieved for Alternative 2 through the removal of the source
material from OU2 and disposal at an appropriate disposal facility (RCRA Subtitle C for
hazardous material and RCRA Subtitle D for nonhazardous material). For proper disposal at a
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, the hazardous source material would be
stabilized/treated to LDRs at the landfill.

Long-term effectiveness would be achieved for Alternative 3 by excavating the source material,
adding stabilization agents to reduce toxicity and mobility. The material would be properly
disposed at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill.

Both alternatives would take measures to minimize impacts and destruction to the wetlands by
using smaller-sized excavating equipment, such as using mini marsh or amphibious excavators to
minimize disturbances to the wetlands. Additionally, both alternatives would take measures to
restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and vegetation
to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and enhance wetlands habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would help to restore pre-disposal elevation to the wetlands containing
soils/sediments above 1,000 mg/kg of lead, which would increase the wetlands storage capacity
over current conditions so they would be more resilient to climate change compared to current
conditions.

Thus, Alternatives 2 and 3 would both provide similar degrees of long-term effectiveness and
permanence by removing source material from the Site and reducing vulnerabilities to climate
change.

10.4	Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

Under Alternative 2, the hazardous source material would be stabilized at the hazardous waste
landfill prior to disposal.

33

-------
Under Alternative 3, the toxicity and mobility of source material would be reduced by adding an
appropriate amendment to chemically sequester lead, reducing its leachability, and rendering it
nonhazardous. The volume of source material would increase with the addition of amendment,
then be removed, and placed at an off-Site landfill.

Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 would offer similar reductions in contaminant toxicity and mobility
by removal. Alternative 3 would significantly decrease contaminant toxicity through the addition
of soil stabilizers, rendering the soil non-hazardous prior to land disposal. The difference
between Alternatives 2 and 3 is whether the stabilization efforts occur at a licensed hazardous
waste facility (Alternative 2) or occur in-place at OU2 before being excavated (Alternative 3).
Both alternatives include disposing of the material at off-Site landfills beneath an engineered
liner system.

10.5 Short-term Effectiveness

Alternatives 2 and 3 could pose potential short-term risks by generating fugitive dust emissions
during excavation of the source material, and through general construction hazards. Primary risks
would be to construction workers. Adjacent properties to OU2 include the B&P rail line property
and undeveloped private wooded areas. Standard practices and controls, such as dust
suppression, would be used to mitigate short-term risks.

Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 include transporting a substantial quantity of excavated
material to disposal facilities. Transportation activities have inherent risks due to the potential for
traffic accidents and the release of the material being transported. Under Alternative 2, over
58,000 tons of hazardous material would be transported up to 2 hours away (one way) to a
licensed hazardous waste landfill for treatment and about 32,000 tons would be transported to a
nonhazardous landfill less than 30 miles away. For Alternative 2, it is assumed there would be up
to 135 days with 12 trucks per day transporting hazardous and nonhazardous material. For
Alternative 3, the hazardous material would be treated in place and transported to a
nonhazardous landfill, with a total of 90,000 tons of material being transported to a
nonhazardous landfill. With respect to distance traveled, Alternative 2 has greater potential for
short-term impacts due to the longer travel distance for hazardous soil. However, significant
short-term impacts also are possible with Alternative 3 due to transport, hauling, and staging of
over 5,800,000 pounds of stabilization amendment. For Alternative 3, it is assumed there would
be up to 189 days with 15 trucks per day transporting nonhazardous material, which includes 54
days with 15 trucks per day transporting the stabilization amendment. Overall, Alternative 3
includes much more truck traffic and transportation of material. Containment areas and
mitigation strategies would be in place to prevent spills and exposure to construction workers
and the environment.

Both alternatives would result in significant short-term impacts to roadways due to extensive
daily hauling and transportation of removed material to appropriate disposal facilities.

Both alternatives would have negative short-term impacts on the wetlands (i.e., destruction of
wetlands) and the habitat in adjacent areas needed to access the contaminated wetlands.

-------
10.6 Implementability

All the materials and services needed for Alternative 2 are standard and are readily available
from vendors. This alternative would require management of large quantities of both surface
water and excavated material. Source material is present throughout over 23 acres of OU2.
Potentially 58,000 tons of hazardous material would be transported by hazardous waste-licensed
haulers. The nearest licensed hazardous waste disposal facility is approximately 2 hours from the
Site. Nonhazardous material would be transported to a nonhazardous waste landfill, which is less
than 30 minutes from the Site. Direct loading and hauling of material to an appropriate disposal
facility will limit issues with storing, staging, and handling of contaminated media. The
anticipated time to implement Alternative 2 is approximately 8 months following a completed
and approved Remedial Design.

For Alternative 3, most of the treatment components and materials are readily available from
multiple vendors. One exception is the large quantity of amendment (over 5.8 million pounds)
that would be needed to effectively treat over 58,000 tons of hazardous source material and
render it nonhazardous to meet LDRs. Bench-scale studies could be performed to determine the
specific amount of material or ratio of materials to purchase from one vendor. However, supply
chain delays could be an issue when sourcing amendment. Additionally, the amendment would
need to be shipped and stored on-Site in a staging area. Treating the material in batches and
waiting for confirmation sampling results would add time to the overall implementation
timeframe. The anticipated time to implement this alternative is approximately one year
following a completed and approved Remedial Design.

Alternatives 2 and 3 could be readily implemented with construction techniques, albeit those that
involve utilizing equipment to access partially saturated soils which allow excavation equipment
to maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting soils. Alternatives 2 and 3
would result in similar impacts on forested wetlands as both include excavation and dredging of
source material. Although Alternative 2 requires transportation of hazardous material to a
hazardous waste treatment facility, Alternative 3 requires sourcing, delivering, and storing over
5,800,000 pounds of stabilization amendment on-Site. With respect to construction time,
Alternative 2 would require less time to implement compared to Alternative 3.

Overall, Alternative 2 is more implementable compared to Alternative 3.

10.7 Cost

The EPA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) guidance specifies that a +50 percent
to a -30 percent range of cost be used for evaluating cost estimates. The following table

-------
summarizes the +50 percent to -30 percent range of estimated present-value costs of the viable
alternative.

Because the alternatives discussed in this Interim ROD do not include O&M or annual costs,
only present-value capital costs are presented, rounded to the nearest $100,000.

Alternative Cost Comparison

Alternatives

Present-
Value Capital Cost

Present-Value of
O&M ami Periodic
Costs

Total Present-Value Cost

Alternative 1

$0

$0

$0

Alternative 2

$19,700,000

$0

$19,700,000

Alternative 3

$48,400,000

$0

$48,400,000

Prcscnt-Value Cost Summary

Cost Basis

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

+50 percent

$29,500,000

$72,600,000

Base Cost

$19,700,000

$48,400,000

-30 percent

$13,800,000

$33,900,000

10.8	State Acceptance

PADEP concurred with the selection of Alternative 2 in a letter dated March 23, 2023 (Appendix
A).

10.9	Community Acceptance

The public comment period for the Proposed Plan was from November 1, 2022, to December 1,
2022. Additionally, a public meeting was held on November 15, 2022, in DuBois City Hall in
DuBois, Pennsylvania, to present the Proposed Plan to community members. Representatives
from EPA answered questions about EPA's Preferred Alternative for the Site. Oral comments
were documented during the meeting. This transcript is included in the Administrative Record
for the Site. EPA's response to comments received during the public comment period is included
in the Responsiveness Summery in this Interim ROD.

Information provided by EPA in the Proposed Plan is based largely on the findings of the RI
Report (2018) and the FFS Report (2022). Both of these documents, along with the other
documents that EPA relied upon to prepare this Interim ROD, are available in the Administrative
Record for this Site.

36

-------
11.0 Principal Threat Waste

The NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A), establishes an expectation that EPA will use
treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable. The principal
threat concept is applied to the characterization of source materials at a Superfund site. A source
material is material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination, for example, to groundwater. Principal
threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which
would present a significant risk to human health, or the environment should exposure occur.

As more fully discussed above in Section 8.1 (Remediation Goals), EPA considers materials at
this Site that have lead concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg to be principal threat waste because
they contain significant concentrations of highly toxic materials, because of the unusually high
bioavailability resulting in high toxicity, and the migration potential for this material to be a
continuing source of contamination. Additionally, lead concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg
are coincident with observations of white silty-clay sludge material originating from china
manufacturing processes, indicating a visual reference to source material. Thus, the Interim RA
for OU2 will address source material where ceramic waste material and soil/sediment with lead
concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg.

12.0 Selected Remedy

Following review and consideration of the information in the Administrative Record, the
requirements of CERCLA and the NCP, and public comments, EPA has selected the following
alternative as the Selected Remedy for the OU2 Interim RA.

Alternative 2 - Excavation of Source material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal, and
Wetlands Restoration.

12.1 Summary of the Rationale for Selected Remedy

EPA's Selected Remedy meets the threshold criteria for overall protection of human health and
the environment and compliance with ARARs. Based on the information currently available,
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will meet the RAOs for the OU2 Interim RA and
provides the best balance of advantages and disadvantages among the alternatives when
evaluating them using the balancing criteria.

In addition, it will address principal threat waste and eliminate a major source of contamination
in the OU2 wetlands. Removing ceramic waste and these elevated concentrations of lead will
reduce risk and facilitate the restoration of the impacted wetland and adjacent habitat. Restoring
the wetlands to their original elevation will increase their storage capacity, in effect, enhancing
the resiliency of the Site and watershed to climate change vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall
and storm events).

-------
12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy

Based on the comparison of the nine criteria, EPA selects Alternative 2 - Excavation of Source

material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration as the Selected

Remedy for the OU2 Interim RA.

EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will be the most effective in addressing principal

threat waste present in OU2. A conceptual layout of the Selected Remedy is shown on Figure 2.

Remedy Components

The components of the Selected Remedy include the following:

• Clear vegetation in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands in areas impacted by source material.

• Conduct limited removal of mature trees and vegetation in forested wetlands impacted by
source material.

• Utilize equipment to access partially saturated soils, allowing excavation equipment to
maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting the soils.

• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater the flooded areas as much as possible, likely
performing the excavation activities in phases. Dewatering the flooded areas would allow
excavation activities to proceed under drier conditions.

• Collect in situ waste characterization samples for disposal profiling at a frequency to be
determined during remedial design.

• Excavate source material/lead-contaminated soil considered to be hazardous8 (from 0 to 2 ft
bgs) and directly load in dump trucks that are licensed to transport hazardous waste (estimate
of 58,000 tons). Trucks would be lined and covered. Waste would be transported to a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility. After the source material (lead exceeding 1,000
mg/kg) is removed, excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soil is no greater than
99.4 mg/kg in confirmation samples submitted to an accredited analytical lab. Existing data
do not provide vertical delineation to the soil RG of 99.4 mg/kg in most of the area covered
by source material, which is a data gap that will be addressed during pre-design sampling.
Overall, refinement of lateral and vertical extent will be needed prior to implementing the
Interim Remedial Action (RA). It is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials located
approximately 2 to 4 ft bgs will not be hazardous. The materials at these depths and other
nonhazardous material will be directly loaded in lined/covered dump trucks and transported
to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility (estimate of 32,000 tons).

• Construct a dewatering containment area to dry out dredged sediment prior to disposal.

• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediment and place it in a dewatering containment area.

• Treat dewatered fluid through skid-mounted treatment system. Treated water could be either
discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance with NPDES.

8 Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using TCLP.

-------
• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a frequency
to be determined during remedial design.

• Excavate sediment from the dewatering containment area and load into dump trucks. If the
results of the waste characterization analysis determine that the dewatered sediment is
classified as nonhazardous waste, then it would be transported off-Site for disposal at a
RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If the sediment contains concentrations of lead above the
regulatory limit of 5 ppm using the TCLP, then it would be transported to a RCRA Subtitle C
facility for treatment and disposal.

• Restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands habitat.
Excavated areas may be backfilled with approved backfill material or regraded, depending on
estimates of the original elevations of the wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, it was
assumed that 50 percent of the excavations would be backfilled, but backfilling may also not
be necessary since removal of the waste could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal
elevations. This determination would be made based on modeling during the remedial design
phase. Restoring the wetlands to their original elevations will increase the wetlands storage
capacity over current conditions so they will be more resilient to climate change
vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall and storm events).9

O&M Components

There is no O&M associated with the Selected Remedy.

Design Considerations

Source material present in seasonal dry areas would be excavated with standard
excavation/backhoe equipment in the dry. Smaller equipment such as a mini march or
amphibious excavators would be used to minimize destruction and impacts to the wetlands.
Cofferdams and water diversion activities would be implemented prior to excavation activities to
ensure conditions were suitable for dry excavation through the life of the remedial action. Based
on historical data, source material with lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated
to be characterized as hazardous using TCLP. This material, which is within the upper 2 ft of
area being excavated, would be excavated separately, direct loaded into trucks, and transported

9 EPA is conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design. This
assessment will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in consideration
of climate changes and the health of the wetland.

-------
to an off-Site hazardous waste facility licensed to accept and treat the soil. Treatment of the
material to meet the RCRA LDRs will be the responsibility of the hazardous waste disposal
facility. Nonhazardous soil located beneath the source material with concentrations ranging from
99.4 mg/kg to 2,000 mg/kg will be excavated and transported to a nonhazardous waste disposal
facility. It is anticipated that excavations that exceed 3 ft bgs will encounter groundwater.

Erosion control and contingency measures for managing/dewatering groundwater from
excavations will be required. Excavated areas would be restored with native wetlands seed mix
and vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and enhance wetlands habitat.
Amended soils may be placed in areas adjacent to the excavated areas, with consideration given
to the use of soil amendments such as biochar and/or compost.

Following removal and disposal activities, equipment and materials would be demobilized from
the Site. Depending on the final excavation depth, clean fill may be imported to return the Site to
an appropriate grade for the 100-year Floodplain based on modeling. The excavated area would
be graded, covered with amended topsoil, and seeded/planted with native vegetation as part of
wetlands mitigation/ restoration efforts. Disturbed areas beyond the limits of excavation will be
revegetated appropriately as required.

12.3 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy

The estimated present worth cost for the Selected Remedy is $19,700,000. Appendix C includes
details of the estimated costs to construct and implement the Selected Remedy. The information
in this cost estimate is based upon the best available information regarding the anticipated scope
of the Remedial Action. This estimate is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is
expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project cost.

Changes to the cost estimates may occur during implementation as a result of new information
and data collected during the engineering design of the Selected Remedy. Changes to the
Selected Remedy may be documented in the form of a memorandum to the Administrative
Record File, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), or a ROD Amendment, as
appropriate.

12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy presented herein will remove and prevent exposure to source material,
specifically ceramic waste, soil, and sediment containing lead concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg
in the OU2 wetlands. The removal of this source material will address the most contaminated
areas of the wetlands, significantly reduce risk, and reduce the likelihood of further migration of
contaminants from and within the wetlands. Wetlands restoration in the areas of removal will
mark the start of mitigation of the impacted habitat in OU2. Additionally, removing the source
material could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal elevations, which increases the wetlands
storage capacity over current conditions so the watershed will be more resilient to climate change
(i.e., increased rainfall, storm events). A final remedy for OU2 will be presented in a future ROD
and will address remaining contamination in OU2.

-------
13.0 Statutory Determinations

Under Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(5)(ii) of the NCP,
EPA must select remedies that are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
ARARs, are cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery to the maximum extent possible. There is also a preference for
remedies that use treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element. The following sections discuss how the
Selected Remedy meets these statutory requirements.

13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Based on the information currently available, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for
this Interim ROD improves protectiveness of human health and the environment as it would
achieve RAOs in a relatively quick timeframe (within 8 months). A final remedy will be selected
in a furture ROD to address any remaining sources of risk. The Selected Remedy would remove
source material from OU2 and ensure it is appropriately transported and disposed in licensed
permitted facilities. Removal of principal threat waste from areas of wetlands would
substantially reduce ecological risk and enable restoration of the wetlands to pre-disposal
conditions.

13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

The NCP, 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(B) and (C), requires that a ROD describe Federal and
State ARARs that the remedial action will attain or provide a justification for any waivers.
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state
environmental of facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. Relevant
and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or
state environmental or facility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that
their use is well suited to the particular site. The to be considered category consists of advisories,
criteria, or guidance that were developed by EPA, other federal agencies, or states that may be
useful in developing CERCLA remedies.

The Selected Remedy will comply with all the ARARs listed in Appendix D.

-------
13.3 Cost Effectiveness

The Selected Remedy is cost-effective in providing overall protection of human health and the
environment by limiting the risk posed by Site COCs and meeting all other requirements of
CERCLA and the NCP at a cost that is proportional to the other alternatives that were evaluated.
Further, the Selected Remedy is readily implementable and provides a high degree of both short-
and long-term effectiveness. The estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy is
$19,700,000.

13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The Selected Remedy is an interim remedial action to address source material and is not intended
to provide a permanent solution to the contamination in OU2. The Interim RA for OU2 will be
followed by a final RA that will address all contaminated media within OU2, not just the source
material. With respect to addressing source material, the Selected Remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment are practicable to remove and treat
ceramic waste and elevated lead present in soils and sediments.

13.5 Five-Year Review Requirements

The first FYR for this Site will be completed within five years after the start of on-Site
construction for OU1, which is anticipated to begin in the Summer of 2023, and will be
conducted every five years thereafter. A FYR is necessary for this Site because the Remedial
Actions at OU1 and the Interim RA for OU2 would result in hazardous substances remaining on-
Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA will conduct a
statutory review no less often than every five years to ensure that the Selected Remedy is, or will
be, protective of human health and the environment pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c), and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. FYRs will continue until
hazardous substances are no longer present above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.

14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes

The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on November 1, 2022. EPA has reviewed
all comments submitted during the public comment period and has determined that no significant
changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or
appropriate.

15. State Role

-------
PADEP, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has reviewed the remedial
alternatives presented in this ROD and has provided its concurrence with the Selected Remedy
a letter dated March 23, 2023.

III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2

CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

-------
III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

Overview of Responsiveness Summary:

This section summarizes the questions and comments received during the Proposed Plan public
meeting. There were no comments received during the public comment period besides those
asked during the public meeting. The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on
November 1, 2022. The public comment period was from November 1, 2022, to December 1,
2022. A public meeting was held at the DuBois City Hall Council Chambers on the evening of
November 15, 2022.

Questions and comments received during the public meeting and EPA's responses are
summarized below and are also documented in the meeting transcript that can be found in the
AR file for this Site.

After considering the public's questions and comments during the public meeting, EPA
determined that no significant changes to the proposed interim remedial action, as described in
the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate.

Stakeholder Comments During the Public Meeting:

Comment #1:

A local citizen asked where EPA is doing the cleanup and whether EPA is excavating and
dredging only where the Jackson China facility was located, or will activities be conducted at
other areas on private property?

Response to Comment #1:

Interim Action activities will not be conducted in the area where the former manufacturing
facility was located. Interim Action activities will be conducted at properties located on the

44

-------
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain area within OU2 that were impacted by the former china
manufacturing facility operations. These properties are private or commercial properties.

Comment #2:

A local citizen voiced concerns regarding flooding and contamination spreading beyond the area
of the Operable Unit 2 (OU2) boundary. This individual also asked if additional testing could be
done outside the current boundary of OU2 and if additional sampling is done, whether it would
just be for lead or would EPA sample for additional contaminants.

Response to Comment #2:

During the public availability session held prior to the meeting, EPA and the local citizens
reviewed maps showing the extent of contamination within and properties in proximity to OU2.
EPA has defined the extent of contamination within OU2 (in the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain
area) and has determined that additional sampling beyond the current OU2 boundary is not
warranted. EPA has identified the OU2 boundary based on Site conditions. EPA will be
collecting additional data in January 2023 to further refine the 1,000 mg/kg lead boundary within
OU2. EPA will reevaluate if any new information comes to light that would warrant additional
sampling beyond the current OU2 boundary, and in this evaluation, it will be determined if more
contaminants besides lead will need to be assessed.

After the public meeting, EPA followed up with a phone call to the concerned citizens and it was
determined that the citizens were unclear as to the location of their properties in proximity to the
Site. As a follow up, EPA is providing the citizens that had questions regarding the proximity of
their properties to the Site a map of the parcel(s) they own, and sampling data collected in closest
proximity to their properties. Based on sampling data, the lead results found in close proximity to
the properties in question were below levels that would be a concern for direct contact with the
water or sediment. If the local citizens have additional questions following their receipt of the
sampling maps and data, EPA will be available for further follow up.

Comment #3:

A local citizen asked whether lead is the only contaminant of concern at the Site or were other
contaminants released.

Response to Comment #3:

Lead is not the only contaminant of concern at the Site, but lead is the major contaminant in
OU2. Other contaminants of concern in OU2, including manganese, arsenic, chromium, and
cobalt in soils, are less pervasive than lead, and in some cases are co-located with lead.

There are also Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and metals contamination in OU1. EPA
will be conducting a Remedial Action to address contamination in OU1. EPA is currently at the
final design stage and will initiate Remedial Actions for OU1 in 2023. As set forth in a ROD for

45

-------
0U1 issued in March 2021, EPA will conduct in situ thermal remediation to address VOC
contamination and will clean up the metals (primarily lead) contamination in OU1 as well.

Comment #4:

A local citizen asked whether there are other contaminants at OU2, in addition to lead, that may
be capable of killing vegetation in the wetlands.

Response to Comment #4:

Although lead is the primary contaminant of concern at the Site, other metals found at the Site,
include manganese, arsenic, chromium, and cobalt in soil. EPA has evaluated these contaminants
and has a good understanding as to the extent to which contamination from these metals may
have a negative impact on vegetation. Addressing the highest lead concentrations first will
immediately help the ecosystem, and at the same time it may remove other contaminants that are
co-located with lead. However, after the proposed Interim Action is completed, EPA will assess
whether any hazards remain, whether from lead or other contaminants, which will be addressed
in a final remedy for OU2.

Comment #5:

A local citizen asked whether EPA implemented this type of remediation before and whether
there is testing to ensure it was successful.

Response to Comment #5:

EPA has implemented this type of response action at other sites where wetlands are located.
Excavation and removal of contamination off-site is often utilized as part of a site cleanup. When
conducting these activities in wetlands at the Site, EPA will ensure that negative impacts to the
wetlands are reduced by using machinery such as an amphibious marsh excavator, which is
smaller in scale compared to a typical excavator. To provide more detail, EPA has conducted
treatability studies to try to address wetlands contamination in OU2 by using technology other
than excavation and dredging that may have a lesser impact on the wetlands. For example, EPA
investigated whether a carbon-based material could be mixed into the sediments to reduce the
toxicity of lead. These treatability studies revealed that the levels of lead that are very high
(concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg are considered principal threat waste, or source material)
cannot be treated in place. It is important to remove the high concentrations of lead so that the
wetlands can start the restoration process. The Interim Action selected in the Interim ROD for
OU2 is just a first step of cleanup for OU2. This Interim Action would remove the source
material of lead at levels of 1,000 mg/kg. Outside this footprint, there will still be lead
contamination in OU2, which EPA will address at a later date. EPA anticipates that work to be
performed by EPA at OU2 subsequent to the Interim Action will be intended to reach a cleanup
level of 99.4 mg/kg in soils and 69 mg/kg in sediments.

-------
Comment #6:

A local citizen asked whether there will still be wetlands when EPA completes the Interim
Action.

Response to Comment #6:

Yes. One of the objectives of the Interim Action is to restore the wetlands. This means EPA will
take measures to avoid negative impacts to the wetlands or to restore the wetlands to their
condition prior to the remedial action being done. Also, removing the lead source material from
the wetlands will be extremely beneficial to the health of the wetland's ecosystem. EPA is
conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design
that will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in
consideration of climate changes and the health of the wetlands.

Comment #7:

A local citizen asked whether EPA will be working with local contractors and local companies to
make this work happen.

Response to Comment #7:

EPA typically has contractors involved in Superfund projects. With regard to the Site, EPA
already has a design contract with a firm known as Hydrogeologic, Inc (HGL). HGL has been
involved at the Site for several years and it works on all Operable Units at the Site in the
Feasibility Study and Design stage of the Site. At times, HGL will subcontract some aspects of
work, and at times this has involved local companies and firms. Since EPA already has an
existing contract with HGL, it will save some time once an Interim ROD is completed since a
new contractor will not need to be procured for the design. When EPA reaches the Remedial
Action phase, a new contractor will conduct the Remedial Action work and EPA has a standard
process for procuring this type of contract.

Comment #8:

A few local citizens asked whether EPA will be replanting at the end of the project, and, if so,
what EPA plans to plant and whether it will be just vegetation or trees.

Response to Comment #8:

Wetlands restoration is an objective of the Interim Action which includes reestablishment of
native vegetation. Wetlands restoration typically involves both reseeding and replanting of trees,
shrubs, and other vegetation that is typically found in the wetlands and similar wetlands in the
area.

-------
EPA has completed restoration and ecological revitalization projects as part of remedial actions
at other sites. These have included planting trees and shrubs. The Jackson Ceramix team would
rely on the expertise of the team's biologist and other members of the Region's Biological
Technical Assistance Group who will consult with other regional specialists with both state and
Federal agencies, as well as other local stakeholders as needed.

Comment #9:

A local citizen asked whether landowners have any input on what is being planted on their own
property.

Response to Comment #9:

EPA takes all input into consideration. Anyone is welcome to reach out to the Site Remedial
Project Manager and Community Involvement Coordinator. EPA's information has been made
available and is accessible on the Site profile page, which is included as a link on the Fact Sheet.
It should be noted that all of the restoration work anticipated on this Site is connected to the
restoration of the Site wetlands and adjacent natural areas. To this end, EPA will be targeting the
reestablishment of the same type of vegetation that is currently there to the extent that is
commercially available.

Comment #10:

A local citizen asked whether EPA would plant species that are going to survive in the water
given that there are not many species that survive in the water.

Response to Comment #10:

The EPA biologist will select and plant species that can live in the water and saturated soil
conditions were called for by the design that will be prepared for the Site. The design will target
recreating wetlands similar to what existed prior to the waste disposal and remedial activities to
the degree that Site conditions allow. See EPA response to Comment #8.

Comment #11:

A local citizen asked whether EPA is going to do anything with the Operable Unit 1 area.
Response to Comment #11:

Yes. EPA will be finalizing two Remedial Designs in the near future for Operable Unit 1 (OU1).
Once the Remedial Designs are complete, EPA can move forward with awarding Remedial
Action contracts to conduct the cleanup work. The first Remedial Action contract will be to
conduct in situ thermal remediation to address the VOC source area in proximity to the Former

-------
Manufacturing Area. The second Remedial Action contract will involve the excavation of lead
contaminated soils and sediments, dredging of sediments in waterways, in situ stabilization using
a carbon-based amendment that will reduce the toxicity of lead in the wetlands in OU1 and
promote vegetative regrowth, as well as repair of the existing soil cap. This work will start in
2023.

Comment #12:

A local citizen asked whether work planned at OUlwill be conducted where the culvert comes
over.

Response to Comment #12:

The Former Lagoon in OU1 is close to the culvert and this area is going to be excavated as it
contains high concentrations of lead in soils and sediments. In addition, the culvert is where OU1
connects to OU2. The OU1 Remedial Action contract for this work is expected to be awarded in
2023 and EPA is nearing the final completion of the Remedial Design to do this work.

Comment #13:

A local citizen asked whether the proposed Interim Action is final.

Response to Comment #13:

This Interim ROD focuses on the source material present in OU2 that is acting as a continuing
source of contamination. The Interim Remedy will be followed by a final remedy for OU2 that
will address all contaminated media within OU2, not just the source material.

Comment #14:

A local citizen asked whether the priority on this Site is high.

Response to Comment #14:

Yes. EPA presented the Preferred Alternative as set forth in the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit
2 (OU2) to remove high concentrations of lead from OU2 and to protect human health and the
environment. Once a ROD is issued, EPA will seek to implement the Interim Remedy. Cleanup
of the Site is not a small project, as the budget and timeline are significant, and this Site is a
priority. In addition to this cleanup in OU2, work is moving forward to cleanup OU1 and EPA
will evaluate appropriate response actions that may be required with regard to addressing
groundwater (OU3) following upcoming OU1 and OU2 work.

Comment #15:

-------
A local citizen asked whether there is any chance of further pollution occurring during the
excavation process and whether there is a threat that the surface water could carry lead further
off the Site.

Response to Comment #15:

EPA and its contractors take precautions when doing remedial action to prevent further
contamination from occurring. The work is being conducted in a big area. EPA would likely start
with the most contaminated areas and remove that material first, then work its way down to the
less contaminated areas. Measures would be taken to contain the contaminated material and
prevent any migration of this material from the areas where work is being conducted.

Comment #16:

A local citizen asked whether there are certain times of year when EPA will be working on the
Site and whether that is going to change the timeframe in which EPA is able to complete the
work.

Response to Comment #16:

There are certain times of year when it is better to conduct excavation and dredging activities in
wetlands. EPA site technical specialists consider a number of variables to make decisions as to
the timing of when response actions are performed. It is generally better to do this work when
conditions are relatively drier. Also, EPA considers what species may have habitat in this area,
when determining timing of response activities. For example, the Site contains habitat that would
support the endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat and Tri-Colored Bat proposed endangered in
September 2022. EPA consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure that any clearing of
vegetation is conducted during times when these bat species would not be using the site.

Comment #17:

A local citizen asked whether EPA would remove the water first during dredging and if so, will
EPA have to install a well and try to bring the water down.

Response to Comment #17:

Where dredging will be conducted, EPA will have to make that area dry first before excavating
the sediments. This will be done on a small scale and EPA will use what are referred to as
cofferdams. A cofferdam is a temporary damming structure that will be enclosed around the area,
where the water is subsequently pumped out so that dry excavation can occur. Wells will not be
used to draw down the water. There is a lot of surface water in this area so it would be too
difficult to try to draw down water levels with pumping.

-------
FIGURES

51

-------
\

Statewide Location

V



X





\

PENNSYLVANIA

Jackson Ceramix
Superfund Site

v.

w

' V A /- -

| ' i.67i

^~~Sl F

/-V .' ¦	*^W0y'

VJfSsS/ J \3wt5^^ \v-i ///K*3g3s^>V"^iSf J" *•

//ycvrfl 'ftt \Lv^\*r \ H&4 •! - /J l*ej&*+irzaZ. JJJrfillii
\ —^ ^ _	

' * 1

. f	• *«.« .

N

L/CK

1,000 2,000



II /s=J w. ¦V\\i;5-V ¦£'•.	/

x--	, /'•*••. .[	/ '

:-	\ "r	~ ib0

K. \ \	'si	! 1 .. _

2^-V B.H \Paiveo»st ., "na>

-Strip Mine

X"

L





e

I J



»

i

^ /)

1

j//

i

/(Iff

f

¥\

i

AV



il /A

l-'cirt

• ! /

1 Rv7\,^

St Mxhjds	- • • •

lA\>. / ).^7/jk actIKt/ ¦• JE;?-

./* % '-si /

S.	 :> .<,'-.¦	i I 's.		- , -		

EPA-QU-2 Interim ROD, Jackson Ceramix Superfund
^_^_SiteJjJe^rson^£jmt\^CIecir^eJd^Cmmt^i^A^_^_

Figure 1
Site Location

r-
¦

>_.

Legend
Site Boundary'

Notes:

B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
OU=Operable Unit

\ \Srv-gst- 01 \ hglgis\Jackson_C eramix \ _MSI W\0 U2_FFS\
(1 -01 )Site_Loc. mxd
3/4/2022 JM
Source: HGL, EPA

ArcGIS Online Imagery

y HGL

~ HydroGeoLogic, Inc

-------
' Beaver, Rondi

OU-2
Northeast
Drainage

48-inch Diameter
Culvert

[OU.-2, Central!
Drainage Area

OU-2 Western
Drainage'Channel

Culvert

OU-2 Main
Drainage Channel

OxDomllake,

; OU-2
Drainage
Outlet

EPA-OU-2 Interim ROD Jackson Ceramix Superfund
Site, Jeffei-soti Cmmty/Clearfield County, PA

Figure 2
Approximate Area of Interim
Remedial Action

Legend
W Historical Soil Samples
A Historic Sediment Samples
Lead Concentration in Soil
(dashed where inferred, mg/kg):

1,000

		 2,000

5,000

10,000

			 20,000

	 30,000

—*—«- Railroad

--t—t—• Abandoned Railroad

	 Culvert (dashed where inferred)

Surface Water Drainage
(dashed where inferred)

Intermittent Surface Water Drainage

Ceramix Waste Sludge



(dashed where inferred)

Cattail Area (inferred)

Emergent Wetland
Scrub-Shrub
Vernal Pool

Wetlands Coverage (AMEC, 2002)
Surface Water Pond
OU-l (West Side of Railroad Tracks)
OU-2 (Sandy Lick Floodplain)

Notes:

Lead concentrations are in units of mg/kg.

Historical lead data collected during various field events between
August 2001 and December 2020.

B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
OU=operable unit

\ \Srv-gst- 01 \ hglgis\Jackson_C eramix \ JvtSI W\0 U2_FFS\
(I-14)Historical_Lead_Concentrations. mxd
9/20/2022 JM

Source: HGL, EPA, TetraTech
ArcGIS Online Imagery



~ HGL

~ HydroGeoLogic, Inc

-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

52

-------
APPENDIX A

PADEP CONCURRENCE LETTER

53

-------
l »Pennsylvania

CRIMEN! OF ENVIRONMENTAL
rMZS ' OTECTION

March 23, 2023

CERTIFIED MAIL NC3. 7(120 1810 0001 1895 4638
Paul I eonard, Director

Super fund and I meir.eucy Management Division

rs i.v\ Rck-uus m*

1 otii Pan? C entci
Philadelphia, PA I1) 103-2029

Re: Record of Decision (ROD)

Jackson Ceraniix - OU2

Falls Creek Borough, Clearfield and Jefferson Counties
Dear Mr. Leonard:

Hie Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has received and reviewed the Record of
Decision (ROI» for the Jackson Ceramix site in Falls Creek Borough, Clearfield and Jeffer.son
Counties. 1 his R( )I) presents the selected remedial action for Operable Unit 2 (Ot 2 j. w hicb
addresses the following area of contamination:

•	OU2 encompasses approximate!} I4)? acres of the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain
(Floodplaint that lies immediate!) downstream of OU1. OTT2 is bounded by wooded land
to the north. Wolf Run to the northeast. Sand) 1 ick ('seek to the easi and south, and the
B&P rail line propert> to the west. Ol "2 is primaril) located in ( learlleld t onnty. with a.

small portion located in Jefferson Count).

•	The historical source of Site contamination was process wastewater and production
sludge discharged to a settling lagoon and ultimatel} the floodplain and wetlands. The
wastewater and production sludge contained oxides of \arious metals icsuhing from
ceramics production.

•	Ceramic waste within OU2 covers approximately 6.4 acres of wetlands due to deposition
of source material and contaminated sediment over time. Lead concentrations in
sediment throughout < H *2 range from 342' nig'kg to "?(¦»,, 800 ing kg. A teas containing
lead concentrations abo\e 1,0(H) nig'kg are defined in the Interim k< U) as "source

material" or '"principal threat waste" and are she focus ol the Interim ROD.

•	I cad. the constituent of concern dri\ ing the remedy, is present at lex els I P \ has
deteimined to pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the em ironment.

I heiefore. 1 I' \ has determined that the Selected Rented) identified in this Interim OU2
R< )l) is neeessaiy to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

Environment,! t, I > in..}' iind Brovwrvld- f -ograrn
Northcentral Regional Office | 208 ' Pi street I HiV t a • I VVilliamsport, PA 17701-6448

570,32.7 !(. V | I d> 570. !? J KM I www.dep.pa.gov

-------
The Selected Remedy for OU2 includes the following major components:

• (dear \ citation in cnvi cent and scrub-shrub wetlands and remove trees in forested
wetland areas impacted in source material.

• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater the flooded areas as much as possible,
Iikch performing the excavation activities in phases.

• f\ea\ate source inaterial lead-contaminated soil t onsidercd to be hazardous1 (from 0 to
^ It below p round surface (bps)) and dircetl) load in dump trucks dust are licensed to

transport hazardous waste (estimate of 58,000 tons). Waste would be transported to a
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal
laeilit). Alter the sou tee matei ial (lead exceeding 1.000 mp kg) is remoud. c\ca\ ation
will continue in these areas until lead in ->od is no m eater than (W 4 me ka (the R( i, or
Remediation iioah in continuation samples submitted to an accredited anal) tical lab. It
is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials located approximately ' to d ft bps
as ill not be hazard oils, flic matei i; 11 at these depths and other nonhazardous material
will be directly loaded in lined eo\cred dump trucks and transported to a RCR \ Subtitle
D solid waste disposal facilit) testimate of 3_.HOu tons).

• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediment and place in a constructed dewatering
containment area.

• 1 real dewatered fluid throuph skid-mounted treatment s\ stem. Treated water could be
either dischaiged to surlaee water or to a sanitarx sewei in accordance with National
Pollutant Disehaipe f Jiminaiion System t NPDl St.

• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a
frequenc} to be detei mined during remedial design.

• Excavate from the dewatering containment area and load into dump trucks. Dispose of
dewatered sediment in the same manner as the excavated soil based on the results of the
waste characterization analysis.

• Collect continuation sainpk s from the sidewalls and subtloor ok the cxca\ ation areas at
a frequenc) to be determined durinu remedial design to confirm that contaminated

soils sediments with concentrations above 1,000 rng/kg laterally and the R(is vertically
loi soils and >edimcnts are removed. If confirmation samples show that the remaining
soil sediment exceed 1,000 nip kp lateral!) or CW, 1 nprkp at depth, additional
soil sediment would be remo\ed and disposed until concentrations arc met.

• Rcstoic e\ca\ated areas and sumntndinp areas with soil, nali\e wetlands seed tnix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands
habitat.

' Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 nig/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using the TCLP.

-------
DEP hereby concurs with EPA's proposed remedy with the following conditions:

•	DEP will be given the t»ppotlunii\ to review and comment on documents and provide
meaningful input tetuirding decisions, i elated to the design and implementation of the

remedial aetion. to assure compliance with Pennss Kania's applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement*- i ARARs) and to be considered (TBC) requirements,

•	DEP will have the opportunity to review and comment before any modification to the
ROD in the form of an Amendment or an Explanation of Significant Differences
USD),

•	I PA will assure that l)I P is provided an opportunity to fully participate in any
negotiation-. vsith responsible parties,

•	DEP reserves the right and responsibility to take independent enforcement actions
pursuant to state law.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and concur on this EPA Record of Decision. If you
have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jared Dressier
Director

Nurt (ventral Regional Office

ec: Michael DcRonis. 1 P \ Region III
( beryl Sinclair. 1\\ DPP
And} I honiton. PA DEP
"Noreeti Waenci. PA DPP

File

Sincerely,

-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

54

-------
APPENDIX B

RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES AND RATIONALE

55

-------
TABLE 3.8

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Surface Soil

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain





















BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE

MG/KG

6.9E-02

8.4E-02 (NP)

3.2E-01 J

8.4E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL

1



BENZO[A]PYRENE

MG/KG

7.7E-02

9.3E-02 (NP)

2.9E-01 J

9.3E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE

MG/KG

1.2E-01

1.4E-01 (NP)

5.4E-01

1.4E-01

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE

MG/KG

5.2E-02

8.4E-02 (NP)

7.8E-02 J

7.8E-02

MG/KG

Maximum

1,2, 5



INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE

MG/KG

7.0E-02

8.5E-02 (NP)

2.3E-01 J

8.5E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



AROCLOR-1254

MG/KG

6.8E-02

4.1E-02 (G)

2.0E-01

4.1E-02

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL

1,3



ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)

MG/KG

1.1E+04

1.2E+04 (N)

2.3E+04 J

1.2E+04

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

2, 3



ANTIMONY

MG/KG

2.0E+00

2.5E+00 (NP)

1.5E+01

2.5E+00

MG/KG

95% KM (BCA) UCL

4



ARSENIC

MG/KG

1.1E+01

1.2E+01 (G)

5.7E+01

1.2E+01

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

1,3



CHROMIUM

MG/KG

1.5E+01

1.6E+01 (N)

3.2E+01

1.6E+01

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

2



COBALT

MG/KG

1.6E+01

2.1E+01 (NP)

2.0E+02

2.1E+01

MG/KG

95% KM (BCA) UCL

1



CYANIDE

MG/KG

3.8E-01

4.6E-01 (NP)

2.2E+00 J

4.6E-01

MG/KG

95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL

1



IRON

MG/KG

3.0E+04

3.4E+04 (G)

1.3E+05

3.4E+04

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

3



LEAD

MG/KG

1.9E+03

3.5E+03 (NP)

4.6E+04

1.9E+03

MG/KG

Mean

4, 6



MANGANESE

MG/KG

7.8E+02

1.5E+03 (NP)

1.3E+04

1.5E+03

MG/KG

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL

1



VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)

MG/KG

2.1E+01

2.3E+01 (G)

6.0E+01

2.3E+01

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

3

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	ProUCL recommended 95% UCL greater than maximum detected concentration.

(6)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal

J = Estimated Value

MG/KG = milligram per kilogram

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.8A

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Surface Soil)

Exposure Point

Chemical

Units

Arithmetic

95% UCL

Maximum





Exposure Point Concentration





of



Mean

(Distribution)

Concentration











Potential







(Qualifier)











Concern









Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain



















(Receptors other than

BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE

ug/m3

5.5E-08

6.6E-08 (NP)

2.5E-07 J

6.6E-08

ug/m3

95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL

1

Construction Worker)

BENZO[A]PYRENE

ug/m3

6.1E-08

7.4E-08 (NP)

2.3E-07 J

7.4E-08

ug/m3

95% KM (t) UCL

1, 3



BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE

ug/m3

9.4E-08

1.1E-07 (NP)

4.3E-07

1.1E-07

ug/m3

95% KM (t) UCL

1, 3



DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE

ug/m3

4.1E-08

6.7E-08 (NP)

6.2E-08 J

6.2E-08

ug/m3

Maximum

1,2,5



INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE

ug/m3

5.6E-08

6.8E-08 (NP)

1.8E-07 J

6.8E-08

ug/m3

95% KM (t) UCL

1, 3



AROCLOR-1254

ug/m3

5.4E-08

3.2E-08 (G)

1.6E-07

3.2E-08

ug/m3

95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL

1, 3



ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)

ug/m3

8.6E-03

9.2E-03 (N)

1.8E-02 J

9.2E-03

ug/m3

95% Student's-t UCL

2, 3



ANTIMONY

ug/m3

1.5E-06

2.0E-06 (NP)

1.2E-05

2.0E-06

ug/m3

95% KM (BCA) UCL

4



ARSENIC

ug/m3

8.5E-06

9.5E-06 (G)

4.5E-05

9.5E-06

ug/m3

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

1, 3



CHROMIUM

ug/m3

1.2E-05

1.3E-05 (N)

2.5E-05

1.3E-05

ug/m3

95% Student's-t UCL

2



COBALT

ug/m3

1.3E-05

1.6E-05 (NP)

1.6E-04

1.6E-05

ug/m3

95% KM (BCA) UCL

1



CYANIDE

ug/m3

3.0E-07

3.6E-07 (NP)

1.7E-06 J

3.6E-07

ug/m3

95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL

1



IRON

ug/m3

2.4E-02

2.7E-02 (G)

1.0E-01

2.7E-02

ug/m3

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

3



LEAD

ug/m3

1.5E-03

2.8E-03 (NP)

3.6E-02

1.5E-03

ug/m3

Mean

4, 6



MANGANESE

ug/m3

6.2E-04

1.2E-03 (NP)

1.1E-02

1.2E-03

ug/m3

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL

1



VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)

ug/m3

1.7E-05

1.8E-05 (G)

4.7E-05

1.8E-05

ug/m3

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

3

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain



















(Construction Worker)

ARSENIC

ug/m3

9.5E-04

1.1E-03 (G)

5.1E-03

1.1E-03

ug/m3

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

1, 3



CHROMIUM

ug/m3

1.4E-03

1.4E-03 (N)

2.8E-03

1.4E-03

ug/m3

95% Student's-t UCL

2



COBALT

ug/m3

1.4E-03

1.8E-03 (NP)

1.8E-02

1.8E-03

ug/m3

95% KM (BCA) UCL

1



MANGANESE

ug/m3

6.9E-02

1.3E-01 (NP)

1.2E+00

1.3E-01

ug/m3

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL

1

Air Concentration = CS*1000 ug/mg "(1/PEF + 1/VF)

CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.8

VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)

PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	ProUCL recommended 95% UCL greater than maximum detected concentration.

(6)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal

J = Estimated Value

ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.8B

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (for Venison concentration estimation)

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain





















BENZO[A]PYRENE

MG/KG

7.7E-02

9.3E-02 (NP)

2.9E-01 J

9.3E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE

MG/KG

1.2E-01

1.4E-01 (NP)

5.4E-01

1.4E-01

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

MG/KG

1.7E-01

2.4E-01 (NP)

2.6E+00 J

2.4E-01

MG/KG

95% KM (BCA) UCL

1



DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE

MG/KG

5.2E-02

8.4E-02 (NP)

7.8E-02 J

7.8E-02

MG/KG

Maximum

1, 2, 5



INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE

MG/KG

7.0E-02

8.5E-02 (NP)

2.3E-01 J

8.5E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



AROCLOR-1248

MG/KG

3.0E-02

3.6E-02 (NP)

8.3E-02

3.6E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL

1, 2, 3



AROCLOR-1254

MG/KG

6.8E-02

4.1E-02 (G)

2.0E-01

4.1E-02

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL

1,3



AROCLOR-1260

MG/KG

1.5E-02

1.9E-02 (NP)

1.1E-01 J

1.9E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,3



ARSENIC

MG/KG

1.1E+01

1.2E+01 (G)

5.7E+01

1.2E+01

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

1,3



CHROMIUM

MG/KG

1.5E+01

1.6E+01 (N)

3.2E+01

1.6E+01

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

2



COBALT

MG/KG

1.6E+01

2.1E+01 (NP)

2.0E+02

2.1E+01

MG/KG

95% KM (BCA) UCL

1



COPPER

MG/KG

2.2E+01

2.4E+01 (LN)

1.6E+02

2.4E+01

MG/KG

95% H-UCL

1



IRON

MG/KG

3.0E+04

3.4E+04 (G)

1.3E+05

3.4E+04

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

3



LEAD

MG/KG

1.9E+03

3.5E+03 (NP)

4.6E+04

1.9E+03

MG/KG

Mean

4, 6



MERCURY

MG/KG

7.8E-02

1.1E-01 (NP)

6.0E-01

1.1E-01

MG/KG

95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL

4



ZINC

MG/KG

9.4E+01

1.0E+02 (G)

2.9E+02

1.0E+02

MG/KG

95% Approximate Gamma UCL

1,3

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	ProUCL recommended 95% UCL greater than maximum detected concentration.

(6)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal

J = Estimated Value

MG/KG = milligram per kilogram

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.9

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain





















BENZO[A]PYRENE

MG/KG

4.6E-02

2.8E-01 (NP)

8.3E-02 J

8.3E-02

MG/KG

Maximum, all SLC

6



DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE

MG/KG

N/A

N/A

1.6E-02 J

1.6E-02

MG/KG

Maximum, all SLC

5



ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)

MG/KG

1.1E+04

1.2E+04 (G)

2.0E+04 J

1.2E+04

MG/KG

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1,3



ARSENIC

MG/KG

1.2E+01

1.5E+01 (G)

3.4E+01

1.5E+01

MG/KG

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1,3



CHROMIUM

MG/KG

2.0E+01

2.1E+01 (G)

4.2E+01

2.1E+01

MG/KG

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1,3



COBALT (a)

MG/KG

1.3E+01

2.3E+01 (NP)

8.0E+01

2.3E+01

MG/KG

95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding WLSS-89-0304

4, excluding hot spot



CYANIDE

MG/KG

N/A

N/A

7.3E-01 J-

7.3E-01

MG/KG

Maximum, all SLC

5



IRON

MG/KG

5.1E+04

6.2E+04 (G)

1.5E+05 D

6.2E+04

MG/KG

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1,3



LEAD

MG/KG

9.3E+01

1.9E+02 (NP)

1.3E+03

9.3E+01

MG/KG

Mean, all SLC

4, 7



MANGANESE (a, b)

MG/KG

7.9E+02

1.6E+03 (NP)

4.9E+03 D

1.6E+03

MG/KG

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, excluding WLSS-85-0203 and WLSS-89-0304

1, excluding hot spots



VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)

MG/KG

2.3E+01

2.6E+01 (N)

5.5E+01

2.6E+01

MG/KG

95% Modified-t UCL, all SLC

1

Notes:

a.	Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-89-0304, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-89-0304, Cobalt = 318 MG/KG, Manganese = 24,400 MG/KG.

b.	Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-85-0203, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-85-0203 Manganese = 10,000 MG/KG.

ProllCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.

(6)	ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests, and ProUCL recommended 95% UCL is greater than maximum detected concentration.

(7)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value

J- = Estimated Value, result may be biased low

D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis

MG/KG = milligram per kilogram

N/A = not available

SLC = Sandy Lick Creek

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.9A

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Subsurface Soil)

Exposure Point

Chemical

Units

Arithmetic

95% UCL

Maximum





Exposure Point Concentration





of



Mean

(Distribution)

Concentration











Potential







(Qualifier)











Concern









Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain



















(Receptors other than

BENZO[A]PYRENE

ug/m3

3.7E-08

2.2E-07 (NP)

6.6E-08 J

6.6E-08

ug/m3

Maximum, all SLC

6

Construction Worker)

DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE

ug/m3

N/A

N/A

1.3E-08 J

1.3E-08

ug/m3

Maximum, all SLC

5



ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)

ug/m3

8.9E-03

9.6E-03 (G)

1.6E-02 J

9.6E-03

ug/m3

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1, 3



ARSENIC

ug/m3

9.6E-06

1.2E-05 (G)

2.7E-05

1.2E-05

ug/m3

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1, 3



CHROMIUM

ug/m3

1.5E-05

1.7E-05 (G)

3.3E-05

1.7E-05

ug/m3

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1, 3



COBALT (a)

ug/m3

1.0E-05

1.8E-05 (NP)

6.3E-05

1.8E-05

ug/m3

95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding WLSS-89-0304

4, excluding hot spot



CYANIDE

ug/m3

N/A

N/A

5.8E-07 J-

5.8E-07

ug/m3

Maximum, all SLC

5



IRON

ug/m3

4.0E-02

4.9E-02 (G)

1.2E-01 D

4.9E-02

ug/m3

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1, 3



LEAD

ug/m3

7.4E-05

1.5E-04 (NP)

1.0E-03

7.4E-05

ug/m3

Mean, all SLC

4, 7



MANGANESE (a, b)

ug/m3

6.2E-04

1.3E-03 (NP)

3.9E-03 D

1.3E-03

ug/m3

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, excluding WLSS-85-0203 and WLSS-89-0304

1, excluding hot spots



VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)

ug/m3

1.8E-05

2.0E-05 (N)

4.3E-05

2.0E-05

ug/m3

95% Modified-t UCL, all SLC

1

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain



















(Construction Worker)

ARSENIC

ug/m3

1.1E-03

1.3E-03 (G)

3.0E-03

1.3E-03

ug/m3

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1, 3



CHROMIUM

ug/m3

1.7E-03

1.9E-03 (G)

3.7E-03

1.9E-03

ug/m3

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

1, 3



COBALT (a)

ug/m3

1.2E-03

2.0E-03 (NP)

7.1E-03

2.0E-03

ug/m3

95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding WLSS-89-0304

4, excluding hot spot



MANGANESE

ug/m3

7.0E-02

1.4E-01 (NP)

4.3E-01

1.4E-01

ug/m3

95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, excluding WLSS-85-0203 and WLSS-89-0304

1, excluding hot spots

Notes:

a.	Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-89-0304, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-89-0304, Cobalt = 318 MG/KG, Manganese = 24,400 MG/KG.

b.	Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-85-0203, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-85-0203 Manganese = 10,000 MG/KG.

Air Concentration = CS*1000 ug/mg *(1/PEF + 1/VF)

CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.8

VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)

PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.

(6)	ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.

(7)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal	ug/m" = micrograms per cubic meters

J = Estimated Value	N/A = not available

J- = Estimated Value, result may be biased low
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.10

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: Sediment

Exposure Medium: Sediment	

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek



















Floodplain





















BENZO[A]PYRENE

MG/KG

2.6E-02

4.5E-02 (NP)

5.2E-02 J

4.5E-02

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,2, 3



ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)

MG/KG

7.0E+03

1.1E+04 (N)

1.6E+04

1.1E+04

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

1,2, 3



ARSENIC

MG/KG

4.4E+00

8.3E+00 (N)

1.4E+01

8.3E+00

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

1,2, 3



CHROMIUM

MG/KG

7.7E+00

4.8E+01 (LN)

2.0E+01

2.0E+01

MG/KG

Maximum

1,5



COBALT

MG/KG

7.1E+00

2.0E+01 (NP)

1.8E+01

1.8E+01

MG/KG

Maximum

1,5



CYANIDE

MG/KG

7.3E-01

1.5E+00 (NP)

2.2E+00 J

1.5E+00

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,2, 3



IRON

MG/KG

3.8E+04

4.7E+04 (N)

5.4E+04

4.7E+04

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

1,2, 3



MANGANESE

MG/KG

3.0E+02

5.8E+02 (N)

9.5E+02

5.8E+02

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

1,2, 3

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	Recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.

LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal

J = Estimated Value

MG/KG = milligram per kilogram

N/A = not available

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.1 OA

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment

Exposure Medium: Sediment (for fish concentration estimation)

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek



















Floodplain





















BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

MG/KG

7.3E-02

9.8E-02 (N)

1.2E-01 J

9.8E-02

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

1, 2, 3



CHLORDANE

MG/KG

1.0E-03

2.7E-03 (G)

2.5E-03 J

2.7E-03

MG/KG

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL

1,3



DIELDRIN

MG/KG

N/A

N/A

3.0E-04 J

3.0E-04

MG/KG

Maximum

6



HEPTACHLOR

MG/KG

N/A

N/A

3.3E-04 J

3.3E-04

MG/KG

Maximum

6



HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE

MG/KG

N/A

N/A

7.8E-05 J

7.8E-05

MG/KG

Maximum

6



AROCLOR-1260

MG/KG

N/A

N/A

3.8E-03 J

3.8E-03

MG/KG

Maximum

6



ARSENIC

MG/KG

4.4E+00

8.3E+00 (N)

1.4E+01

8.3E+00

MG/KG

95% Student's-t UCL

1, 2, 3



CHROMIUM

MG/KG

7.7E+00

4.8E+01 (LN)

2.0E+01

2.0E+01

MG/KG

Maximum

1,5



LEAD

MG/KG

3.8E+01

6.2E+01 (N)

1.2E+02

3.8E+01

MG/KG

Mean

1, 2, 3, 7



MERCURY

MG/KG

8.4E-02

1.1E-01 (NP)

1.1E-01 J

1.1E-01

MG/KG

95% KM (t) UCL

1,2

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.

(6)	ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.

(7)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

(8)	Recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.

G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal

J = Estimated Value

MG/KG = milligram per kilogram

N/A = not available

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.1 OB

FISH CONCENTRATION CALCULATION - SANDY LICK CREEK FLOODPLAIN

CAS Number

Chemical of Potential Concern

Sediment Concentration (1)
(mg/kg-sediment)

BSAF Value (2)

Organism Used for Deriving BSAF

Tissue Used for Deriving BSAF

BSAF Reference

Fish

Concentration (3)
(mg/kg-fish)

117-81-7

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

9.8E-02

2.6E+02

Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)

Fillet

EPA, 2008

2.3E+01

57-74-9

CHLORDANE

2.7E-03

1.0E+01

Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)

Fillet

EPA, 2008

2.4E-02

60-57-1

DIELDRIN

3.0E-04

1.1E+02

Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)

Fillet

EPA, 2008

2.9E-02

76-44-8

HEPTACHLOR

3.3E-04

7.6E+00

Freshwater Fish (Brown bullhead)

Fillet

EPA, 2008

2.2E-03

1024-57-3

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE

7.8E-05

8.8E+00

Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)

Fillet

EPA, 2008

6.1E-04

11096-82-5

AROCLOR-1260

3.8E-03

1.9E+00

N/A

N/A

EPA, 1997

6.3E-03

7440-38-2

ARSENIC

8.3E+00

1.2E-01

Fish (Yellow perch)

Whole body

WDE, 1995

2.5E-01

7440-47-3

CHROMIUM

2.0E+01

4.3E-02

Fish (Yellow perch)

Whole body

WDE, 1995

2.2E-01

7439-92-1

LEAD

3.8E+01

1.6E-01

Carnivorous, Omnivorous, and Herbivorous Fish

Whole body

WDE, 1995

1.5E+00

7439-97-6

MERCURY

1.1E-01

3.5E-01

Fish (Available fish species)

Whole body and muscle

WDE, 1995

9.5E-03

Notes:

(1)	Sediment Concentrations are presented in Table 3.10a.

(2)	BSAFs for metals are presented in kg-sed[dw]/kg-fish [dw]; BSAFs for organics are presented in kg-OC[dw]/kg-lipid[dw],

(3)	Fish EPCs were calculated using the following equations:

Inorganics: Fish EPC (mg/kg-fish [ww]) = Sed EPC (mg/kg-sed [dw]) x BSAF (kg-sed [dw]/kg-fish [dw]) x 0.25 (kg-biota [dw]/kg-fish [ww]).

Organics: Fish EPC (mg/kg-fish [ww]) = Sed EPC (mg/kg-sed [dw]) x lipid normalized BSAF (kg-OC [dw]/kg-lipid [dw]) x (%lipid / %OC) x 0.25 (kg-biota [dw]/kg-fish [ww]).
Fish EPCs were calculated assuming 1.4% organic carbon (site-specific) in sediment, 5% lipid for fish (EPA, 2000), and 75% moisture in fish (EPA, 1993).

mg/kg-fish - milligram per kilogram offish
mg/kg-sediment - milligram per kilogram of sediment
dw - dry weight basis
ww -wet weight basis

Sources:

EPA, 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of II. USEPA/600/R-93/187a

EPC - exposure point concentration
BSAF - biota-sediment accumulation factor
OC - organic carbon

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
WDE - Washington Department of Ecology

EPA, 2008. Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor Data Set, Version 1.0. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED),
Duluth, Minnesota. Prepared Computer Sciences Corporation Duluth, Minnesota Contract 68 W-02 032, Task 5003 and 5004. January 2008. http://www.epa.gov/med/Prods_Pubs/bsaf.htm
Washington Department of Ecology (WDE), 1995. Bioaccumulation Factor Approach Analysis for Metals and Polar Organic Compounds.

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.11

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek



















Floodplain





















CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (a)

UG/L

1.8E+00

4.8E+00 (NP)

1.8E+01

4.8E+00

UG/L

95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, excluding WL-SW-19_7212

1,2,3, excluding hot spot



VINYL CHLORIDE (a)

UG/L

8.5E-01

1.3E+00 (NP)

1.4E+00

1.3E+00

UG/L

95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-SW-19_7212

6, excluding hot spot



ARSENIC

UG/L

1.3E+00

2.1E+00 (NP)

1.1E+01 L

2.1E+00

UG/L

95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all SLC

1, 2, 3



CADMIUM (b)

UG/L

7.8E-01

1.1E+00 (NP)

2.6E+00

1.1E+00

UG/L

95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-VP-02

1,2,3, excluding hot spot



CHROMIUM

UG/L

2.1E+00

3.2E+00 (NP)

1.2E+01

3.2E+00

UG/L

95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all SLC

4



COBALT (b)

UG/L

5.9E+00

5.4E+00 (G)

1.5E+01

5.4E+00

UG/L

95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL, excluding WL-VP-02

1,3, excluding hot spot



CYANIDE (e)

UG/L

N/A

N/A

4.6E+01

4.6E+01

UG/L

Maximum, all SLC

5



IRON

UG/L

4.2E+03

1.1E+04 (LN)

2.7E+04 J

1.1E+04

UG/L

95% H-UCL, all SLC

1



LEAD (b, c, d)

UG/L

3.5E+00

4.6E+00 (NP)

1.4E+01

3.5E+00

UG/L

Mean, excluding WL-VP-01, WL-VP-02, WL-SW-06

1,2,3, 7, excluding hot spots



MANGANESE

UG/L

1.5E+03

2.3E+03 (G)

8.6E+03

2.3E+03

UG/L

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

3

Notes:

a.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-19_7212, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-19_7212, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 1,200 UG/L, Vinyl chloride = 92 UG/L.

b.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-02, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-02, Cadmium = 36.8 UG/L, Cobalt = 134 UG/L, Lead = 3,170 UG/L.

c.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-01, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-01, Lead = 1,140 UG/L.

d.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-06, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-06, Lead = 188 UG/L.

e.	Cyanide also evaluated separately as a hot spot at WL-VP-01, the location of the sole detection.

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.

(6)	ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests.

(7)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric	SLC = Sandy Lick Creek

J = Estimated Value

D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
L = Estimated value, result may be biased low
UG/L = micrograms per liter
N/A = not available

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.11 A

MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water

Exposure Medium: Surface Water (for fish concentration estimation)

Exposure Point

Chemical
of

Potential
Concern

Units

Arithmetic
Mean

95% UCL
(Distribution)

Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)

Exposure Point Concentration

Value

Units

Statistic

Rationale

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain





















VINYL CHLORIDE (a)

UG/L

8.5E-01

1.3E+00 (NP)

1.4E+00

1.3E+00

UG/L

95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-SW-19_7212

6, excluding hot spot



BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

UG/L

1.0E+00

2.0E+00 (NP)

4.2E+00 J

2.0E+00

UG/L

95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all SLC

4



ALPHA-BHC

UG/L

N/A

N/A

6.1E-03 J

6.1E-03

UG/L

Maximum, all SLC

9



ALPHA-CHLORDANE

UG/L

N/A

N/A

4.5E-03 J

4.5E-03

UG/L

Maximum, all SLC

5



GAMMA-CHLORDANE

UG/L

8.3E-03

1.0E-02 (NP)

9.4E-03 J

9.4E-03

UG/L

Maximum, all SLC

6, 8



ARSENIC

UG/L

1.3E+00

2.1E+00 (NP)

1.1E+01 L

2.1E+00

UG/L

95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all SLC

1, 2, 3



CADMIUM (b)

UG/L

7.8E-01

1.1E+00 (NP)

2.6E+00

1.1E+00

UG/L

95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-VP-02

1,2,3, excluding hot spot



LEAD (b, c, d)

UG/L

3.5E+00

4.6E+00 (NP)

1.4E+01

3.5E+00

UG/L

Mean, excluding WL-VP-01, WL-VP-02, WL-SW-06

1,2,3, 7, excluding hot spots



MANGANESE

UG/L

1.5E+03

2.3E+03 (G)

8.6E+03

2.3E+03

UG/L

95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC

3



MERCURY

UG/L

1.8E-01

2.0E-01 (NP)

3.7E-01

2.0E-01

UG/L

95% KM (t) UCL, all SLC

1,2



NICKEL

UG/L

1.5E+01

3.1E+01 NP

9.9E+01

3.1E+01

UG/L

95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL

1

Notes:

a.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-19_7212, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-19_7212, Vinyl chloride = 92 UG/L.

b.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-02, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-02, Cadmium = 36.8 UG/L, Lead = 3,170 UG/L.

c.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-01, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-01, Lead = 1,140 UG/L.

d.	Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-06, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-06, Lead = 188 UG/L.

ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).

UCL Rationale:

(1)	ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.

(2)	ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.

(3)	ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.

(4)	Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).

(5)	Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.

(6)	ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests. ProUCL recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.

(7)	Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.

(8)	ProUCL recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.

(9)	Detected in insufficient samples (less than 6) to enable calculation of 95% UCL. Maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration

G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric
J = Estimated Value

L = Estimated value, result may be biased low
UG/L = micrograms per liter
N/A = not available

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 3.11B

FISH CONCENTRATION CALCULATION - SANDY LICK CREEK FLOODPLAIN

CAS
Number

Chemical of Potential Concern

BCF Value
(L-sw/kg-fish)

BCF Source

Surface Water
Concentration
(mg/L-sw) (1)

Fish Concentration
(mg/kg-fish) (2)

75-01-4

VINYL CHLORIDE, excluding WL-SW-19_7212

5.47E+00

ORNL,

2015

1.3E-03

7.1E-03

75-01-4

VINYL CHLORIDE, hot spot WL-SW-19_7212

5.47E+00

ORNL,

2015

9.2E-02

5.0E-01

117-81-7

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

5.9E+02

ORNL,

2015

2.0E-03

1.2E+00

319-84-6

ALPHA-BHC

3.72E+02

ORNL,

2015

6.1E-06

2.3E-03

5103-71-9

ALPHA-CHLORDANE

2.68E+04

ORNL,

2015

4.5E-06

1.2E-01

5103-74-2

GAMMA-CHLORDANE

2.68E+04

ORNL,

2015

9.4E-06

2.5E-01

7440-38-2

ARSENIC

3.00E+02

ORNL,

2015

2.1E-03

6.3E-01

7440-43-9

CADMIUM, exluding WL-VP-02

2.00E+02

ORNL,

2015

1.1E-03

2.2E-01

7440-43-9

CADMIUM, hot spot WL-VP-02

2.00E+02

ORNL,

2015

3.7E-02

7.4E+00

7439-92-1

LEAD, excluding WL-VP-01, WL-VP-02, WL-SW-06

3.0E+02

ORNL,

2015

3.5E-03

1.1E+00

7439-92-1

LEAD, hot spot WL-VP-01

3.0E+02

ORNL,

2015

1.1E+00

3.4E+02

7439-92-1

LEAD, hot spot WL-VP-02

3.0E+02

ORNL,

2015

3.2E+00

9.5E+02

7439-92-1

LEAD, hot spot WL-SW-06

3.0E+02

ORNL,

2015

1.9E-01

5.6E+01

7439-96-5

MANGANESE

4.00E+02

ORNL,

2015

2.3E+00

9.0E+02

7439-97-6

MERCURY

1.00E+03

ORNL,

2015

2.0E-04

2.0E-01

7439-97-6

MERCURY, hot spot WL-VP-01

1.00E+03

ORNL,

2015

3.7E-04

3.7E-01

7440-02-0

NICKEL

1.00E+02

ORNL,

2013

3.1E-02

3.1E+00

Notes:

(1)	Surface water concentration from Table 3.11a

(2)	Fish concentration calculated using the following equation:

Fish Concentration (mg/kg-fish) = BCF (L-sw/kg-fish) x Surface Water Concentration (mg/L-sw)

BCF - bioconcentration factor
COPC - chemical of potential concern
EC - Environment Canada

L-sw/kg-fish - Liter of surface water per kilogram offish
mg/kg-fish - milligram per kilogram offish
mg/L-sw - milligram per liter of surface water
ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Source:

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 2015. Risk Assessment Information System. URL: http://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.2a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 8E-01

N/A

8E-01

2E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 8E-01

N/A

8E-01

2E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



2E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.4a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 3E+00

1E+01

2E+00

2E+01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 3E+00

1E+01

2E+00

2E+01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E+01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



2E+01

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 1E+00

4E+00

9E-01

6E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 1E+00

4E+00

9E-01

6E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



6E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



6E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203 Total

N/A



6E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+6T

HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 6E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.8.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Surface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 8E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 8E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



1E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



1E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil Total

N/A



1E+00

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 9E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 9E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



1E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



1E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total

N/A



1E+00

Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water

N/A

Receptor HI Total

1E+00

Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water

N/A

Receptor HI Total

1E+00

Notes:	Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water	Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00 | Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.8a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

COBALT
MANGANESE









Thyroid I 1E+01
Central Nervous System 1E+01

N/A
N/A

3E-01
8E+00

1E+01
2E+01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



3E+01

N/A

8E+00

3E+01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+01

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



4E-01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



4E-01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



3E+01

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 5E+00

N/A

3E+00

8E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



5E+00

N/A

3E+00

8E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



8E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



8E+00

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System

N/A

2E-01

N/A

2E-01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

2E-01

N/A

2E-01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E-01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E-01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035 Total

N/A



9E+00

Notes:

N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 9E+00

HOT Spot - VVLSS-»y-U3U4
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =

Total Thyroid HI Across All Media =

2E+01

1E+01

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.12a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 1E+00

N/A

1 E+00

3E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 1E+00

N/A

1 E+00

3E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+00

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



4E-01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



4E-01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



3E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.17.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM

2E-05
7E-05

N/A
N/A

3E-06
7E-05

2E-05
1E-04









Chemical Total

9E-05

N/A

8E-05

2E-04

| N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Exposure Point Total



2E-04



N/A

Exposure Medium Total



2E-04



N/A

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total

2E-04



N/A

|Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil

2E-04 | Receptor HI Total

N/A |

Notes:

N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.20a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreational User
Receptor Age: Adolescent	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 5E-01

N/A

2E+00

3E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 5E-01

N/A

2E+00

3E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



3E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.21.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure

Exposure

Chemical



Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient







Medium

Point

of Potential

























Concern

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary
Target Organ(s)

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total





Sandy Lick Creek





















Soil

Venison

Floodplain

COBALT

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Thyroid

2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00







Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00





Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+00



Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E+00

Venison Total

N/A



2E+00

Water /

Fish

Floodplain

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

2E-05

N/A

N/A

2E-05

Liver

1E+00

N/A

N/A

1E+00







DIELDRIN

3E-05

N/A

N/A

3E-05

Liver

5E-01

N/A

N/A

5E-01







ARSENIC

7E-05

N/A

N/A

7E-05

Skin, Vascular

2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00







CHROMIUM

4E-05

N/A

N/A

4E-05

NOE

6E-02

N/A

N/A

6E-02







MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System

6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00







MERCURY

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Developmental, Neurological

2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00







Chemical Total

2E-04

N/A

N/A

2E-04



1E+01

N/A

N/A

1E+01





Exposure Point Total



2E-04



1E+01



Exposure Medium Total



2E-04



1E+01

Fish Total

2E-04



1E+01

Receptor Total - Venison

N/A

Receptor HI Total

2E+00

Receptor Total - Fish

2E-04

Receptor HI Total

1E+01

Notes:	Venision	Fish

N/A = Not applicable

Total Thyroid HI Across All Media = Q

2E+00 |

Total Liver HI Across All Media =

1E+00

HI = Hazard Index





Total Skin HI Across All Media =

2E+00

NOE = No Observed Effects





Total Vascular HI Across All Media =

2E+00







Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =

7E+00







Total Developmental HI Across All Media =

2E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.21a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion jlnhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Water/

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot- WL-SW-19 7212

VINYL CHLORIDE

4.E-04

N/A

N/A

4E-04

|







Chemical Total

4E-04 | N/A

N/A

4E-04



| N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Exposure Point Total



4E-04



N/A

Exposure Medium Total



4E-04



N/A

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-SW-19_7212

4E-04



N/A

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot-WL-VP-01

MERCURY (METHYL)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Development and neurological | 3E+00

N/A

N/A

3E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 3E+00

N/A

N/A

3E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

N/A



3E+00

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02

CADMIUM

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Proteinuria (Kidney) | 6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



6E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



6E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02

N/A



6E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

n/a = Not applicable	Total Development and Neurological HI Across All Media = | 3E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WL-VP-02	

Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 6E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.22.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure

Exposure

Chemical



Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient







Medium

Point

of Potential

























Concern

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure

Primary

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure















Routes Total

Target Organ(s)







Routes Total

Water/

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

5E-05

N/A

N/A

5E-05

Liver

6E-01

N/A

N/A

6E-01





Floodplain

DIELDRIN

7E-05

N/A

N/A

7E-05

Liver

3E-01

N/A

N/A

3E-01







ARSENIC

1E-04

N/A

N/A

1E-04

Skin, Vascular

1E+00

N/A

N/A

1E+00







CHROMIUM

2E-05

N/A

N/A

2E-05

NOE

4E-02

N/A

N/A

4E-02







MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System

3E+00

N/A

N/A

3E+00







MERCURY

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Developmental, Neurological

1E+00

N/A

N/A

1E+00







Chemical Total

3E-04

N/A

N/A

3E-04



6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00





Exposure Point Total



3E-04



6E+00



Exposure Medium Total



3E-04



6E+00

Fish Total

3E-04



6E+00

|Receptor Total - Fish

3E-04





Receptor HI Total

6E+00 |

Notes:	Fish

N/A = Not applicable

Total Liver HI Across All Media =

1E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Total Skin HI Across All Media =

1E+00

NOE = No Observed Effects

Total Vascular HI Across All Media =

1E+00



Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =

4E+00



Total Developmental HI Across All Media =

1E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.22a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

MERCURY (METHYL)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Development and neurological | 2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+00

Exposure

Medium Total



N/A



2E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

N/A



2E+00

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

CADMIUM

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Proteinuria (Kidney) | 4E+00

N/A

N/A

4E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 4E+00

N/A

N/A

4E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



4E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



4E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02

N/A



4E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

n/a = Not applicable	Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 2E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WL-VP-02	

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.23.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary I Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

5E-07

N/A

7E-08

6E-07

Immune System, 6E-02
Developmental, Heart |

N/A

8E-03

7E-02

Chemical Total

5E-07

N/A

7E-08

6E-07

| 6E-02

N/A

8E-03

7E-02

Exposure Point Total



6E-07



7E-02

Exposure Medium Total



6E-07



7E-02

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

N/A

4E-06

N/A

4E-06

Immune System, N/A
Developmental, Heart |

1E+00

N/A

1E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

4E-06

N/A

4E-06

| N/A

1E+00

N/A

1E+00

Exposure Point Total



4E-06



1E+00

Exposure Medium Total



4E-06



1E+00

Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total

5E-06



2E+00

Notes:

N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =

Total Developmental HI Across All Media =

Total Heart HI Across All Media =

2E+00

2E+00

2E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.24.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 8E-01

N/A

8E-01

2E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 8E-01

N/A

8E-01

2E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



2E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.26.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 3E+00

1E+01

2E+00

2E+01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 3E+00

1E+01

2E+00

2E+01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E+01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



2E+01

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 1E+00

4E+00

9E-01

6E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 1E+00

4E+00

9E-01

6E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



6E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



6E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203 Total

N/A



6E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+6T

HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 6E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.30.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Surface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 8E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 8E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



1E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



1E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil Total

N/A



1E+00

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 9E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



| 9E-01

N/A

5E-01

1E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



1E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



1E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total

N/A



1E+00

Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water

N/A

Receptor HI Total

1E+00

Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water

N/A

Receptor HI Total

1E+00

Notes:	Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water	Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00 | Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.30a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

COBALT
MANGANESE









Thyroid I 1E+01
Central Nervous System 1E+01

N/A
N/A

3E-01
8E+00

1E+01
2E+01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



3E+01

N/A

8E+00

3E+01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+01

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



4E-01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



4E-01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



3E+01

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 5E+00

N/A

3E+00

8E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



5E+00

N/A

3E+00

8E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



8E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



8E+00

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System

N/A

2E-01

N/A

2E-01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



N/A

2E-01

N/A

2E-01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E-01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E-01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035 Total

N/A



9E+00

Notes:

N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 9E+00

HOT Spot - VVLSS-»y-U3U4
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =

Total Thyroid HI Across All Media =

2E+01

1E+01

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.34.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | 1E+00

N/A

1 E+00

3E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 1E+00

N/A

1 E+00

3E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+00

Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE









Central Nervous System | N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| N/A

4E-01

N/A

4E-01

Exposure Point Total



N/A



4E-01

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



4E-01

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



3E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.39.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain

ARSENIC
CHROMIUM

2E-05
7E-05

N/A
N/A

3E-06
7E-05

2E-05
1E-04









Chemical Total

9E-05

N/A

8E-05

2E-04

| N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Exposure Point Total



2E-04



N/A

Exposure Medium Total



2E-04



N/A

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total

2E-04



N/A

|Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil

2E-04 | Receptor HI Total

N/A |

Notes:

N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.42.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreational User
Receptor Age: Adolescent	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System | 5E-01

N/A

2E+00

3E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 5E-01

N/A

2E+00

3E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+00

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total

N/A



3E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304

n/a = Not applicable	Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.43.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure

Exposure

Chemical



Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient







Medium

Point

of Potential

























Concern

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary
Target Organ(s)

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total





Sandy Lick Creek





















Soil

Venison

Floodplain

COBALT

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Thyroid

2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00







Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00





Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+00



Exposure Medium Total



N/A



2E+00

Venison Total

N/A



2E+00

Water /

Fish

Floodplain

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

Not Site-Related

N/A

Liver

Not Site-Related

N/A







DIELDRIN

Not Site-Related

N/A

Liver

Not Site-Related

N/A







ARSENIC

7E-05

N/A

N/A

7E-05

Skin, Vascular

2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00







CHROMIUM

Background Constituent

N/A

NOE

Background Constituent

N/A







MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System

6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00







MERCURY

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Developmental, Neurological

2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00







Chemical Total

7E-05

N/A

N/A

7E-05



9E+00

N/A

N/A

9E+00





Exposure Point Total



7E-05



9E+00



Exposure Medium Total



7E-05



9E+00

Fish Total

7E-05



9E+00

Receptor Total - Venison

N/A

Receptor HI Total

2E+00

Receptor Total - Fish

7E-05

Receptor HI Total

9E+00

Notes:	Venision	Fish

N/A = Not applicable

Total Thyroid HI Across All Media = Q

2E+00 |

Total Liver HI Across All Media =

NA

HI = Hazard Index





Total Skin HI Across All Media =

2E+00

NOE = No Observed Effects





Total Vascular HI Across All Media =

2E+00







Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =

7E+00







Total Developmental HI Across All Media =

2E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.43a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion jlnhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary
Target Organ(s)

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Flood plain

Hot Spot - WL-SW-
19_7212

VINYL CHLORIDE

4.E-04

N/A

N/A

4E-04











Chemical Total

4E-04 | N/A

N/A

4E-04



N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Exposure Point Total



4E-04



N/A

Exposure Medium Total



4E-04



N/A

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-SW-19_7212

4E-04



N/A

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Flood plain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

MERCURY (METHYL)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Development and neurological | 3E+00

N/A

N/A

3E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 3E+00

N/A

N/A

3E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



3E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



3E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

N/A



3E+00

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Flood plain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02

CADMIUM

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Proteinuria (Kidney) | 6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



6E+00

N/A

N/A

6E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



6E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



6E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02

N/A



6E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

n/a = Not applicable	Total Development and Neurological HI Across All Media = | 3E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WL-VP-02	

Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 6E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.44.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure

Exposure

Chemical



Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient







Medium

Point

of Potential

























Concern

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure

Primary

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure















Routes Total

Target Organ(s)







Routes Total

Water/

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek

BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

Not Site-Related

N/A

Liver

Not Site-Related

N/A





Flood plain

DIELDRIN

Not Site-Related

N/A

Liver

Not Site-Related

N/A







ARSENIC

1E-04

N/A

N/A

1E-04

Skin, Vascular

1E+00

N/A

N/A

1E+00







CHROMIUM

Background Constituent

N/A

NOE

Background Constituent

N/A







MANGANESE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Central Nervous System

3E+00

N/A

N/A

3E+00







MERCURY

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Developmental, Neurological

1E+00

N/A

N/A

1E+00







Chemical Total

1E-04

N/A

N/A

1E-04



5E+00

N/A

N/A

5E+00





Exposure Point Total



1E-04



5E+00



Exposure Medium Total



1E-04



5E+00

Fish Total

1E-04



5E+00

|Receptor Total - Fish

1E-04





Receptor HI Total

5E+00 |

Notes:

N/A = Not applicable

HI = Hazard Index

NOE = No Observed Effects

Fish

Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =
Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =

1E+00

1E+00

4E+00

1E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 10.44a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult	

Medium

Exposure
Medium

Exposure
Point

Chemical
of Potential
Concern

Carcinogenic Risk

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Ingestion

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |

Inhalation

Dermal

Exposure
Routes Total

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

MERCURY (METHYL)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Development and neurological | 2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 2E+00

N/A

N/A

2E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



2E+00

Exposure

Medium Total



N/A



2E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

N/A



2E+00

Surface
Water/
Sediment

Fish

Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

CADMIUM

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Proteinuria (Kidney) | 4E+00

N/A

N/A

4E+00

Chemical Total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

| 4E+00

N/A

N/A

4E+00

Exposure Point Total



N/A



4E+00

Exposure Medium Total



N/A



4E+00

Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02

N/A



4E+00

Notes:	Hot Spot - WL-VP-01

n/a = Not applicable	Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 2E+00

HI = Hazard Index

Hot Spot - WL-VP-02	

Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 4E+00

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 5a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Current/Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead

Concentration
used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

1888

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version

EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.

N/A

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 5b

What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean surface soil
concentration; see Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.

What was the point of exposure and location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 5b

What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?

Yes

Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?

Yes

Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?

Yes

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?

Yes

If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?

Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/RBRG 1

Soil

1888 ppm lead in surface soil results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 8.8 to 12.9 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed women
in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The probabilities
that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range from 3.1% to
9.6%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as described in the
1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of
exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.



Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 5b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Current/Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09

\ ariahle

Description of Variable

I nils

(¦Sill and I'hIJo
from Analysis of
MIANKS 1999-
2004

(¦Sill and I'hIJo

from Analysis of
MIANKS III
(Phases \&2)

PbS

Soil lead concentration

ug/g or ppm

1888

1888

-^fetal/m aternal

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio

—

0.9

0.9

BKSF

Biokinetic Slope Factor

ug/dL per
ug/day

0.4

0.4

GSD,

Geometric standard deviation PbB

—

1.8

2.1

PbB0

Baseline PbB

ug/dL

1.0

1.5

IRS

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

g/day

0.050

0.050

iR-sb

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

g/day

—

—

Ws

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

--

--

—

Ksd

Mass fraction of soil in dust

—

—

—

AFS D

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

—

0.12

0.12

efs>d

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

219

219

ATS D

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

365

365

PbBadu]t

PbB of adult worker, geometric mean

ug/dL

3.7

4.2

PbB fetal, 0.95

95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers

ug/dL

8.8

12.9

PbBt

Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)

ug/dL

10.0

10.0

P(PbBfetal > PbBt)

Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution

%

3.1%

9.6%

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 6a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration

Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead

Concentration
used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

93

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version

EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.

N/A

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 6b

What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.

What was the point of exposure and location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 6b

What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?

Yes

Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?

Yes

Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?

Yes

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?

Yes

If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?

Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/RBRG 1

Soil

93 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.7 to 5 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.005% to 0.5%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.



Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 6b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Site Worker

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09







CSDi and I'hllo

CSDi and I'hllo







IVom Analysis of

IVom Analysis of







Ml.WES 1999-

\iia\i:s iii

\ ariahle

Description of \ ariahle

I nits

2004

(Phases I&2)

PbS

Soil lead concentration

ug/g or ppm

93

93

-^fetal/m aternal

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio

—

0.9

0.9

BKSF

Biokinetic Slope Factor

ug/dL per
ug/day

0.4

0.4

GSD,

Geometric standard deviation PbB

—

1.8

2.1

PbB0

Baseline PbB

ug/dL

1.0

1.5

IRS

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

g/day

0.050

0.050

IRs+d

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

g/day

—

—

Ws

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

—

—

--

Ksd

Mass fraction of soil in dust

—

—

—

AFS D

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

—

0.12

0.12

efs>d

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

219

219

ATS D

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

365

365

PbBadu]t

PbB of adult worker, geometric mean

ug/dL

1.1

1.6

PbBfeta^ 0.95

95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers

ug/dL

2.7

5.0

PbBt

Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)

ug/dL

10.0

10.0

P(PbBfetal>PbBt)

Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution

%

0.005%

0.5%

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 11a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead

Concentration
used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

1888

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version

EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.

N/A

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 11 b

What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean surface soil
concentration; see Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.

What was the point of exposure and location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 11 b

What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?

Yes

Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?

Yes

Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?

Yes

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?

No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.

If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?

Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/RBRG1

Soil

1888 ppm lead in surface soil results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 15.2 to 21.2 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 17.7% to 26.3%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.



Page 1 of 1

-------
Table lib

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09

\ ariahle

Description ol' \ ariahle

I nils

l.SUi and I'hIJo
IVom Analysis ol'
\ HANKS 1999-
2004

(.SIJi and I'hIJo
from Analysis ol'
NIIANKS III

(Phases l£2)

PbS

Soil lead concentration

ug/g or ppm

1888

1888

-^fetal/m aternal

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio

—

0.9

0.9

BKSF

Biokinetic Slope Factor

ug/dL per ug/day

0.4

0.4

GSD,

Geometric standard deviation PbB

—

1.8

2.1

PbB0

Baseline PbB

ug/dL

1.0

1.5

IRS

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

g/day

0.100

0.100

iR-sb

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

g/day

—

—

Ws

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

--

--

--

Ksd

Mass fraction of soil in dust

—

—

—

AFs.d

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

—

0.12

0.12

efs>d

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

219

219

ATS D

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

365

365

PbBadu]t

PbB of adult worker, geometric mean

ug/dL

6.4

6.9

PbBfeta^ 0.95

95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers

ug/dL

15.2

21.2

PbBt

Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)

ug/dL

10.0

10.0

P(PbBfetal > PbBt)

Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution

%

17.7%

26.3%

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 12a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead

Concentration
used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

93

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version

EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.

N/A

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 12b

What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.

What was the point of exposure and location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 12b

What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?

Yes

Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?

Yes

Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?

Yes

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?

No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.

If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?

Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/RBRG

Soil

93 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 3 to 5.4 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.01% to 0.7%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.

PRG not calculated.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 12b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09

\ ariahle

Description ol' Variable

I nils

(ISI)i and
I'b Bo IVoni
Analysis ol'

mi \\i:s

CSDi and I'hllo
from Analysis ol'

\iia\i:s in

(Phases \&2)

PbS

Soil lead concentration

ug/g or ppm

93

93

-^fetal/m aternal

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio

—

0.9

0.9

BKSF

Biokinetic Slope Factor

ug/dL per ug/day

0.4

0.4

GSD,

Geometric standard deviation PbB

—

1.8

2.1

PbB0

Baseline PbB

ug/dL

1.0

1.5

IRS

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

g/day

0.100

0.100

iR-sb

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

g/day

—

--

Ws

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

--

--

--

Ksd

Mass fraction of soil in dust

--

--

--

afSjD

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

—

0.12

0.12

efs>d

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

219

219

ATs,d

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

365

365

PbBatjuit

PbB of adult worker, geometric mean

ug/dL

1.3

1.8

PbB feta^ 0.95

95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers

ug/dL

3.0

5.4

PbBt

Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)

ug/dL

10.0

10.0

P(PbBfetal > PbBt)

Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution

%

0.01%

0.7%

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 19a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

1888

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

4

|jg/L

IEUBK Model Default
Value

15

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 19b and Figure
7)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

8.7 - 45,700 mg/kg (surface soil)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Not all samples were collected from top 2 cm. Samples
collected for multiple analyses.

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.

What was the point of exposure/location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 19b and Figure
7)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for soil concentration.

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Soil

Input value of 1888 mg/kg in surface soil results in 77% of
children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 14 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.

PRG not calculated.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 19b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

# Soil/Dust Data

average surface soil concentration

* * * * * *	p ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age

Time

Ventilation

Lung

Outdoor Ail



Outdoors

Rate

Absorption

Pb Cone



(hours)

(m3/day)

(%)

(Hg Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******

Age Diet lntake(ng/day)

.5-1

2.260

1-2

1.960

2-3

2.130

3-4

2.040

4-5

1.950

5-6

2.050

6-7

2.220

Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 19b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)

.5-1

0.200

1-2

0.500

2-3

0.520

3-4

0.530

4-5

0.550

5-6

0.580

6-7

0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L

****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 1331.600 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1

1888.000

1331.600

1-2

1888.000

1331.600

2-3

1888.000

1331.600

3-4

1888.000

1331.600

4-5

1888.000

1331.600

5-6

1888.000

1331.600

6-7

1888.000

1331.600

****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1

0.000

1-2

0.000

2-3

0.000

3-4

0.000

4-5

0.000

5-6

0.000

6-7

0.000

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 19b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:

Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

0.796
0.654
0.743
0.741
0.779
0.851
0.941

0.000	0.282

0.000	0.667

0.000	0.726

0.000	0.770

0.000	0.879

0.000	0.963

0.000	1.000

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	28.424

1-2	42.751

2-3	44.713

3-4	46.570

4-5	37.925

5-6	35.453

6-7	34.198

29.523
44.106
46.244
48.148
39.650
37.360
36.232

15.2

17.6

16.7

16.2
13.7
11.7

10.3

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T

50

25

Figure 7

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

16

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 14.184
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 77.146

24 32 40 48 56
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

64

72

80

96

Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = On-site Subsurface Soil

-------
TABLE 20a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

93

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

4

|jg/L

IEUBK Model Default
Value

15

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 20b and Figure
8)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

8.9 -1,310 mg/kg (subsurface soil)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Data set only includes subsurface soil sample.

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.

What was the point of exposure/location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 20b and Figure
8)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for soil concentration.

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Soil

Input value of 93 mg/kg in subsurface soil results in 0.01%
of children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 1.7 |jg/dL. This is below the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.

PRG not calculated.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 20b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurrface Soil
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

# Soil/Dust Data

average subsurface soil concentration

Air

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone
(hours) (m3/day) (%) (ng Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******





Age

Diet lntake(ng/day)





.5-1

2.260







1-2

1.960







2-3

2.130







3-4

2.040







4-5

1.950







5-6

2.050







6-7

2.220







Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 20b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

.5-1 0.200

1-2	0.500

2-3	0.520

3-4	0.530

4-5	0.550

5-6	0.580

6-7	0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 75.100 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1

93.000

75.100

1-2

93.000

75.100

2-3

93.000

75.100

3-4

93.000

75.100

4-5

93.000

75.100

5-6

93.000

75.100

6-7

93.000

75.100

****** Alternate Intake

******

Age

Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1

0.000

1-2

0.000

2-3

0.000

3-4

0.000

4-5

0.000

5-6

0.000

6-7

0.000

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 20b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:

Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

1.086
0.937
1.024
0.987
0.952
1.004
1.089

0.000	0.384

0.000	0.956

0.000	1.000

0.000	1.025

0.000	1.074

0.000	1.136

0.000	1.158

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	2.038

1-2	3.221

2-3	3.239

3-4	3.257

4-5	2.435

5-6	2.199

6-7	2.080

3.529
5.149
5.325
5.336
4.527
4.432
4.420

1.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.3

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T

Figure 8

Sandy Lick Creek Floodfilain Subsurface Soil
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

25

5	6	7

Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

10

11

12

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 1.736
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.010

Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = On-site Subsurface Soil

-------
Table 21b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll

User Name: ch2m

Date: 03/23/2016

Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

# Water Data

average surface water concentration

* * * * * *	p ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age

Time

Ventilation

Lung

Outdoor Ail



Outdoors

Rate

Absorption

Pb Cone



(hours)

(m3/day)

(%)

(Hg Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******

Age Diet lntake(ng/day)

.5-1

2.260

1-2

1.960

2-3

2.130

3-4

2.040

4-5

1.950

5-6

2.050

6-7

2.220

Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 21b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll

User Name: ch2m

Date: 03/23/2016

Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

# Water Data

average surface water concentration

* * * * * *	p ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age

Time

Ventilation

Lung

Outdoor Ail



Outdoors

Rate

Absorption

Pb Cone



(hours)

(m3/day)

(%)

(Hg Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******

Age Diet lntake(ng/day)

.5-1

2.260

1-2

1.960

2-3

2.130

3-4

2.040

4-5

1.950

5-6

2.050

6-7

2.220

Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 21b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:

Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

1.061
0.912
1.000
0.967
0.939
0.993
1.079

0.000	0.329

0.000	0.814

0.000	0.855

0.000	0.879

0.000	0.927

0.000	0.984

0.000	1.004

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	4.131

1-2	6.499

2-3	6.562

3-4	6.620

4-5	4.985

5-6	4.513

6-7	4.276

5.542
8.260
8.479
8.533
6.918
6.584
6.452

3.0

3.4
3.2

3.0

2.5

2.1
1.9

Page 3 of 3

-------
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl	Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Geo Mean = 2.692

GSD = 1.600	Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment

% Above = 0.262

-------
TABLE 22a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Hot Spot WL-VP-02
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

200

mg/kg

IEUBK Model Default
Value

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

3,170

|jg/L

Hot Spot Surface
Water Concentration

15

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 22b and Figure
10)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

Hot spot concentration - 3,170 |jg/L (surface water)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Hot spot concentration; located in Table 3.11,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Not applicable, surface water data.

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

Not applicable, surface water data.

What was the point of exposure/location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 22b and Figure
10)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 jjg/day).

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Surface Water

Input value of 3,170 |jg/L in surface water and surface
water ingestion rate of 0.1 jjg/day results in 99% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 29.6 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.

PRG not calculated.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 22b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-02- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll

User Name: ch2m

Date: 03/23/2016

Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

#	Water Data

hot spot surface water concentration

#	Water Data

surface water ingestion rate

*{* *{* *{* *{* *{* *{*	p

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age

Time

Ventilation

Lung

Outdoor Ail



Outdoors

Rate

Absorption

Pb Cone



(hours)

(m3/day)

(%)

(Hg Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100



Diet



Age Diet lntake(ng/day)

.5-1

2.260

1-2

1.960

2-3

2.130

3-4

2.040

4-5

1.950

5-6

2.050

6-7

2.220

Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 22b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-02- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

.5-1 0.100

1-2	0.100

2-3	0.100

3-4	0.100

4-5	0.100

5-6	0.100

6-7	0.100

Drinking Water Concentration: 3170.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1	200.000	150.000

1-2	200.000	150.000

2-3	200.000	150.000

3-4	200.000	150.000

4-5	200.000	150.000

5-6	200.000	150.000

6-7	200.000	150.000

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1	0.000

1-2	0.000

2-3	0.000

3-4	0.000

4-5	0.000

5-6	0.000

6-7	0.000

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 22b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-02- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:

Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1

0.021

0.501

0.000

70.297

1-2

0.034

0.477

0.000

77.089

2-3

0.062

0.550

0.000

81.887

3-4

0.067

0.558

0.000

86.725

4-5

0.067

0.564

0.000

91.677

5-6

0.093

0.618

0.000

95.536

6-7

0.093

0.688

0.000

98.284

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1

1.951

72.770

35.2

1-2

3.398

80.997

32.7

2-3

3.609

86.108

30.0

3-4

3.823

91.173

29.6

4-5

2.993

95.301

29.4

5-6

2.807

99.054

28.5

6-7

2.728

101.793

27.2

Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 ng/dl are above
the range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of
this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K. 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification.
Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (supplement 6). p. 1555)

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)	Figure 10

Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl	Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Geo Mean = 29.628

GSD = 1.600	Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment

% Above = 98.958	Comment = hot spot surface water

Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 ng/dl are above
the range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of
this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification.

Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (supplement 6). p. 1555)

-------
TABLE 23a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Hot Spot WL-VP-01
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

200

mg/kg

IEUBK Model Default
Value

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

1,140

|jg/L

Hot Spot Surface
Water Concentration

15

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 23b and Figure
11)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

Hot spot concentration - 1,140 |jg/L (surface water)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Hot spot concentration; located in Table 3.11,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Not applicable, surface water data.

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

Not applicable, surface water data.

What was the point of exposure/location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 23b and Figure
11)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 jjg/day).

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Surface Water

Input value of 1,140 |jg/L in surface water and surface
water ingestion rate of 0.1 jjg/day results in 84% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 16 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than
5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.

PRG not calculated.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 23b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-01- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

.5-1

0.100

1-2

0.100

2-3

0.100

3-4

0.100

4-5

0.100

5-6

0.100

6-7

0.100

Drinking Water Concentration: 1140.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1	200.000	150.000

1-2	200.000	150.000

2-3	200.000	150.000

3-4	200.000	150.000

4-5	200.000	150.000

5-6	200.000	150.000

6-7	200.000	150.000

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1	0.000

1-2	0.000

2-3	0.000

3-4	0.000

4-5	0.000

5-6	0.000

6-7	0.000

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 23b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-01- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:



Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

0.709
0.657
0.747
0.745
0.741
0.801
0.882

0.000	35.741

0.000	38.216

0.000	39.962

0.000	41.609

0.000	43.345

0.000	44.524

0.000	45.311

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	2.758

1-2	4.684

2-3	4.898

3-4	5.100

4-5	3.935

5-6	3.638

6-7	3.497

39.229
43.592
45.669
47.520
48.088
49.056
49.783

19.8
18.3
16.5
16.0
15.5

14.7

13.8

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T

75

50

25

Figure 11

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-01
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

18

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 15.969
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 84.035

27 36 45 54 63
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

72

81

90

99

108

Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = hot spot surface water

-------
TABLE 24a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Hot Spot WL-SW-06
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

200

mg/kg

IEUBK Model Default
Value

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

188

|jg/L

Hot Spot Surface
Water Concentration

15

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 24b and Figure
12)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

Hot spot concentration - 188 |jg/L (surface water)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Hot spot concentration; located in Table 3.11,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Not applicable, surface water data.

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

Not applicable, surface water data.

What was the point of exposure/location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 24b and Figure
12)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 jjg/day).

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Surface Water

Input value of 188 |jg/L in surface water and surface water
ingestion rate of 0.1 jjg/day results in 9.1% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 5.3 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.

PRG not calculated.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 24b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll

User Name: ch2m

Date: 03/23/2016

Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

#	Water Data

hot spot surface water concentration

#	Water Data

surface water ingestion rate

* * * * * *	p ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone



(hours)

(m3/day)

(%)

(Hg Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******





Age

Diet lntake(ng/day)





.5-1

2.260







1-2

1.960







2-3

2.130







3-4

2.040







4-5

1.950







5-6

2.050







6-7

2.220







Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 24b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

.5-1 0.100

1-2	0.100

2-3	0.100

3-4	0.100

4-5	0.100

5-6	0.100

6-7	0.100

Drinking Water Concentration: 188.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1	200.000	150.000

1-2	200.000	150.000

2-3	200.000	150.000

3-4	200.000	150.000

4-5	200.000	150.000

5-6	200.000	150.000

6-7	200.000	150.000

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1	0.000

1-2	0.000

2-3	0.000

3-4	0.000

4-5	0.000

5-6	0.000

6-7	0.000

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 24b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL

CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:



Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

0.974
0.856
0.947
0.922
0.901
0.957
1.043

0.000	8.099

0.000	8.213

0.000	8.362

0.000	8.497

0.000	8.684

0.000	8.775

0.000	8.829

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	3.790

1-2	6.104

2-3	6.215

3-4	6.315

4-5	4.781

5-6	4.348

6-7	4.131

12.884
15.208
15.587
15.801
14.432
14.173
14.096

6.9
6.5

5.8
5.5

4.9
4.4
4.0

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T

Figure 12

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

25

12 15 18 21
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

24

27

30

33

36

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 5.336
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 9.073

Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = hot spot surface water

-------
TABLE 32a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Current/Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead

Concentration
used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

1888

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version

EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.

N/A

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 32b

What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean surface soil
concentration; see Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.

What was the point of exposure and location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 32b

What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?

No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.

Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?

Yes

Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?

Yes

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?

No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.

If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?

Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/RBRG 1

Soil

1888 ppm lead in surface soil results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 6.6 to 10 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed women
in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The probabilities
that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range from 0.9% to
5.0%. These values are less than the blood lead goal as described
in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
(fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.



Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 32b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Current/Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09

\ ariahlc

Description ol' \ ariahlc

I nils

(.MJi and
Phlio from
Analysis ol'

mi \\i:s

l.SUi and I'hlio
IVoni Analysis ol'

\MA\i:s mi

(Phases l»S2)

PbS

Soil lead concentration

ug/g or ppm

1888

1888

-^fetal/m aternal

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio

--

0.9

0.9

BKSF

Biokinetic Slope Factor

ug/dL per ug/day

0.4

0.4

GSD,

Geometric standard deviation PbB

--

1.8

2.1

PbB0

Baseline PbB

ug/dL

1.0

1.5

IRS

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

g/day

0.120

0.120

IRs+d

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

g/day

—

—

Ws

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

--

--

--

Ksd

Mass fraction of soil in dust

—

—

—

AFs.d

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

--

0.12

0.12

efs>d

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

60

60

ATS D

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

365

365

PbBadu]t

PbB of adult worker, geometric mean

ug/dL

2.8

3.3

PbBfeta^ 0.95

95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers

ug/dL

6.6

10.0

PbBt

Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)

ug/dL

10.0

10.0

P(PbBfetal > PbBt)

Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution

%

0.9%

5.0%

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 33a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead

Concentration
used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

93

mg/kg

Average Soil
Concentration

400

mg/kg

Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response

What lead model was used? Provide reference and version

EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.

N/A

Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 33b

What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.

What was the point of exposure and location?

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?

Attached as Table 33b

What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.

Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).

Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?

No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.

Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?

Yes

Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?

Yes

Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?

No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.

If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?

Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/RBRG 1

Soil

93 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.6 to 4.8 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.004% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.



Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 33b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09

\ ariahle

Description ol' Variable

I nils

CShiand
I'bBo IVom
Analysis ol'

mi \ \i:s

CSUi and I'hlio
from Analysis ol'
\IIA\i:S III
(Phases I&2)

PbS

Soil lead concentration

ug/g or ppm

93

93

-^fetal/m aternal

Fetal/maternal PbB ratio

--

0.9

0.9

BKSF

Biokinetic Slope Factor

ug/dL per ug/day

0.4

0.4

GSD,

Geometric standard deviation PbB

--

1.8

2.1

PbB0

Baseline PbB

ug/dL

1.0

1.5

IRs

Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)

g/day

0.120

0.120

IRs+d

Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust

g/day

—

—

Ws

Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil

--

--

--

Ksd

Mass fraction of soil in dust

—

—

—

AFS D

Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)

--

0.12

0.12

efs>d

Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

60

60

ATS D

Averaging time (same for soil and dust)

days/yr

365

365

PbBadu]t

PbB of adult worker, geometric mean

ug/dL

1.1

1.6

PbBfeta^ 0.95

95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers

ug/dL

2.6

4.8

PbBt

Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)

ug/dL

10.0

10.0

P(PbBfetal > PbBt)

Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution

%

0.004%

0.4%

Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil

Page 1 of 1

-------
TABLE 34a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison (from Surface Soil) - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

200

mg/kg

IEUBK Model Default
Value

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

4

|jg/L

IEUBK Model Default
Value

15

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

Venison

2.9

mg/kg

Average Venison
Concentration

N/A





2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 34b and Figure
15)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

0.013 - 71 mg/kg (venison concentration modeled from
surface soil)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.8c,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Not applicable

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

Not applicable

What was the point of exposure/location?

Venison from Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 34b and Figure
15)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for venison concentration and percent of
meat that is venison from site (33%).

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85,135,135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Venison

Input value of 2.9 mg/kg in venison results in 27% of
children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 7.5 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.



Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 34b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll

User Name: ch2m

Date: 03/24/2016

Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

# Diet Data

assumed 33% of total meat ingested is venison caught on site

* * * * * *	^ |p	******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone
(hours) (m3/day) (%) (ng Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******





Age

Diet lntake(ng/day)





.5-1

12.409







1-2

30.252







2-3

38.550







3-4

41.151







4-5

43.753







5-6

47.308







6-7

54.351







Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 34b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

Alternative Dietary Values

Home grown fruits concentration: 0.000 ng/g

Home grown vegetables concentration: 0.000 ng/g

Fish from fishing concentration: 0.000 ng/g

Game animals from hunting concentration: 2.900 ng/g

Home grown fruits factor: 0.000 % of all fruits

Home grown vegetables factor: 0.000 % of all vegetables

Fish from fishing factor: 0.000 %of all meat

Game animals from hunting factor: 33.000 % of all meat

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

.5-1

0.200

1-2

0.500

2-3

0.520

3-4

0.530

4-5

0.550

5-6

0.580

6-7

0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1

200.000

150.000

1-2

200.000

150.000

2-3

200.000

150.000

3-4

200.000

150.000

4-5

200.000

150.000

5-6

200.000

150.000

6-7

200.000

150.000

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 34b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison - Future Child Resident

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1 0.000

1-2	0.000

2-3	0.000

3-4	0.000

4-5	0.000

5-6	0.000

6-7	0.000

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL



CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:



Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

5.541

12.711

16.187

17.559

19.075

20.807

23.849

0.000	0.357

0.000	0.840

0.000	0.873

0.000	0.905

0.000	0.959

0.000	1.020

0.000	1.036

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	3.928

1-2	5.871

2-3	5.867

3-4	5.962

4-5	4.512

5-6	4.097

6-7	3.860

9.848
19.456
22.989
24.492
24.613
26.017
28.839

5.3

7.7
8.2

8.4
8.1

7.8
7.8

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T

Figure 15

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

50

25

12 16 20 24 28
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

32

36

40

44

48

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 7.504
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 27.060

Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment

-------
TABLE 35a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish (from Surface Water and Sediment) - Average Concentration

Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)

Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

1. Lead Screening Questions

Medium

Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run

Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run

Lead Screening
Concentration

Basis for Lead Screening Level

Value

Units

Value

Units

Soil

200

mg/kg

IEUBK Model Default
Value

400

mg/kg

Recommended Soil Screening
Level

Water

|jg/L

IEUBK Model Default
Value

|jg/L

Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level

Fish

1.5

mg/kg

Average Fish
Concentration

N/A

2. Lead Model Questions

Question

Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date was used)?

Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)

Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 35b and Figure
16)

What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?

0.13 - 950 mg/kg (fish concentration modeled from
surface water and sediment data)

What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?

Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.10b,
Attachment 1.

Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Not applicable

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.

Not applicable

What was the point of exposure/location?

Fish from Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?

lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 35b and Figure
16)

Was the model run using default values only?

Yes, except for fish concentration and percent offish
that is from site (25%).

Was the default soil bioavailability used?

Yes - Default is 30%

Was the default soil ingestion rate used?

Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85,135,135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day

If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?

Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.

3. Final Result

Medium

Result

Comment/PRG

Fish

Input value of 1.5 mg/kg in fish results in 5.5% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 4.7 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead. Note -
hot spot evaluation not run since concentrations are higher,
and therefore, would also result in exceedance of the blood
lead goal.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table 35b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1

Model Version: 1.1 Buildll

User Name: ch2m

Date: 03/24/2016

Site Name: Jackson Ceramix

Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain

Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment

# Diet Data

assumed 25% of total fish is from site

* * * * * *	p ******

Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:

Age

Time

Ventilation

Lung

Outdoor Ail



Outdoors

Rate

Absorption

Pb Cone



(hours)

(m3/day)

(%)

(Hg Pb/m3)

.5-1

1.000

2.000

32.000

0.100

1-2

2.000

3.000

32.000

0.100

2-3

3.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

3-4

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

4-5

4.000

5.000

32.000

0.100

5-6

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

6-7

4.000

7.000

32.000

0.100

****** ******
Age Diet lntake(ng/day)

.5-1

6.231

1-2

13.032

2-3

16.383

3-4

17.344

4-5

18.306

5-6

19.756

6-7

22.618

Page 1 of 3

-------
Table 35b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

Alternative Dietary Values

Home grown fruits concentration: 0.000 ng/g

Home grown vegetables concentration: 0.000 ng/g

Fish from fishing concentration: 1.500 ng/g

Game animals from hunting concentration: 0.000 ng/g

Home grown fruits factor: 0.000 % of all fruits

Home grown vegetables factor: 0.000 % of all vegetables

Fish from fishing factor: 25.000 %of all meat

Game animals from hunting factor: 0.000 % of all meat

****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******

Water Consumption:

Age Water (L/day)

.5-1

0.200

1-2

0.500

2-3

0.520

3-4

0.530

4-5

0.550

5-6

0.580

6-7

0.590

Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******

Multiple Source Analysis Used

Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g

Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No

Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)

.5-1

200.000

150.000

1-2

200.000

150.000

2-3

200.000

150.000

3-4

200.000

150.000

4-5

200.000

150.000

5-6

200.000

150.000

6-7

200.000

150.000

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table 35b

Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)

Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA

****** Alternate Intake ******

Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)

.5-1 0.000

1-2	0.000

2-3	0.000

3-4	0.000

4-5	0.000

5-6	0.000

6-7	0.000

****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL



CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:



Year Air	Diet	Alternate Water

(Hg/day) (ng/day)	(M-g/day) (ng/day)

.5-1	0.021

1-2	0.034

2-3	0.062

3-4	0.067

4-5	0.067

5-6	0.093

6-7	0.093

2.867
5.811
7.343

7.868
8.461
9.197
10.538

0.000	0.368

0.000	0.892

0.000	0.932

0.000	0.962

0.000	1.017

0.000	1.080

0.000	1.100

Year Soil+Dust	Total	Blood

(M-g/day)	(ng/day)	(Mg/dL)

.5-1	4.047

1-2	6.230

2-3	6.262

3-4	6.339

4-5	4.783

5-6	4.336

6-7	4.099

7.303

12.967

14.599

15.235

14.327

14.707

15.830

3.9

5.2

5.3

5.3
4.8
4.5

4.4

Page 3 of 3

-------
Prob. Distribution (%)

Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)

Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl	Age Range = 0 to 84 months

Geo Mean = 4.722

GSD = 1.600	Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment

% Above = 5.520

-------
Table H.l

Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints

Assossinciil Kndpoinl linsis l-'oi* Assossinciil Kndpoinl Mciisiiiviiicul Kndpoinl Receptor

l oi'i'osli'iiil Open l ield 11 ;ihit;it

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of soil
invertebrate communities.

Soil invertebrates promote development of a well-
conditioned soil to support plant growth. Soil
invertebrates are an important dietary component for
a number of upper trophic level receptors.

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the top two feet of soil to benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.

Soil Invertebrates
(earthworms)

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of terrestrial
plant communities.

Plants provide food and habitat for a multitude of
wildlife receptors.

Terrestrial plants

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
terrestrial insectivores.

Avian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to no observed adverse effect levels
(NOAELs). Calculation of central tendency intake and
comparison to NOAELs and lowest observed adverse
effects levels (LOAELs) found in the literature.

American robin

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial insectivores.

Mammalian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

Short-tailed shrew

l-oivslcd Wolliind iind l-'loodpliiin ll;d>il;ils

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of soil
invertebrate communities.

Soil invertebrates promote development of a well-
conditioned soil to support plant growth. Soil
invertebrates are an important dietary component for
a number of upper trophic level receptors.

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment or the top two feet of soil to benchmark
values. Evaluation of contaminant distribution for
chemicals with concentrations greater than benchmark
values.

Soil Invertebrates
(earthworms)

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of benthic
invertebrate communities.

Benthic invertebrates recycle nutrients and condition
the sediment. They are also important prey species
for upper trophic level receptors.

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment to benchmark values. Evaluation of
contaminant distribution for chemicals with
concentrations greater than benchmark values.

Benthic invertebrate
Community

Page 1 of 3

-------
Table H.l

Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints

Assossinciil Kndpoinl

liiisis l-'or Assossiikmii Kndpoinl

Mciisiiivmcnl Kndpoinl

Km*|)lor

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of terrestrial
plant communities.

Plants provide food and habitat for a multitude of
wildlife receptors.

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment or the top two feet of soil to benchmark
values. Evaluation of contaminant distribution for
chemicals with concentrations greater than benchmark
values.

Terrestrial plants

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of aquatic
communities.

A healthy aquatic community is critical to
maintenance of stream function. Members of this
community serve as prey species for upper trophic
level receptors.

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration
in the surface water to aquatic benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.

Freshwater Aquatic
Community

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of transition
zone communities.

The transition zone is where potentially
contaminated groundwater mixes with surface water.
Areas of groundwater discharge can support
spawning, feeding, and nursing habitats. Benthic
and epibenthic organisms can live in these zones,
and fish can find refuge in groundwater discharge
areas.

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the groundwater near the discharge point to aquatic
benchmark values. Evaluation of contaminant
distribution for chemicals with concentrations greater
than benchmark values.

Transition Zone Community

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of amphibians.

Amphibians are prey species for upper trophic level
receptors

Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment and surface water to benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.

Amphibians

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
terrestrial insectivores.

Avian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

American woodcock and
eastern phoebe

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
terrestrial carnivores.

Avian terrestrial carnivores consume small birds and
mammals, thereby ensuring balance in the
ecosystem. These receptors may be particularly
vulnerable to compounds which bioaccumulate.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

Barred owl

Page 2 of 3

-------
Table H.l

Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints

Assossinciil Kndpoinl

liiisis l-'or Assossiikmii Kndpoinl

Mciisiiivmcnl Kndpoinl

Km*|)lor

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial herbivores.

Mammalian terrestrial herbivores are consumers of
the nuts, seeds, and berries produced by plants, and
serve as prey species for upper trophic level
receptors.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

Meadow vole

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial insectivores.

Mammalian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

Short-tailed shrew

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
piscivores

Mammalian piscivores consume fish, amphibians,
and some types of benthic invertebrates, thereby
providing balance for the aquatic ecosystem. These
receptors may be particularly vulnerable to
bioaccumulative chemicals.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

Mink

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
piscivores.

Avian piscivores consume fish, amphibians, and
some types of benthic invertebrates, thereby
providing balance for the aquatic ecosystem. These
receptors may be particularly vulnerable to
bioaccumulative chemicals.

Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.

Green heron

Growth, survival, and
reproduction of flying
insectivores.

Bats consume insects and are particularly useful in
terms of controlling insect populations. The
northern long-eared bat's population has been
decimated by white nose syndrome, and the
surviving population may be more vulnerable to
environmental contamination.

The short-tailed shrew was used as s surrogate species
for the flying insectivore.

Northern long-eared bat

Page 3 of 3

-------
Table H.2

Exposure Parameters for Upper Trophic Level Ecological Receptors

Keeeplor

l-ood 1 iiiiestion Kate (g/g-risiM

Soil/Sedimenl Ingestion Kale
(as l-'raelion of l-'ood Ingestion Kale)

Waler Ingestion Kale
(ii/!i-da\)

Dielan Composition ipereenl)

l-ora^in^ Area

Value

( urn men I

Value

( oiii men I

Value

( OIllllK'lll

Terreslrial
Plants

ln\erlel>rales

Small
Mammals

Amphibians

l-'isli

( onmieni

Value

( onmieni

Birds

Eastern phoebe1

1.57

Food ingestion rate was
allometrically derived. Body
weight from Terres (1980) and
Weeks (1994)

2.0%

Estimated from Beyer (1994)

0.209

Allometrically derived
using equation in
USCHPPM (2004)

3

97

0

0

0

Martin etal. (1951)

NA



American robin

1.52

Mean ingestion rate from
Hazelton et al. (1984), as cited
in EPA 1993

10.4%

No value in EPA 1993; proposed
value based on that for the
American woodcock.

0.14

Estimated value provided in
EPA (1993)

7

93

0

0

0

Spring diet, eastern
United States study by
Wheelwright (1986), as
cited in EPA 1993

0.42 ha

Mean value, spring,
Tennessee campus study
by Pitts (1984), as cited in
EPA 1993

American
woodcock

0.77

Mean ingestion rate from
Stickel et al (1965) as cited in
USCHPPM (2004)

10.4%

EPA (1993)

0.1

Estimated value provided in
EPA (1993)

10.5

89.5

0

0

0

Summer diet, North
America study by
Sperry (1940) as cited
in USCHPPM (2004)

3.1 ha

Median value, active
males, Pennsylvania study
by Hudgins et al. (1985) as
cited in USCHPPM (2004)

Barred owl1

0.0265

Dry weight ingestion rate for
great horned owl under
laboratory conditions, from
Duke, et al. 1993

0.0%



0

Owls obtained water from
prey, Duke, et al, 1993

0

5

85

5

5

Estimated from Cornell
University website

781 ha

Mean annual range,
Washington study by
Hamer et al. (2007)

Green heron1

0.190

Food ingestion rate obtained
fromKushlan (1978). Body
weight obtained from Dunning
(1993). Both as cited in
USCHPPM (2004).

5.0%

Estimated from Beyer (1994) as
cited in EPA (1993)

0.098

Estimated value provided in
USCHPPM (2004)

3

10

0

20

67

Alexander (1977) as
cited in USCHPPM
(2004)

NA



Mammals

Meadow vole

0.35

Maximum mean ingestion rate
from Ognev (1950) as cited in
EPA (1993)

2.4%

EPA, 1993

0.21

Ernst (1958) as cited in
EPA (1993)

98

2

0

0

0

Average of studies
listed in EPA (1993)

0.037 ha

Female,

Massachusetts/grassy
meadow; Ostfeld, et al
(1988) as cited in EPA
(1993')

Short-tailed
shrew

0.62

Barrett and Stuek, 1976, as cited
in EPA (1993)

3.0%

Attachment 4-1, OSWER
Directive 9285.7-55, rev. April
(2007)

0.223

Chew (1951) as cited in
EPA (1993)

15.1

79.4

0

0

0

Average of the diet
studies provided in EPA
(1993)

0.36 ha

Maximum range for adult
female in summer, Blair
(1940) as cited in EPA
(1993)

Mink

0.22

Estimated year-round rate for
adult male, EPA (1993)

2.0%

Recommended value listed in
USCHPPM (2004)

0.099

Estimated value for adult
male, EPA (1993)

0

7

6

0

85

Michigan, river, year-
round, Alexander
(1977) as cited in EPA
(1993)

7.8 ha

Adult female, Montana
riverine with heavy
vegetation, Mitchell
(1961) as cited in EPA
(1993^1

Page 1 of 2

-------
Table H.2

Exposure Parameters for Upper Trophic Level Ecological Receptors

Notes:

(1)	Food ingestion rate, soil/sediment ingestion rate, and dietary composition provided by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Biological Technical Advisory Group

(2)	Unless otherwise noted, ingestion rates provided in wet food weight per body weight.

(3)	Assumed water content of terrestrial diet components is: 85% plants, 9.3% seeds, 84% earthworms, and 68% small mammals (Attachment 4-1, EPA, 2003).

(4)	Assumed water content of aquatic diet components is 75% fish, 75.5% amphibians, and 78% benthic invertebrates. Table 4-1 of Wildlife Exposure Factors Flandbook, EPA/600/R-93/187, December 1993.

ha = hectare.	EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency,

g/g-day = grams per gram a day.	OSWER = Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

% = percent.	NA = not available

Duke, G.E., J.G. Ciganek, and O.A. Evanson, 1993. Food consumption and energy, water, and nitrogen budgets in captive great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 44(2):283-292.
EPA, 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/R-93/187.

Flamer, Thomas E., Eric D. Forsman, and Elizabeth M. Glenn, 2007. Flome range attributes and habitat selection of barred owls and spotted owls in an area of sympatry. The Candor. 109:750-768.

Fludgins, J. E.; Storm, G. L.; Wakeley, J. S., 1985. Local movements and diurnal-habitat selection by male woodcock in Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 614-619.

Sperry, C., 1940. Food habits of a group of shore birds; woodcock, snipe, knot, and dowitcher. U. S. Dept. Int., Bur. Biol. Survey, Wildl. Res. Bull. 1; 37 pp.

Stickel, W. H.; Flayne, D. W.; Stickel, L. F., 1965. Effects of heptachlor-contaminated earthworms on woodcocks. J. Wildl. Manage. 29: 132-146.

Terres, J., 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

U.S. Army Center for Flealth Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USCF1PPM), 2004. Development of Terrestrial Exposure and Bioaccumulation Information for the Army Risk Assessment Modeling System. April.

Weeks, H.P., Jr. 1994. Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe). In The Birds of North America, No. 94 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Page 2 of 2

-------
Table H.3
Avian NOAELs

Ansilvlc

NOAEL
(m»/k»-b\\-il:iy)

CiUilion

Arsenic

2.24

EPA, 2005a

Cadmium

1.47

EPA, 2005b

Chromium (III)

2.66

EPA, 2008

Copper

4.05

EPA, 2007a

Lead

1.63

EPA, 2005c

Mercury'11

0.0064

Sample, et al., 1996

Nickel

6.71

EPA, 2007b

Selenium

0.29

EPA, 2007c

Silver

2.02

EPA, 2006

Zinc

66.1

EPA, 2007d

Low Molecular Weight PAHs

1653

Appendix 5.1, EPA, 2007e

High Molecular Weight PAHs

2

Appendix 5.2, EPA, 2007e

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

No TRV



1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

No TRV



Aldrin

No TRV



Chlordane

2.14

Sample, et al., 1996

DDT and Metabolites

0.227

EPA, 2007f

Dieldrin

0.0709

EPA, 2007g

Endosulfan (alpha and beta)

10

Sample, et al., 1996

Endrin

0.01

Sample, et al., 1996

Heptachlor

No TRV



Heptachlor epoxide

No TRV



alpha-BHC

Use NOAEL for BHC mixed
isomers



beta-BHC



delta-BHC



gamma-BHC

2

Sample, et al., 1996

BHC mixed isomers

0.56

Sample, et al., 1996

Methoxychlor

No TRV



Aroclor 1248[21

0.18

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1254

0.18

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1260[21

0.18

Sample, et al., 1996

[1]	Mercury in the form of methyl mercury dicyandiamide

[2]	NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate

mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value

References

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.

EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.

EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.

EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.

EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.

EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.

EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.

EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.

EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.

EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9278.7-78, June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.

EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.

EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table H.4
Mammalian NOAELs

Aiiiilvtc

NOAEL
b\\-il:iy)

Ciliilioii

Arsenic

1.04

EPA, 2005a

Cadmium

0.77

EPA, 2005b

Chromium (III)

2.4

EPA, 2008

Copper

5.6

EPA, 2007a

Lead

4.7

EPA, 2005c

Mercury

0.054 (meadow vole)
0.07 (short-tailed shrew)
0.015 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Nickel

1.7

EPA, 2007b

Selenium

0.143

EPA, 2007c

Silver

6.02

EPA, 2006

Zinc

75.4

EPA, 2007d

Low Molecular Weight PAHs

65.6

EPA, 2007e

High Molecular Weight PAHs

0.615

EPA, 2007e

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

No TRV



1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

No TRV



Aldrin

0.336 (meadow vole)
0.44 (short-tailed shrew)
0.154 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Chlordane

4.2 (meadow vole)
5.5 (short-tailed shrew)
1.9 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

DDT and metabolites

0.147

EPA, 2007f

Dieldrin

0.015

EPA, 2007g

Endosulfan

0.25 (meadow vole)
0.33 (short-tailed shrew)
0.12 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Endrin

0.084 (meadow vole)
0.109 (short-tailed shrew)
0.038 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Heptachlor

0.218 (meadow vole)
0.286 (short-tailed shrew)
0.1 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Heptachlor Epoxide'21

0.218 (meadow vole)
0.286 (short-tailed shrew)
0.1 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

alpha-BHC

Use NOAEL for BHC mixed
isomers



beta-BHC



delta-BHC



gamma-BHC

13.4 (meadow vole)
17.6 (short-tailed shrew)
6.15 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

BHC Mixed Isomers

2.69 (meadow vole)
3.52 (short-tailed shrew)
0.014 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Methoxychlor

6.7 (meadow vole)
8.8 (short-tailed shrew)
3.1 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1248

0.033 (meadow vole)
0.043 (short-tailed shrew)
0.015 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1254

0.051 (meadow vole)
0.067 (short-tailed shrew)
0.14 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1260[31

0.051 (meadow vole)
0.067 (short-tailed shrew)
0.14 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

[1]	Mercury in the form of methylmercury chloride

[2]	NOAEL for heptachlor used as a surrogate

[3]	NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate

mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value

References

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suterll, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.

EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.

EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.

EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.

EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.

EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.

EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.

EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.

EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.

EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-78. June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.

EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.

EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table H.5
Avian LOAELs

A n :il vie

I.OAElJ"
(m»/k»-b\\-il:iv)

C'iliilion

( omnvnl

Arsenic

3.55

EPA, 2005a

Lowest LOAEL greater than the NOAEL;
bounded LOAELs not listed in Table 5.1 ol
EPA, 2005a

Cadmium

2.37

EPA, 2005b

Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL

Chromium (trivalent)

2.78

EPA, 2008

Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL

Copper

12.1

EPA, 2007a

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Lead

3.26

EPA, 2005c

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Mercury'1

0.064

Sample, et al., 1996

Nickel

11.5

EPA, 2007b

Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL

Selenium

0.579

EPA, 2007c

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Silver

20.2

EPA, 2006

Lowest LOAEL for reproduction, growth,
and survival

Zinc

86.6

EPA, 2007d

Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL

Low Molecular Weight PAHs

No TRV

High Molecular Weight PAHs

EPA, 2007e

Appendix 5.2; only LOAEL listed

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

No TRV

1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

No TRV

Aldrin

No TRV

Chlordane

10.7

Sample, et al., 1996

DDT and Metabolites

2.27

EPA, 2007f

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Dieldrin

3.78

EPA, 2007g

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Endosulfan
(alpha and beta)

No TRV

Endrin

0.1

Sample, et al., 1996

Heptachlor

No TRV

Heptachlor epoxide

No TRV

alpha-BHC

Use NOAEL for BHC
mixed isomers

beta-BHC

delta-BHC

gamma-BHC

Sample, et al., 1996

BHC mixed isomers

2.25

Sample, et al., 1996

Methoxychlor

No TRV

Aroclor 1248^

1.8

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1254

1.8

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1260[2]

1.8

Sample, et al., 1996

[1] Mercury in the form of methyl mercury dicyandiamide

[2] NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate

mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day

Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level

LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level

NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level

TRV = toxicity reference value

References

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.

EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.

EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.

EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.

EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.

EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.

EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.

EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.

EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.

EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9278.7-78, June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.

EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.

EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.

Page 1 of 1

-------
Table H.6
Mammalian LOAELs

Aiiiilvlc

LOAEL[1]
(mg/kg-bw-day)

CiUition

Comment

Arsenic

1.66

EPA, 2005a

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Cadmium

7.7

EPA, 2005b

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Chromium (III)

2.82

EPA, 2008

Lowest LOAEL greater than the NOAEL;
bounded LOAELs not listed in Table 6.1 of
EPA, 2008

Copper

9.34

EPA, 2007a

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Lead

8.9

EPA, 2005c

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Mercury'11

0.269 (meadow vole)
0.352 (short-tailed shrew)
0.025 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Nickel

3.4

EPA, 2007b

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Selenium

0.215

EPA, 2007c

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Silver

60.2

EPA, 2006

Lowest LOAEL for reproduction, growth, and
survival

Zinc

75.9

EPA, 2007d

Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL

Low Molecular Weight
PAHs

328

EPA, 2007e

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

High Molecular Weight

3.07

EPA, 2007e

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

NoTRV





1,3 -Dichlorobenzene

NoTRV





Aldrin

1.68 (meadow vole)
2.2 (short-tailed shrew)
0.769 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Chlordane

8.4 (meadow vole)
10.9 (short-tailed shrew)
3.8 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



DDT and Metabolites

0.735

EPA, 2007f

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Dieldrin

0.03

EPA, 2007g

LOAEL associated with the NOAEL

Endosulfan

NoTRV





Endrin

0.836 (meadow vole)
1.09 (short-tailed shrew)
0.383 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Heptachlor

2.18 (meadow vole)
2.86 (short-tailed shrew)
1 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Heptachlor Epoxide'21

2.18 (meadow vole)
2.86 (short-tailed shrew)
1 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



alpha-BHC

Use NOAEL for BHC mixed
isomers





beta-BHC





delta-BHC





gamma-BHC

NoTRV





BHC Mixed Isomers

5.37 (meadow vole)
7.03 (short-tailed shrew)
0.14 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Methoxychlor

13.4 (meadow vole)
17.6 (short-tailed shrew)
6.2 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Aroclor 1248

0.33 (meadow vole)
0.43 (short-tailed shrew)
0.15 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996



Page 1 of 2

-------
Table H.6
Mammalian LOAELs

Aiiiilvlc

LOAEL111
(mg/kg-bw-day)

CiUition

Comment

Aroclor 1254

0..51 (meadow vole)
0.67 (short-tailed shrew)
0.69 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

Aroclor 1260[31

0.51 (meadow vole)
0.67 (short-tailed shrew)
0.69 (mink)

Sample, et al., 1996

[1] Mercury in the form of methylmercury chloride

[2] NOAEL for heptachlor used as a surrogate

[3] NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate

mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value

References

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suterll, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.