DRAFT FINAL
Human Health Risk Assessment
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Operable Unit No. 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025
Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW
DCN 06-8499
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
CH2MHILL
February 2006
9223551
008336
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC
008337
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
Executive Summary vii
Source Materials vii
Chemicals of Potential Concern viii
Exposure Evaluation viii
Current Residential Exposures viii
Future Residential ix
Recreational Activities x
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 General Obj ectives of the HHRA 1-2
1.2 Overview of the Superfund HHRA Process 1-2
1.3 Geographic Area Considered in the HHRA 1-4
1.4 Demographics of the Population 1-4
2.0 Chemicals of Potential Concern 2-1
2.1 General 2-1
2.2 Source Materials 2-2
2.2.1 Chat 2-2
2.2.2 Chat Base 2-3
2.2.3 Fine Tailings 2-3
2.3 Soils 2-5
2.4 Ground Water 2-6
2.5 Edible Plants 2-6
2.6 Fish 2-7
2.7 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 2-7
3.0 Exposure Assessment 3-1
3.1 Potential Exposure Pathways and Receptors 3-1
3.2 Exposure Point Concentrations 3-1
3.2.1 Chat and Tailings 3-3
3.2.2 Soils 3-3
3.2.3 Ground Water 3-4
3.2.4 Edible Plants 3-4
3.2.5 Fish 3-4
3.2.6 Ambient Air 3-5
3.2.7 Beef 3-5
3.2.8 Small Game 3-5
3.2.9 Aquatic Life 3-6
3.2.10 Milk 3-6
3.3 Intake Estimates 3-7
4.0 Toxicity Assessment 4-1
4.1 For Non-carcinogens Other Than Lead 4-1
4.2 For Lead 4-1
4.3 For Carcinogens (Cadmium) 4-2
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC i FEBRUARY 2006
008338
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
5.0 Risk Characterization 5-1
5.1 Approach for Carcinogens 5-1
5.2 Approach for Non-carcinogens Other than Lead 5-1
5.3 Approach for Lead 5-2
5.4 Results 5-3
5.4.1 Current Child Resident (General Public) 5-3
5.4.2 Current Adult Resident (General Public) 5-4
5.4.3 Current Child Resident (Native American) 5-5
5.4.4 Current Adult Resident (Native American, High-Fish and
High-Beef Diets) 5-5
5.4.5 Current Adult Resident (More Typical Native American) 5-6
5.4.6 Current/Future Recreator 5-6
5.4.7 Future Child Resident (General Public and Native American) 5-6
5.4.8 Future Adult Resident (General Public) 5-7
5.4.9 Future Adult Resident (Native American) 5-8
6.0 Blood Lead Studies in Tar Creek 6-1
6.1 Datasets Reviewed 6-1
6.2 Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs 6-2
6.3 Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund
Site as a Whole 6-3
6.4 Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs 6-3
6.5 Data Limitations 6-3
6.6 Interventions 6-4
6.7 Conclusions 6-4
7.0 Uncertainties 7-1
7.1 Data Evaluation 7-1
7.2 Exposure Assessment 7-1
7.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations 7-2
7.2.2 Estimated Intakes 7-4
7.3 Toxicity Assessment 7-6
7.4 Risk Characterization 7-6
8.0 Preliminary Remediation Goals 8-1
8.1 Groundwater 8-1
8.2 Rural Residential Soil 8-2
8.2.1 General Public Rural Residential Use 8-2
8.2.2 Native American Rural Residential Land Use 8-5
8.3 Rural Non-Residential Soil/Source Material 8-8
8.3.1 Recreational Use 8-8
8.3.2 Pastureland 8-10
8.4 Food Items 8-12
8.4.1 Fish 8-12
8.4.2 Plants 8-12
8.4.3 Evaluation of Correlation Between Edible Plants and Soil 8-13
8.5 Other Rural Areas 8-16
8.6 Uncertainties in PRGs 8-17
8.7 Conclusions 8-18
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC II
008339
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
10.0 References
,.9-1
10-1
List of Tables
Table 1-1
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Table 8-3
Table 8-4
Table 8-5
Table 8-6
Table 8-7
Table 8-8
Table 8-9
Table 8-10
Table 8-11
Table 8-12
Table 8-13
Table 8-14
Table 8-15
Table 8-16
Table 8-17
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Ottawa County, Oklahoma Towns and Population, 2001
Risk Summary - General Public Exposures
Risk Summary - Native American Exposures
Risk Summary - Recreator Exposures
Cadmium - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Zinc - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of
Homegrown Produce
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of Beef from
Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of
Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Cadmium - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Zinc - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Beef from Cattle
Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Child Consumption of 50% of Beef and
Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Lead - Source Material PRGs Based on Recreational Adolescent Scenario
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Milk from
Cattle Grazing on Pastureland
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Beef from
Cattle Grazing on Pastureland
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of
Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Pastureland
Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Regression and Correlation Statistics for
Predictive Equations
Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Excluded Plant-Soil Data Pairs
Mean Root Soil Concentrations at Edible Plant Sampling Locations
Tar Creek Vicinity
Residential Yard Sampling Locations
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC III
008340
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
List of Appendices
Appendix A Split and Supplemental Sampling Summary
Appendix B Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area
Appendix C RAGS Part D Tables
Appendix D Air Emissions Modeling
Appendix E Air Modeling
Appendix F Biota Modeling
Appendix G IEUBK Modeling
Appendix H Adult Lead Modeling
Appendix I Future Blood Lead Level Modeling
Appendix J Statistical Evaluation of Future Soil Concentrations
Appendix K Typical Native American Risk Calculations
Appendix L ProUCL Output
Appendix M Report to Congress
Appendix N Preliminary Remediation Goal Calculations
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC IV
008341
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
|im
micrometer
ALM
Adult Lead Methodology
ANOVA
Analysis of Variance
AOC
Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ATV
All Terrain Vehicle
BAF
Bioaccumulation Factor
BCF
Bioconcentration Factor
bgs
below ground surface
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLL
blood lead level
CDC
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDI
chronic daily intake
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CHAMP
Community Health Action and Monitoring Program
CLPPSS
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Surveillance System
COC
Chemical of Concern
COPC
Chemical of Potential Concern
ELCR
excess lifetime cancer risk
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPC
exposure point concentration
ERA
Ecological Risk Assessment
HEAST
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
Hazard Index
HQ
Hazard Quotient
IEUBK
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
LOAEL
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MSSL
Medium-Specific Screening Level
NCEA
National Center for Environmental Assessment
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NHANES
National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys
NOAEL
no-ob served-adverse-effect level
OCHD
Ottawa County Health Department
OCLPPP
Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
ODEQ
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OSDH
Oklahoma State Department of Health
OU4
Operable Unit No. 4
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC v FEBRUARY 2006
008342
-------
ppm
parts per million
PPRTV
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values
PRG
Preliminary Remediation Goal
PSCS
Preliminary Site Characterization Study
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RfC
reference concentration
RfD
reference dose
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RME
reasonable maximum exposure
SF
Slope Factor
TAL
Target Analyte List
TEAL
Tribal Efforts Against Lead
UCL95
95% Upper Confidence Limit
WIC
Women, Infants, and Children
WP
Work Plan
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC VI
008343
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Executive Summary
On December 9, 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Respondents for Operable Unit 4
(OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (the Site) in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (EPA, 2003).
The site is shown on Figure 1, which has been provided by the Respondents in their Data
Gaps Analysis Report (AATA, 2004). As part of this agreement, EPA agreed to complete the
Baseline Risk Assessment that included a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). Under the agreement, the Respondents were responsible
for completing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 that also included
providing EPA with data necessary to complete the risk assessments.
The AOC defines OU4 as the:
"noncontiguous, asymmetrical parts of the Site (both urban and rural) that are not
presently usedfor residential purposes or which are sparsely usedfor residential
purposes, where mine and mill residues and smelter waste have been deposited,
stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise come to be located as a result of mining,
milling, smelting or related operations. OU4 includes residential yards located in
Ottawa County outside of city or town limits except for those residential yards that
have been addressed under Operable Unit 2 (OU2)."
CH2M HILL was contracted by EPA to complete the HHRA for OU4 under Contract No.
68-W6-0025. The ERA was to be performed by others at EPA's direction. The HHRA work
was completed through an approved project work plan (WP) and subsequent work plan
revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW (CH2M HILL, 2004, 2005a, and
2005b). Under this work assignment, CH2M HILL was directed to perform additional
activities associated with the Respondents' RI/FS, which are further discussed in Appendix A.
This HHRA considers potential hazards to current residents (both general public and Native
American), and possible limitations on future residential or recreational activities within OU4.
Source Materials
Several residual mining materials in the area have been shown to have elevated
concentrations of metals - particularly lead, cadmium, and zinc. Levels of these chemicals
of potential concern (COPCs) in source materials frequently exceed values that are
considered protective for residential uses. These materials (mine tailings, chat) are
distributed within the OU4 Area, and in some cases, these materials have been used as fill
material on rural residential properties. The primary waste areas (chat piles, millponds, and
chat bases) are located throughout OU4, covering approximately 10 percent of the land in this
area.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC vii FEBRUARY 2006
008344
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Lead is the primary COPC. Cadmium and zinc have also been identified as COPCs in the
AOC. Lead and/or cadmium exceeded residential screening values at only eight residential
yards evaluated during the RI, and one residential yard (at the former smelter) was
subsequently remediated. Zinc concentrations were less than residential screening values in
residential yard samples.
In 10 percent of the samples, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals were analyzed. Although six
metals were detected in soil above their Medium-Specific Screening Level (MSSL), they are
either primarily associated with the smelter area, were only detected at a few locations above
their MSSLs and background concentrations, or do not appear to be mining-related. These
data support the focus on the COPCs, and specifically lead. Children are particularly
sensitive to lead exposure and, historically, elevated blood lead levels in children have been
measured in the Tar Creek area.
Exposure Evaluation
The potential hazards for residents in the OU4 area are dependent on their proximity to
source areas (where elevated concentrations of lead have been identified) and their activities
in these areas. At rural residential properties, the public may be exposed directly through
breathing airborne contaminants or contacting contaminated soil. Increased exposures are
associated with Native American exposure scenarios due to their cultural practices of
hunting, gathering, ceremonial practices, and use of natural resources for crafts, medicines,
and foods.
While data have been collected to evaluate properties that are currently under residential land
use, it is clear that elevated lead concentrations in waste source areas make them unsuitable
as future rural residential areas in their current condition. Impacted areas of soil near these
source areas generally decrease with distance; however, over time, redistribution of the waste
to a larger area may occur with physical activities in the area.
Current Residential Exposures
Each residential property sampled for the Tar Creek OU4 investigation was evaluated for
contact with impacted soil, ground water (if a private well is present), and ambient air. The
primary exposure occurs through contact with soil.
• Only seven homes were associated with one or more surface soil (0-1 inch or 0-6
inch) samples with concentrations above the lead remedial goal of 500 mg/kg for
private properties. Four of these were clearly associated with likely sources:
o One was immediately adjacent to the former Ottawa smelter (and this
residential yard was subsequently remediated in November 2005)
o Three others showed visible chat fragments.
• The homes with the highest soil concentrations were not located near each other, and
in some cases, nearby homes did not show elevated concentrations.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC VIII
008345
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• At some locations, an elevated lead concentration was present in an isolated sample;
further evaluation may be needed to clarify if the lead-impacted soil sample is
attributable to mining sources.
For the general public scenarios evaluated, cadmium and zinc concentrations were within
acceptable risk levels, but for the Native American residents, the concentrations exceeded
acceptable risk levels due to estimated intakes from food items. Lead concentrations
exceeded the target blood lead level (BLL) at four individual residences, but the
neighborhood average BLL is within the target range. The residence with the highest
exceedance (at the former smelter) was subsequently remediated in November 2005.
Concentrations of lead, cadmium, and zinc at many of the rural residential properties
sampled were similar to background. In all cases, lead was the primary COPC. Cadmium
concentrations were elevated above residential screening levels at only four properties, and
one property (the same home at the former smelter, mentioned above) was subsequently
remediated in November 2005. With the exception of one property, lead concentrations were
also elevated at these properties and associated sources were identified. Zinc did not exceed
soil screening values at any location.
Modeled air lead concentrations at the 46 residences were all below the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (1.5 |ig/m3), and were a minor contributor to the overall
estimate of hazard at these homes.
Ground water samples were collected at locations where shallow private wells were being
used, not necessarily where homes were located near source areas. Of the 13 residential
wells sampled, two slightly exceed tap water MSSLs for lead (i.e., the maximum detected
concentration was 0.028 |ig/L versus 0.015 |ig/L). These properties were located near each
other, but homes sampled in these areas did not show elevated concentrations of lead in soil.
Cadmium and lead were detected above background in these wells, suggesting potential
mining-related impacts. Exposures to groundwater were quantified in the HHRA by both
general public and Native American residents. The HHRA does not address future uses of
impacted shallow groundwater at locations other than those sampled as part of OU4, and
restrictions on potable use of shallow groundwater may be warranted in other locations.
There is the potential for future concentrations in the wells to increase. If concentrations
remain low, no additional risks will be identified. However, because lead concentrations are
currently above the MCL at two wells, the cause of the elevated levels and the need for an
alternative water supply should be evaluated.
Native American lifestyle differences, including gathering plants grown on, or hunting
animals that feed near, source areas will increase exposure to COPCs in soils. These
activities may not be suitable in locations with elevated concentrations of lead that may
otherwise be protective using assumptions appropriate for the general public.
Future Residential
Many areas in OU4 are not suitable for future residential development without remedial
actions to decrease surface concentrations of lead. The challenge for the Tar Creek OU4 area
is that waste materials are distributed in many locations throughout this large area, and may
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC IX
008346
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
comprise up to 10 percent of the total land area based on current data showing the
distribution of waste and associated contaminated soils nearby (i.e., transition zone soils). In
addition, it is likely that some changes in soil impacts will occur over time. It is also possible
that chat has been used in localized areas as fill material, and would not clearly be identified
by the proximity of these areas to current locations of chat piles or mill ponds.
The following assumptions are made regarding possible future residential development
within the OU4 area:
• Waste materials will continue to contain elevated levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc
(unsuitable for residential use).
• Areas near waste sources will show elevated soil concentrations; modeling indicates
that soil lead concentrations could be as high as 18,900 parts per million (ppm) and air
concentrations could be as high as 0.18 |ig/m3; air concentrations do not exceed the
NAAQS and are not a concern.
• If the waste piles remain, over time, the impacted area of soils may increase if physical
activities distribute source materials.
• The closer that homes are placed to source areas, the more the likelihood increases that
these materials may be more accessible, particularly for adolescents who may play in
these areas.
Current data suggest that typically within 300 feet of a source area, soil concentrations
significantly decrease. The 56 soil samples collected from non-residential rural areas in
December 2005 indicate that lead concentrations are near background at locations not
immediately adjacent to source materials.
Recreational Activities
Assuming daily recreational activities on chat piles, chat bases, and mill ponds when weather
permits, BLLs exceed EPA's target level. Potential hazards associated with waste materials
are reduced if activities in these areas are less frequent. Therefore, areas that may not be
suitable for residential use (350 days/year for 30 years) may be within acceptable risk levels
for less frequent recreational activities.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC X
008347
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
1.0 Introduction
On December 9, 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered
into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Respondents for Operable Unit 4
(OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (the Site) in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (EPA, 2003).
The site is shown in Figure 1, which has been provided by the Respondents in their Data
Gaps Analysis Report (AATA, 2004). As part of this agreement, EPA agreed to complete the
Baseline Risk Assessment that included a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). Under the agreement, the Respondents were responsible
for completing a Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of OU4 that also
included providing EPA with data necessary to complete the risk assessments.
The AOC defines OU4 as the:
"noncontiguous, asymmetrical parts of the Site (both urban and rural) that are not
presently usedfor residential purposes or which are sparsely usedfor residential
purposes, where mine and mill residues and smelter waste have been deposited,
stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise come to be located as a result of mining,
milling, smelting or related operations. OU4 includes residential yards located in
Ottawa County outside of city or town limits except for those residential yards that
have been addressed under Operable Unit 2 (OU2)."
The remedial objectives of the 1984 ROD were to mitigate the potential threat to public
health and the environment by preventing contamination of the Roubidoux Aquifer, and by
minimizing damage to Tar Creek from acid mine drainage. The remedy selected in the 1984
ROD included diversion of surface flows at three mine collapse features, and also included
the plugging of 66 Roubidoux wells (later increased to 83 during construction). The scope of
the 1984 ROD did not address public health concerns related to direct exposure to the mining
waste located on the ground surface as addressed in this risk assessment.
CH2M HILL was contracted by EPA to complete the HHRA for OU4 under Contract No.
68-W6-0025. The ERA was to be performed by others at EPA's direction. The HHRA work
was completed through an approved project work plan (WP) and subsequent work plan
revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW (CH2M HILL, 2004, 2005a, and
2005b). Under this work assignment, CH2M HILL was directed to perform the following
additional activities associated with the Respondents' RI/FS, which are further discussed in
Appendix A:
• Perform limited oversight of the Respondents' sampling efforts.
• Collect split samples of the Respondents' samples.
• Collect supplemental samples in support of the HHRA and, to a limited extent, the
ERA.
• Collect edible plant samples requested by the Quapaw Tribe.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008348
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
1.1 General Objectives of the HHRA
The objectives of an HHRA are two-fold: first, to estimate the level of risk to human health
associated with concentrations of environmental contaminants; and second, if that risk is
found to be unacceptable, to calculate media-specific cleanup levels that will protect human
health.
Risks are estimated for current uses of a site as well as foreseeable future uses. All
contaminated media are considered (such as soil and water) if individuals are likely to be
exposed to the media. All relevant routes of exposure are also considered, including direct
contact (inhalation, ingestion, dermal exposure) and indirect contact (exposure to food items
that have accumulated contaminants through the soil).
Cleanup levels are calculated based on the relationship between contaminants and risk as
defined in the risk assessment and a policy decision (risk management) about the level of risk
that is considered acceptable. As a result, cleanup levels for a single contaminant can vary
from one site to another either because the relationship between environmental levels and
risk differs or because different policy decisions have been made concerning the level of
acceptable risk.
For this specific HHRA, the general public and Native American cultural practices (via a
subsistence receptor scenario) are addressed in the risk estimates.
1.2 Overview of the Superfund HHRA Process
An HHRA typically is described as including four steps: data collection and analysis,
exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The first step includes
collecting data on the characteristics of the site and the COPCs.
The second step in an HHRA involves exposure assessment, including identifying the
populations of individuals exposed to hazards at the specific site and how those exposures
may occur. At OU4, the HHRA identifies the general public and local Native Americans as
primary populations of concern for lead, cadmium, and zinc exposure. Potential pathways of
exposure are defined, such as children ingesting soil and house dust, and Native Americans
eating locally-grown foods within their tribal jurisdictions. In addition to identifying the
potential pathways of exposure, this step involves defining several parameters (for which
there are insufficient measured data) that govern the estimated risk from each exposure
pathway. These assumptions, or default values, are assumed to be representative of a
population, although they often include a conservative safety factor. These parameters
include things such as time spent indoors and outdoors.
The third step is toxicity assessment, or identifying and quantifying a chemical's intrinsic
toxic properties. Again, at this point in the development of risk assessment, based on
numerous controlled animal and/or human experiments and on epidemiological studies,
toxicity parameters have been established by EPA and other agencies for many chemicals. At
times, when a great deal of information is known about a chemical's toxicity, this step
involves examining an EPA database for the chemical-specific cancer slope factor (SF) or
reference dose.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-2
008349
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The fourth step, risk characterization, combines the results of the first three steps into an
estimate of risk. The estimated risk is then compared with a level of risk deemed
"acceptable" according to risk management decisions (see below) and the site is thereby
identified as either having acceptable risk levels or in need of remedial measures.
All the risk assessment steps described above inherently incorporate uncertainty. Each of the
steps generally involves extrapolation from observations in one set of circumstances (such as
the effect of known, high doses of a chemical given to laboratory animals over a short
period) to the circumstances of interest (such as the potential effects of unknown, small doses
of a mixture including the tested chemical on humans over a lifetime). Each such
extrapolation introduces qualitative and quantitative uncertainties; and an adequate HHRA
describes qualitatively, and if possible quantitatively, the sizes and types of such
uncertainties.
EPA's preferred focus is on the individual with reasonable maximum exposure (RME). .
EPA defines RME as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site. The
RME risk is compared with the acceptable level of risk when determining whether remedial
measures are needed.
If risks are found to be unacceptable, thus requiring remediation, then the models used in the
risk assessment are also used to determine acceptable concentrations of contaminants,
equated to "cleanup levels." It is important to note that a cleanup level calculated in this way
is applicable over the same geographic area as was assessed in the risk calculation and
represents the same mathematical formulation used for the concentration term in the risk
assessment. For example, if the chronic risk to a child exposed over several years to the
average contaminant concentration in his/her yard is found to be unacceptable, then a cleanup
level derived from the corresponding risk equation will represent the acceptable average
concentration for soil in the yard. As a further example, if a risk calculation focused solely on
a heavily-used play area finds unacceptable risk, the cleanup level calculated from that risk
equation will represent the acceptable average concentration for the play area. However, the
derivation of an actual cleanup level is typically controversial, partly due to the uncertainties
associated with each piece of information that goes into the mathematical derivation of the
cleanup number.
Finally, a distinction needs to be drawn between risk assessment and risk management.
Simply put, risk assessment is scientific and involves identifying pathways of exposure and
some mathematical calculations; risk management involves policy and societal values.
Cleanup levels are calculated on the basis of a policy decision about the level of acceptable
risk as well as on the basis of the mathematical risk assessment. Further, the assessment of
uncertainty in a risk assessment may lead to the development of more than one possible
cleanup level, or a range of cleanup levels. A risk manager will choose a cleanup level from
the range, after considering other site characteristics such as technical feasibility of the
remediation, public desires, and so forth. As a result, a cleanup level may not be directly
linked to an actual risk calculation, but it is generally expected that the cleanup level chosen
during the risk management process will fall within a range developed in the course of the
risk assessment.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-3
008350
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
1.3 Geographic Area Considered in the HHRA
The Site is a former lead and zinc mining area located in the northern portion of Ottawa
County, Oklahoma. This area is part of the Tri-State Mining District located at the junction
of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. The Site has no clearly defined boundaries, but occupies
approximately 40 square miles consisting of the Ottawa County, Oklahoma, portion of the
Picher Field mining region and any area where a hazardous substance from mining or milling
in Ottawa County has been stored or disposed. The Site is bound to the north by the State of
Kansas. The principal communities include Cardin, Commerce, North Miami, Picher, and
Quapaw. Approximately 19,556 people live onsite in the mining area and in communities in
proximity to the mining area (EPA, 2004). Additional information regarding the Site history
is presented in the AOC under Section VI - EPA's Findings of Fact (EPA, 2003).
As a result of mining and milling operations, large quantities of tailings were deposited on
the surface of the ground in piles, locally known as "chat piles" (some of which rise to a
height of 200 feet) and in ponds, or "flotation ponds." Most of the flotation ponds are now
dry. Figure 1 presents the Site boundaries and topography (AATA, 2004).
AATA (2004) summarized residual mining materials remaining on soils (source materials) as
follows:
Source
Material
Chat Piles
Number
83
Approximate
Area (Acres)
767
Chat Base
243
2080
Tailing Ponds 63
820
Comment
Chat is the larger particle sized tailings from the gravity
separation milling process used in the Tri-State Mining
District and consists of mainly fine gravel to coarse
sand sized rock fragments plus minor amount smaller
intermingled material such as medium to fine sands,
silt, and clay. Chat was typically deposited in large
piles, collectively referred to as "chat piles."
Area that was once occupied by a chat pile. Chat
bases can be either vegetated or non-vegetated, and
generally have little or no relief. Thickness of
remaining chat range from inches to a few feet
(average estimated at 2 feet)
Flotation tailings were generated during the metal
extraction process or milling; washed fines were
generated later as a by-product during washing of chat
for commercial aggregate sale. Almost all the flotation
tailings at the Site are covered with washed fines, and
portions contain only washed fines.
1.4 Demographics of the Population
The Respondents have researched the demographics of the Site and presented them in the
approved Data Gaps Analysis Report (AATA, 2004). Below are excerpts taken directly from
the report:
The Tar Creek Task Force (2000), the State of Oklahoma Web site, and the US Census
Bureau Web site were the primary sources of data consulted for the demography section.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-4
008351
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Ottawa County has a land area of 471 square miles. The Site is about 40.6 square miles
(about 8.6 percent of the county) located in the northeast corner of the county. The Site is
mostly used for agriculture and is sparsely populated.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population of Ottawa County in 2001 was 33,046
people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Table 1-1 provides a list of the primary towns in
Ottawa County and their populations in 2001.
Table 1-1
Ottawa County, Oklahoma Towns and Population, 2001
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Town
Population
Afton
945
Cardin
175
Commerce
2,451
Fairland
904
Miami
12,760
N. Miami
448
Peoria
151
Picher
1,674
Quapaw
985
Wyandotte
361
Rural**
12,192
Total for Ottawa County
33,046
* Source: State of Oklahoma Web site: www.state.ok.us/osfdocs/cities.html
** Source: Result of subtracting urban population from total population.
The 2000 census results indicate that 72.9 percent of the population in Ottawa
County were Caucasian, 16.5 percent were Native American, 3.2 percent were
Hispanic / Latino, 0.6 percent were African American, and 0.3 percent were Asian
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Most people (nearly 75 percent) own their own
home in Ottawa County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The median household
income for Ottawa County in 1999 was $27,507 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
Land use for the Site has been summarized by Luza (1986) and Brown and Root
(1995). Land uses within the Site include agriculture, residential, light industry,
commercial activities or businesses, and recreational uses, with agriculture being
the dominant land use. Brown and Root (1995) classified the primary land uses at
the Site to include the following:
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-5
008352
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
1. Agricultural, including crop farming and pasture grazing;
2. Residential, including homes, schools, nursing homes, government housing,
churches, playgrounds, day care center, others;
3. Industrial, including chat mining, asphalt plants, sand and gravel plants, light
industrial and fabrication plants;
4. Commercial, including small businesses such as grocery stores, florists,
numerous retail shops;
5. Recreational, including ball fields, dirt bike riding, fishing, hunting, and golf.
In the mid-1980s, approximately 2,900 acres of the land surface of the Site (about
11.2 percent) was covered by mine and mill residue (Luza, 1986), as discussed in
Section 2.4.
Recreational land use in Ottawa County include fishing, hunting, golf, Softball,
soccer, and dirt bike riding (some on areas with chat piles) (Brown and Root,
1995). Southeast of the Site is Grand Lake, or Lake o' the Cherokees, a
swimming, boating, camping, and outdoor recreation area. Brown and Root (1995)
summarized the land ownership of the Site as (1) private, (2) government, or
(3) Native American-owned. Figure 18 of the Data Gaps Analysis Report presents
a map of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) trust lands within the Site, provided
by EPA. The land owned by Native Americans accounts for approximately 18.2
percent of the overall area of the Site. A much higher percentage of land (40 to
50 percent) upon which mining residues remain is Native American-owned
(Brown and Root, 1995).
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 1-6
008353
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
2.0 Chemicals of Potential Concern
The Final Data Gaps Analysis Report approved by EPA (AATA, 2004) stated "The mining
and milling of lead and zinc ores since the late 1800s has generated mining and milling
residue that contain elevated concentrations of lead, cadmium, and zinc." These three metals
have remained a focus of subsequent investigations characterizing impacts from mining
activities.
This section provides an overview of the data collected and used to evaluate potential risks
associated with receptors in OU4. This includes a discussion of the overall approach and data
collection / evaluation process, a summary of results by environmental medium, and
documentation that lead, cadmium, and zinc remain the COPCs.
2.1 General
Data used in support of the HHRA were obtained from the Respondents' Draft Preliminary
Site Characterization Summary (PSCS) Report (AATA, 2005) and supplemental sampling
and analysis performed by EPA. A description of the Respondent's sampling program, as
well as a comparison to EPA's split and supplemental sampling program, is summarized in
Appendix A.
In accordance with the project WP and the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), all
analytical data obtained in support of this project were validated according to EPA's National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (EPA, 2004). Sample results were assigned
data qualifiers in the validation process to express the degree of usability based upon overall
data quality. In cases where serious quality control failures were encountered, the data were
rejected and were not used to support project decisions.
The database of environmental chemical analyses available for the HHRA process was
extensive and included hundreds of analyses of metals in chat, tailings, soil, ground water,
fish, and edible wild plants (asparagus, willow, and cattail) in the Tar Creek area. The
following activities are consistent with the approved WPs:
• The geographic location for each sample was documented.
• Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc were typically measured.
• For 10 percent of the samples, a more extensive TAL of metals was analyzed.
For surficial samples to be used for risk estimates, samples were sieved to obtain soil
particles less than 250 micrometer (|im) in diameter prior to chemical analysis. Pre-sieving is
justified by the observation that fine particles preferentially adhere to hands (Duggan et al.
1985; Duggan and Inskip 1985; Sheppard and Evenden 1994; Kissel et al., 1996) and the
assumption that they are, therefore, more likely to be ingested. This is a primary
consideration in decisions regarding what data is to be used in the HHRA for characterizing
potential current risk from incidental ingestion.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008354
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The available data provide a substantial and representative environmental database for the
risk assessment process. However, because of the large geographic area, additional studies of
specific areas may be required as remediation proceeds or land use changes are considered.
Not all substances present at sites pose a human health risk. For example, some of the metals
present in environmental samples from the Tar Creek OU4 are essential nutrients, including
zinc. Yet even zinc, in excess, can pose health risks. Thus, EPA has developed guidelines for
selecting a group of COPCs based on their toxicity, concentration, and other factors (EPA,
1989). Typically, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are used to
compare the observed concentration of a substance in an environmental sample with some
screening value, threshold, or legally-defined concentration in that environmental medium.
For example, the ARARs for drinking water at this site are actually the EPA maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs)—concentrations of substances in drinking water above which
unacceptable health risks to the public may occur. The only ARAR for substances in air that
is relevant at this site is that for lead—the National Ambient Air Quality Criterion for lead.
There are no ARARs at this site for substances in chat, tailings, soil, or biota.
The HHRA considers which COPCs might pose a human health risk for each medium of
possible exposure: chat, tailings, soil, tap water, air, fish, edible aquatic organisms, beef,
milk, small game, and three edible plants (asparagus, willow, and cattail). The process used
was very typical of any HHRA at sites where chemical exposures might occur. It also
considers possible risks due to the ingestion of wild asparagus, willow, and cattail, culturally-
important food sources for Native Americans in the area. Because a "screening value" for
chemicals in edible plants is not known, cadmium, lead, and zinc were evaluated as
chemicals with possible risk, a decision consistent with the evaluation of other food
substances.
In summary, the HHRA appropriately identified COPCs for each potential source of
exposure. However, no effort was made to identify the particular chemical species of lead (or
other metal) in any of these sources. The absence of chemical speciation is less than ideal
because the bioavailability and toxicity of particular chemical species of the same metal can
vary substantially. However, the bioavailability of lead in soil was evaluated at the Jasper
County, Missouri Superfund Site, a similar site to Tar Creek OU4 in terms of waste sources
and environmental conditions (Casteel et al., 1996). Results indicate bioavailability in the
range of 29 to 40 percent. Therefore, the default bioavailability (30 percent) used in this
HHRA is expected to be an appropriate estimate for the site.
The following sections summarize data used in the HHRA by medium.
2.2 Source Materials
2.2.1 Chat
Samples that were representative of chat, or chat piles, were collected by the Respondents as
part of their sampling program. A total of 20 chat piles were sampled. The Respondents
defined chat material as bulk chat or surface chat, depending on the depth at which the
samples were collected. Bulk chat (160 samples) were collected 1 foot below ground surface
(bgs), while surface chat (14 samples) were collected from 0 to 1 inch. Bulk chat and surface
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-2
008355
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
chat samples were prepared or processed differently before analysis. Bulk chat samples were
crushed and ground to pass through a #100 mesh sieve prior to analysis. These data were not
used to characterize current risks associated with receptors contacting these materials;
however, they were used in estimating emission factors for air quality modeling.
Concentrations of lead in these 168 bulk samples ranged from 210-4,980 mg/kg; cadmium 41.3
to 199 mg/kg, and zinc from 10,200 to 40,300 mg/kg.
Surface chat samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve, and the material passing the sieve
was analyzed. These 14 surface chat samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the
depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (for
example, sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Lead concentrations in these 14
samples ranged from 355 to 1,730 mg/kg; cadmium from 40 to 133 mg/kg; and zinc from
8,990 to 29,900 mg/kg.
Sixty-four supplemental samples of chat were collected by EPA and were collected from 0 to
6 inches. The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve
was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which
they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh)
prior to analysis. Lead, cadmium, and zinc were detected in each of these samples. Lead
concentrations in these 64 samples ranged from 162 to 6,410 mg/kg; cadmium from 38.4 to
346 mg/kg; and zinc from 6,260 to 100,000 mg/kg.
2.2.2 Chat Base
Samples that were representative of chat base, or the former remnants of larger chat piles,
were collected by the Respondents as part of their sampling program. A total of six chat
bases were sampled. 22 chat base samples were collected by the Respondents at 1 foot bgs
and were crushed and ground to pass through a #100 mesh sieve prior to analysis. These
samples were not used in the HHRA because of the depth at which they were collected and
the methods by which they were processed.
Twenty-four supplemental samples of chat base were collected by EPA and were collected
from 0 to 6 inches. These 24 samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material
passing the sieve was analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the
depth at which they were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving
using a #60 mesh) prior to analysis. Concentrations of lead in these samples ranged from 552
to 9,600 mg/kg; cadmium from 36.8 to 172 mg/kg; and zinc from 5,690 to 54,300 mg/kg.
2.2.3 Fine Tailings
Fine tailings, also commonly referred to as "tailing ponds" or "mill ponds," were sampled by
the Respondents as part of their sampling program. The fine tailings that were collected were
categorized as washed fines, flotation tailings, or surface fine tailings, based upon the
material collected and the depth of sample collection. Definitions of each are presented in the
Respondents' Draft PSCS Report (AATA, 2005). A total of 169 fine tailings samples were
collected by the Respondents, which included 96 washed fines samples, 53 flotation tailings
samples, and 13 surface fine tailings samples.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-3
008356
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
2.2.3.1 Washed Fines
The Respondents collected depth-integrated composite samples of washed fines from 10 fine
tailings ponds. These 96 samples were not used in the HHRA because they were collected as
a composite over a depth interval (usually 1 foot or more) and were not sieved using a #60
mesh sieve prior to analysis. Concentrations of lead in the washed fines ranged from 220 to
26,600 mg/kg, cadmium ranged from 10 to 320 mg/kg, and zinc ranged from 1,730 to 70,000
mg/kg.
Supplemental samples of washed fines were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The
samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed.
These 38 samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were
collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to
analysis. Concentrations of lead in these 38 samples ranged from 306 to 24,500 mg/kg;
cadmium from 11.5 to 214 mg/kg; and zinc from 1,760 to 43,300 mg/kg.
2.2.3.2 Flotation Tailings
The Respondents collected depth-integrated composite samples of flotation tailings from 10
fine tailings ponds. These 53 samples were not used to estimate risks from direct contact
exposures in the HHRA because they were collected as a composite over a depth interval
(usually 1 foot or more) and were not sieved using a #60 mesh sieve prior to analysis. These
data were considered in the emissions estimates for air modeling. Lead concentrations in
these 53 flotation tailing samples ranged from 1,130 to 17,800 mg/kg; cadmium from 26.3 to
450 mg/kg; and zinc from 4,690 to 103,000 mg/kg.
Supplemental samples of flotation tailings were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The
samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed.
These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were
collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to
analysis.
2.2.3.3 Surface Fine Tailings
The Respondents collected surface fine tailings as part of their sampling program. These
samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and were sieved using a #60 mesh prior to analysis;
therefore, these 13 samples were used in support of the HHRA. In general, the surface fine
tailing samples collected by the Respondents were of washed fines, which are typically found
overlying flotation tailings at the Site. Concentrations of lead in these 38 samples ranged
from 306 to 24,500 mg/kg; cadmium from 11.5 to 214 mg/kg; and zinc from 1,760 to 43,300
mg/kg.
Supplemental samples of surface fine tailings were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The
34 samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was
analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they
were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior
to analysis. Concentrations of lead in these 34 samples ranged from 360 to 24,600 mg/kg;
cadmium from 27.9 to 301 mg/kg; and zinc from 3,800 to 59,500 mg/kg.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-4
008357
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
2.3 Soils
The Respondents collected background, transition zone, smelter-affected, and rural
residential yard soil samples as part of their sampling program. Complete details regarding
their soil sampling efforts are provided in their Draft PSCS Report (AATA, 2005). In
addition, supplemental samples were collected by EPA in non-residential rural areas, away
from source materials.
2.3.1.1 Background Soils
The Respondents collected seven soil samples to evaluate background concentrations for
metals. These samples were collected from 0 to 6 inches and were not sieved. The
background values determined by the Respondents are considered in the HHRA. The average
background concentrations were used for data comparisons in the screening process, and for
use in bio-uptake modeling (Appendix F). These were 0.73 mg/kg for cadmium; 31.25
mg/kg for lead, and 83.25 mg/kg for zinc.
2.3.1.2 Transition Zone Soils
The Respondents collected soil samples along transects that extended from the base of chat
piles outward. Transects were generally located on the north and south sides of the pile and
extended as far as 300 feet away from the pile. Transects were established at a total of five
chat piles, with two transects per pile. The soil samples were collected at varying depths that
included 0 to 1 inch, 6 inches, 12 inches, and 24 inches. Samples from the 0 to 1 inch interval
were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the fraction passing the sieve was analyzed. The 0 to
1 inch samples were used in support of the HHRA.
Supplemental samples of transition zone soils were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches. The
samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was analyzed.
These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they were
collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior to
analysis.
2.3.1.3 Smelter-Affected Soils
The Respondents collected soil samples along transects that extended from the origin of the
former Ottawa smelter area outward. Transects were located to the north and south sides of
the smelter area, with the south transect extending 5,000 feet. Transects to the north were
extended until physical obstructions or limitations prevented further extension. All samples
were collected from 0 to 1 inch and were not sieved prior to analysis. Although the samples
were not sieved, they were used in support of the HHRA due to the need for additional
samples to characterize the area.
Supplemental samples of smelter-affected soils were collected by EPA from 0 to 6 inches.
The samples were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and the material passing the sieve was
analyzed. These samples were used in support of the HHRA due to the depth at which they
were collected and the method by which they were prepared (sieving using a #60 mesh) prior
to analysis.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-5
008358
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
2.3.1.4 Rural Residential Yard Soil
The Respondents collected soil samples at rural residential properties—44 on private land
and two on BIA land (Figure 2). The samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and 0 to 6
inches. The samples collected from 0 to 1 inch were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and
therefore were utilized in support of the HHRA. The samples from 0 to 6 inch depths were
not sieved and, therefore, were not used in the HHRA. It is noted that in some cases, higher
concentrations of lead and zinc were identified in the 0-6 inch interval samples (Appendix
A). Supplemental samples of rural residential yard soil were not collected by EPA.
The highest lead concentration in surface soil samples (8,200 mg/kg) was reported from
61220 East 20 Road, which is located immediately adjacent to the former Ottawa smelter.
Smelter-affected surface soil at this location was remediated in November 2005 and no
longer remains at this location. Therefore, the samples from this location were excluded from
the data used in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).
Furthermore, the Respondents collected soil samples at one additional residential yard (1301
S. 592 RD) in October 2005. The samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch and 0 to 6 inches.
The samples collected from 0 to 1 inch were sieved using a #60 mesh sieve and, therefore,
were used in support of the HHRA. These additional samples were also included in the data
used in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).
2.3.1.5 Rural Area Soil
EPA collected 56 soil samples from non-residential rural areas away from potential source
materials in December 2005 to characterize area-wide soil concentrations across the site
(Appendix A). Samples were collected from 0 to 1 inch. The samples were sieved using a
#60 mesh sieve prior to analysis. The fraction passing the sieve was analyzed for lead only
by an outside laboratory (EMAX). These samples were used in support of the HHRA in the
updated risk calculations (Appendix C).
2.4 Ground Water
Fourteen shallow private wells were identified in OU4. The Respondents collected ground
water from 13 rural, shallow domestic wells from residences located within the Site
boundaries, 12 on private land and one on BIA land. These samples were used in support of
the HHRA. Twelve wells were originally sampled during the RI (and presented in the
original risk calculations in Appendix C). The one additional well sampled in October 2005
was not incorporated into the updated risk calculations since concentrations were low (e.g.,
lead concentrations were 1.6 |ig/L or less) and would not impact results of the HHRA.
Supplemental samples of rural domestic wells were not collected by EPA.
2.5 Edible Plants
Native Americans gather various culturally-significant edible plants in the Tar Creek Area,
including berries and fruit, herbs, food, and nuts. Edible plant samples were not collected by
the Respondents. However, samples of three edible plant species (asparagus, willow, and
cattail) were collected from BIA land and private land in support of the HHRA. A total of 57
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-6
008359
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
plants were sampled. Four samples were collected from each plant—washed roots, unwashed
roots, washed leaves, and unwashed leaves—for a total of 228 biota samples. In addition, a
collocated soil sample was collected from each plant. It should be noted that "washed" root
and leaf samples simply had deionized water poured over them, and visible dirt remained on
the samples. Details of the plant sampling efforts are provided in Appendix A.
2.6 Fish
Fish samples were not collected by the Respondents during the RI. However, the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) collected fish samples from four ponds (chat
pile ponds or mill ponds) and two rivers (Neosho River and Spring River) in 2002, as
presented in Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area (Appendix B; ODEQ,
2003). A total of 80 composite fish samples representing eight species were collected and
analyzed using three preparation methods: fillets, whole-uneviscerated fish, and whole-
eviscerated fish. Collocated sediment and surface water samples were also available from
these water bodies and used in the study. The edible fish tissue data, and conclusions of the
study were used in the HHRA.
2.7 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
EPA's Finding of Facts in the AOC identifies that mine and mill residues and smelter waste
dumped and disposed on the surface soil at OU4 contain hazardous substances including,
without limitation, cadmium, lead, and zinc. The AOC Scope of Work identifies that
cadmium, lead, and zinc are the COPCs for OU4 (EPA, 2003). As part of the HHRA, a
review of available analytical data for other metals detected in chat pile and mill pond
surface materials, soil, and ground water was performed (Appendix C, Table 2). The results
of this review indicate that six metals (arsenic, antimony, iron, manganese, nickel, and
thallium) exceed the background average and applicable EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific
Screening Levels (MSSLs) for residential soil. However, these metals were not selected as
COPCs for the following reasons:
• Arsenic: detected at only one residence (unsieved, 0 to 6 inches at the former smelter)
above the background range, at 34.1 ppm; this yard was subsequently remediated in
November 2005; also detected above 20 ppm in only 2 transition zone samples,
smelter-affected soil area, and chat pile/tailings pond material.
• Antimony: detected at only one residence (unsieved, 0 to 6 inches at the former
smelter) above the MSSL; this yard was subsequently remediated in November 2005;
also detected only in smelter-affected soil above the MSSL.
Iron: detected at only one residence (unsieved, 0 to 6 inches), chat pile/tailing pond
material, and in smelter-affected soil above the MSSL; it is an essential nutrient.
Manganese: detected above its MSSL in one transition zone sample.
Nickel: detected below its MSSL at all locations except 3 transition zone samples, a
few chat pile/tailing pond material samples, and one smelter-affected soil sample.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL 2006-02\TC HHRA DRAFTFINALRA.DOC
2-7
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• Thallium: detected below its MSSL at all locations except one chat pile/tailing pond
material sample.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 2-8
008361
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
3.0 Exposure Assessment
After identifying which chemicals might pose hazards to human health, potential human
exposures were characterized and are summarized in the Conceptual Site Model in Figure 3-
1.
3.1 Potential Exposure Pathways and Receptors
Five receptor categories (general public adult and child resident, recreator, and Native
American adult and child resident) were identified for OU4 and the possible pathways of
exposures to cadmium, lead, and zinc that might occur under several scenarios were
identified (Appendix C, Table 1). This approach represents an acceptable first step in
estimating potential intakes for current and future exposures. The current exposure pathways
that were quantified in the HHRA are indicated in Appendix C, Table 1, and are
summarized below.
• General public child resident - Surface soil, drinking water, and ambient air
• General public adult resident - Surface soil, drinking water, and ambient air
• Native American child resident - Surface soil, drinking water, ambient air, and dairy
milk
• Native American adult resident - Surface soil, drinking water, ambient air, fish, beef,
edible plants, aquatic life (such as mussels, crawfish), and small game animals
• Recreator - surface waste materials (such as in chat pile and mill pond material)
The future exposure pathways that were quantified are indicated in Appendix C, Table 1.
For the general public child and adult, as well as the Native American child and adult,
potential exposures to surface soil and ambient air were evaluated.
There may be Native American residents at Tar Creek with a high-game diet rather than a
high-beef diet. Based on available literature (Nagy, 2001), the bioconcentration factors for
large game (e.g., elk) are similar to beef cattle. Therefore, risks to Native Americans with a
high-game diet can be estimated by the risks calculated for a Native American with a high-
beef diet.
3.2 Exposure Point Concentrations
To estimate possible risks of adverse health outcomes, it is necessary to estimate the
cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in each environmental medium to which a receptor
may be exposed. EPA guidelines (EPA 1991a; 1992a) state that this concentration term
(exposure point concentration; EPC) should represent the average concentration to which one
is exposed for the relevant portion of one's lifetime. Because of the obvious uncertainty in
estimating the true average concentration from measurements of samples, EPA recommends
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008362
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
using the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL95) of the mean as a conservative estimate
of the EPC, as this is associated with only a 5 percent probability of underestimating the true
average (EPA 1991a, 1992b, 1993a). In addition to the concentrations in each environmental
medium, it is necessary to estimate the pathway-specific intakes from that medium to
ultimately estimate exposures. In this HHRA, intakes were estimated using RME
assumptions, illustrating a high exposure scenario that may occur.
In the HHRA, EPCs were estimated (Appendix C, Table 3) and potential intakes were
calculated for surface soil, tap water, ambient air, milk, biota (edible plants, aquatic food,
fish, small game, and beef), and waste materials. The following data were used for evaluating
potential current exposures by the indicated receptors:
• General Public Resident - Three data sets
o 2 Measured - Surface soil (44 yards on private land) and tap water (11 wells
on private land); the dataset used in the original risk calculations is presented
in Appendix C, Table 2, while the updated dataset is presented in Appendix
C, Table 2. In the updated dataset, soil samples from one yard that was
subsequently remediated in November 2005 were removed, and soil samples
from one additional home sampled in October 2005 were added.
o 1 Modeled - Ambient air (Appendices D and E)
• Native American Resident - 11 data sets
o 6 Measured - Surface soil (two yards on BIA land), tap water (one well on
private land), fish (Appendix B), asparagus, willow, and cattail
o 5 Modeled - Ambient air (Appendices D and E), three biota categories (small
game, beef, and milk) using biotransfer factors, and aquatic organisms using a
regression model (Appendix F)
• Recreator - Two data sets
o 2 Measured - Chat pile, tailings
o Modeled - None
In the HHRA, all future environmental media concentrations were assumed to remain the
same as present, with the exception of surface soil for the general public and Native
American residents. Future surface soil concentrations were modeled assuming a 30-year
deposition period (Appendices D and E). Future exposures by general public and Native
American residents to soil and air were quantified using the range of modeled future soil and
air concentrations (see Section 3.3).
In some cases, fewer than 10 measurements were available for a data grouping of cadmium
or zinc analyses (Appendix C, Table 3); in these cases, the maximum value was used in
place of the UCL95. Because the formula used to calculate UCL95s appropriately depends
on the distribution of the data, EPA's ProUCL program was used to examine the shape of the
distributions and then perform these calculations (Appendix L).
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-2
008363
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The major assumptions associated with the EPCs for each environmental medium used in the
HHRA are described below.
3.2.1 Chat and Tailings
Analytical results from chat samples (piles or bases) and tailings ponds were used for
quantifying potential exposures to recreators, and for input into the ambient air model and air
deposition model. Sieved (250 |im) surface samples (0 to 1 inch or 0 to 6 inches) were
available from a total of 20 chat piles, six chat bases, and 10 tailing ponds, and were assumed
to represent surface concentrations that may be contacted during activities in the source areas
in Tar Creek OU4. The EPCs for these samples were 93 mg/kg cadmium, 18,400 mg/kg zinc,
and 3,461 mg/kg lead.
3.2.2 Soils
Analytical results from residential yard soil were used for quantifying potential exposures to
residents (both general public and Native American) were used as starting soil concentrations
in the future air deposition model (Appendices D and E), and were used in the biota uptake
modeling (for beef, small game animals, and dairy milk) (Appendix F). The dataset used in
the original risk calculations is presented in Appendix C, Table 2, while the updated dataset
is presented in Appendix C, Table 2. In the updated dataset, soil samples from one general
public yard (at the former smelter) that was subsequently remediated in November 2005 were
removed, and soil samples from one additional general public home sampled in October 2005
were added.
Of the 46 rural residential yards sampled, 44 were from residences on private land, while two
were on BIA land. For each yard, the average sieved (250 |im) surface soil (0 to 1 inch) lead
concentration detected at that yard was used as the EPC for the blood lead models
(Appendices G and H). It should be noted that a few samples from the 0 to 6 inch interval at
a few residences displayed higher lead concentrations, but were not used in the models since
they were not sieved samples. The maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and zinc
were used to evaluate exposures on private land and BIA land, separately. The EPCs for
cadmium and zinc are presented below:
• cadmium - 48 mg/kg (general public) and 9.6 mg/kg (Native American)
• zinc - 7,700 mg/kg (general public) and 1,940 mg/kg (Native American).
For those residences where yard soil samples were not collected during the OU4 RI but
where ground water samples were collected, if the residence was part of OU2, the soil lead
concentration at these residences was not addressed in this HHRA. For those residences that
were not part of OU2, the average lead concentration detected at the 46 residential yards (as a
group) was used for input in the lead models for these residences (Appendices G and H).
In addition to the residential yard soil, analytical results from transition zone surface soil (0
to 1 inch or 0 to 6 inches and sieved [250 |im]) at five chat piles were used as starting soil
concentrations in the future air deposition model (Appendices D and E) and were used in the
biota uptake modeling for beef, small game animals, and dairy milk (Appendix F). In the
original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium was incorporated
into the air modeling and biota uptake modeling in Appendices E and F. However, in the
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-3
008364
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
updates to these appendices, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed
sample concentration (5 ppm).
Additionally, analytical results from smelter-affected surface soil (0 to 1 inch or 0 to 6
inches) were used as starting soil concentrations in the future air deposition model
(Appendices D and E) and were used in the biota uptake modeling for beef, small game
animals, and dairy milk (Appendix F).
* As mentioned previously, 56 samples were collected from non-residential rural areas in
October 2005. Although not available for the original risk calculations, air deposition
modeling, and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C, E, and F, respectively), these
samples were used as starting soil concentrations in the updated future air deposition
modeling and biota uptake modeling in Appendices E and F, and reflected in the updated
risk calculations (Appendix C).
3.2.3 Ground Water
Analytical results from shallow, private wells were used for quantifying potential exposures
to residents (both general public and Native American). Of the 12 wells sampled, 11 were
from residences on private land, while one was on BIA land. Multiple samples were available
from some wells. For each residence, the average measured lead concentration in ground
water at that residence was used as the EPC in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
(IEUBK) model (Appendix G). Homes without wells are assumed to be supplied with
municipal drinking water or withdraw water from the deeper aquifer, and the default lead
concentration in ground water that was embedded in the IEUBK model was used. The
maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and zinc were used to evaluate exposures on
private land and BIA land separately. The EPCs for cadmium and zinc are presented below:
• cadmium - 0.003 mg/L (general public); cadmium was non-detect in the well on BIA
land;
• zinc - 1.11 mg/L (general public) and 0.22 (Native American).
3.2.4 Edible Plants
Analytical results from unwashed plants (both root and aboveground portions) were used for
quantifying potential exposures by adult Native American residents. Three types of culturally
significant foods were available (asparagus, willow, and cattail). For each plant, the
concentrations in both the root and aboveground portion were used since it is assumed that a
Native American would ingest both portions of the plant. Unwashed samples (rather than
washed samples) were used since some Native Americans may not wash plants prior to
ingestion. It should be noted that unwashed samples had visible dirt on the sample surface.
3.2.5 Fish
Analytical results from fish samples collected by ODEQ in 2002 were used for quantifying
potential exposures to adult Native American residents. Concentrations from eight fish
species were available (ODEQ, 2003) and average concentrations were assumed to represent
fish concentrations that may be contacted over an extended time period if eating fish from
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-4
008365
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
millponds or rivers in Tar Creek OU4. These concentrations are 0.17 mg/kg for cadmium, 21
mg/kg for zinc, and 0.427 mg/kg for lead.
3.2.6 Ambient Air
Ambient air concentrations were modeled from potential source areas (chat and tailings
ponds), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to current and future residents
(general public and Native American; Appendices D and E). For evaluating potential current
exposures, ambient air concentrations were modeled at each of the 46 rural residential yards
sampled, and at the additional residences where shallow rural wells were sampled but soil
was not collected (and they were not part of OU2). For use in the lead models, ambient air
concentrations were evaluated for each home separately. For cadmium and zinc, the UCL95
of the individual ambient air concentrations modeled at the 46 homes was used.
For evaluating potential future exposures, ambient air concentrations across the Tar Creek
area were modeled (Appendices D and E) and the range was used in quantifying potential
exposures. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent ambient air
concentrations that may be contacted when inhaling ambient air in Tar Creek OU4.
3.2.7 Beef
Beef concentrations were modeled from uptake of soil in potential grazing areas (transition
zone soil, smelter-affected soil, and residential yard soil), and were used in quantifying
potential exposures to adult Native American residents (Appendix F). The approach and
chemical-specific biotransfer factors presented in EPA's Combustion Guidance (EPA,
2005a) were used. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent beef
concentrations that Native Americans may encounter when eating beef from cattle grazing in
Tar Creek OU4.
In the original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium in a
transition zone sample was incorporated into the biota uptake modeling in Appendix F.
However, in the update to this appendix, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the
reanalyzed sample concentration (5 ppm).
In addition, as mentioned previously, the rural area soil samples were not available for the
original risk calculations and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C and F, respectively).
However, these samples were used in the updated biota uptake modeling in Appendix F, and
reflected in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C). The potential grazing area soil data
were divided into two data groupings to evaluate the impact of smelter-affected soil on the
overall risk estimates:
• transition zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background
soil; and
• smelter-affected soil.
3.2.8 Small Game
Small game (e.g., squirrel, rabbit, deer, duck, geese, quail, and turkey) are commonly hunted
in the area. Potential concentrations in small herbivore mammals (e.g., rabbit) were modeled
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-5
008366
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
from uptake of soil in potential foraging/grazing areas (transition zone soil, smelter-affected
soil, and residential and yard soil), and were used in quantifying potential exposures to adult
Native American residents (Appendix F). The chemical-specific bioconcentration factors
(BCFs) presented in the Tar Creek OU4 ERA (EPA, 2005b) were used. The modeled
concentrations were assumed to represent small game concentrations that may be contacted
by Native American residents when eating small game caught in Tar Creek OU4.
In calculating the original EPCs and the associated risk estimates, an incorrect assumption
regarding wet weight versus dry weight was used, resulting in overestimates of risk; this was
corrected in the updated biouptake modeling in Appendix F. In addition, in the original
calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium in a transition zone sample
was incorporated into the biota uptake modeling in Appendix F. However, in the update to
this appendix, this cadmium concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed sample
concentration (5 ppm).
As mentioned previously, the rural area soil samples were not available for the original risk
calculations and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C and F, respectively). However, these
samples were used in the updated biota uptake modeling in Appendix F, and reflected in the
updated risk calculations (Appendix C). The potential grazing area soil data were divided
into two data groupings to determine the impact of smelter-affected soil on the overall risk
estimates:
• transition zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background
soil; and
• smelter-affected soil.
3.2.9 Aquatic Life
Native Americans gather mussels, crawfish, and turtles from creeks and rivers in the area.
Aquatic biota (such as mussels and crawfish) concentrations were modeled from uptake of
sediment in mill ponds or rivers (as presented in ODEQ, 2003), and were used in quantifying
potential exposures to adult Native American residents. A regression model was used with
average sediment concentrations to estimate concentrations that may be ingested over a
chronic exposure period by Native American residents when eating aquatic biota collected in
Tar Creek OU4 (Appendix F). Cadmium and zinc EPCs were estimated at 2 mg/kg. In
calculating the original EPCs and the associated risk estimates, an incorrect assumption
regarding wet weight versus dry weight was used, and there was an error in the regression
equation, resulting in overestimates of risk for cadmium and lead; this was corrected in the
updated bio-uptake modeling in Appendix F.
3.2.10 Milk
Dairy milk concentrations were modeled from uptake of soil in potential cattle grazing areas
(transition zone soil, smelter-affected soil, and residential yard soil), and were used in
quantifying potential exposures to child Native American residents (Appendix F). The
approach and chemical-specific biotransfer factors presented in EPA's Combustion Guidance
(EPA, 2005a) were used. The modeled concentrations were assumed to represent milk
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-6
008367
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
concentrations that may be contacted by Native American residents when drinking milk from
cows grazing in Tar Creek OU4.
In the original calculations, an incorrect soil concentration of 515 ppm cadmium in a
transition zone sample was incorporated into the biota uptake modeling (and resulting milk
concentrations) in Appendix F. However, in the update to this appendix, this cadmium
concentration was replaced with the reanalyzed sample concentration (5 ppm).
In addition, as mentioned previously, the rural area soil samples were not available for the
original risk calculations and biota uptake modeling (Appendices C and F, respectively).
However, these samples were used in the updated biota uptake modeling (and resulting milk
concentrations) in Appendix F, and reflected in the updated risk calculations (Appendix C).
For dairy cattle, the potential grazing area soil data were divided into two data groupings to
determine the impact of smelter-affected soil on the overall risk estimates:
• transition zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background
soil; and
• smelter-affected soil.
3.3 Intake Estimates
The exposure models used were straightforward and took into account a variety of behavioral
and physiological factors, including exposure frequency and duration, contact rate, EPC,
body weight, and averaging time for the general public, Native American residents, and
recreators (Appendix C, Table 4). An example of one of these models, which estimated
exposure via the consumption of ground water as a drinking source, is shown below:
Chemical intake (mg/kg/day) = Cw x SIFw x CF (1)
and
SIFw = IRw x EF x ED/(BW x AT) (2)
Where
Cw = chemical concentration in tap water (|ig/L)
SIFw = summary intake factor for ingestion of tap water (L/kg/day)
IRw = ingestion rate for tap water (L/day)
EF = exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
CF = conversion factor (mg/|ig)
BW = body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (days).
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-7
008368
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The intake parameters used to solve such equations (in this case, IRw, EF, ED, BW, and AT)
for children and adults were obtained from previous EPA guidance for such calculations
(EPA 1989,1991a, 1993a). In the example presented, the intake parameters are known with
a relatively high degree of certainty (for example, ingestion rate for tap water). In other
equations, such as those related to exposure from asparagus, intake parameters are less
certain (for example, vegetable ingestion rates, gastrointestinal and dermal absorption
factors) but represent conservative estimates of current scientific evidence.
The exposure frequency for a recreator (on chat piles, chat bases, and mill ponds) was based
on the average number of days without rain and above freezing in Tar Creek. This
information was obtained from the Miami University of Oklahoma Mesonet station
(www.mesonet.org). The most recent data that was available for a 5-year period was 1999 to
2003, and is presented below.
Year
# of Days
1999
189
2000
184
2001
189
2002
111
2003
182
Average 184.2
Standard default exposure factors were used for evaluating potential exposures by the general
public. However, for evaluating Native American residential exposures representative of the
tribal way of life, exposure factors presented in "The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway
Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME" (Harper et al., 2002) were used.
Three sets of exposure factors were used: child, adult with a high-fish diet, and adult with a
high-beef diet. Best professional judgment was used in identifying exposure factors for the
adolescent recreator scenario.
Potential future exposures to soil and ambient air by residents (general public and Native
American) were evaluated using the following combinations of modeled soil/air
concentrations in the original risk estimates (Appendix C):
• Maximum soil and maximum air;
• Mean soil and maximum air;
• Mean soil and mean air; and
• 75th percentile soil and maximum air.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-8
008369
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Three combinations of modeled soil/air concentrations were used in the updated risk
estimates (Appendix C):
• Maximum soil and maximum air;
• Median soil and maximum air; and
• Mean soil (same value as 75th percentile) and maximum air.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-9
008370
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 3-10
008371
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
4.0 Toxicity Assessment
Much of the following general discussion was excerpted from Snperfund and Mining
Megasites - Lessons from the Coeur d'Alene River Basin (EPA, 2005c).
After identifying the chemical hazards, and estimating the human exposures to each, the next
step in an HHRA involves evaluating the scientific evidence from animal and human
epidemiologic studies that have examined dose-response relationships for cancer and non-
cancer health outcomes. The fundamental tenet of toxicology is that the dose determines the
effect.
The following hierarchy of sources was used to obtain toxicity data for COPCs:
• Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA, 2005d)
• Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) (EPA, 2005e)
• Other Sources (e.g., EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables [HEAST; EPA,
1995] and the National Center for Environmental Assessment [NCEA]).
4.1 For Non-carcinogens Other Than Lead
For noncancer outcomes, a chronic reference dose (RfD) is derived from the no-observed-
adverse-effect level (NOAEL) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) in animals
or humans. RfDs are derived by dividing the NOAEL or LOAEL by an uncertainty factor
that represents a combination of various sources of uncertainty associated with the database
for that particular chemical. EPA's IRIS database and NCEA served as the source of RfDs
for the COPCs at Tar Creek, except for lead (discussed below), for which there is no IRIS
RfD and for which other sources of toxicity data were used.
Dermal RfDs are not available in IRIS, PPRTVs, or HEAST. Equations presented in EPA
guidance (EPA, 1989) were used to calculate dermal RfDs for cadmium and zinc. An
inhalation reference concentration (RfC) was not available for zinc. Note that cadmium also
has potential cancer effects and has its own IRIS SF via the inhalation pathway. Non-cancer
toxicity values used in the HHRA are presented in Appendix C, Table 5.
4.2 For Lead
Of the three COPCs, the adverse health effects of lead are best characterized in human
populations. Risk assessments for lead therefore differ from those for other noncarcinogens
in that they rely on observed or predicted blood lead levels (BLLs), as BLLs have been
directly related to adverse outcomes in adults and children. In studies conducted around the
world, population average BLL have been found to be associated with adverse effects on
average measures of cognitive and behavioral development in young children. In short, dose-
response relationships between BLL and adverse health outcomes in children are sufficiently
well described that community BLL can be used to estimate risk. Community BLL can be
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 4-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008372
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
determined precisely through appropriately designed surveys, or they can be estimated from
environmental data through modeling techniques. The estimation of BLL through modeling,
which involves environmental rather than biological measurements, is presented in Section
5, and detailed input and output calculations using the IEUBK and Adult Lead Model are
presented in Appendices G and H, respectively. Historic BLL measurements collected in
the Tar Creek area are presented in Section 6.
4.3 For Carcinogens (Cadmium)
For cancer outcomes, the dose-response information is condensed into a SF, in units of
(mg/kg-day) ', which expresses excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) as a function of (lifetime
average) daily dose. EPA maintains an online database, IRIS (EPA, 2005d), which contains
SFs that are based on the current weight of toxicologic evidence. Of the three COPCs
identified at Tar Creek, only cadmium was evaluated for carcinogenic risk since it was the
only identified potential carcinogen. Cancer toxicity values are provided in Appendix C,
Table 6.
The following information regarding the carcinogenicity of cadmium was excerpted from the
IRIS database (EPA, 2005d).
The EPA has concluded that cadmium is a Class B1 carcinogen (probable human
carcinogen) via the inhalation pathway. This is based on limited evidence from
occupational epidemiologic studies of cadmium, which is consistent across
investigators and study populations.
A two-fold excess risk of lung cancer was observed in cadmium smelter workers (602
white males employed in production work a minimum of 6 months during the years
1940-1969). Urine cadmium data available for 261 workers employed after 1960
suggested a highly exposed population. As the standardized mortality rates observed
were low and there is a lack of clear-cut evidence of a causal relationship of the
cadmium exposure only, this study is considered to supply limited evidence of human
carcinogenicity.
Four studies of workers exposed to cadmium dust or fumes provided evidence of a
statistically significant positive association with prostate cancer (Kipling and
Waterhouse, 1967; Lemen et al., 1976; Holden, 1980; Sorahan and Waterhouse,
1983), but the total number of cases was small in each study. The Thun et al. (1985)
study is an update of an earlier study (Lemen et al., 1976) and does not show excess
prostate cancer risk in these workers. Studies of human ingestion of cadmium are
inadequate to assess carcinogenicity.
The unit risk for cadmium should not be used if the air concentration exceeds 6
|ig/m3, since above this concentration the unit risk may not be appropriate.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 4-2
008373
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
5.0 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization, the last step in an HHRA, strives to combine the estimates of chemical
exposure with the estimates of potential human hazard (based on known dose-response
relationships) to estimate the actual or potential risks to human health at the site. At the Tar
Creek OU4 site, EPA estimated cancer and non-cancer health risks for RME conditions
(Appendix C, Tables 7 and 9, with updated calculations in Appendix C). The RME is a
conservative estimate intended to be the highest exposure that can reasonably be expected to
occur. Risks were estimated separately for different segments of the population, such as the
general public (children and adults), adolescent recreators, and Native American residents
(children and adults) representing the tribal way of life.
5.1 Approach for Carcinogens
To characterize potential carcinogenic effects, statistical probabilities are estimated from
calculated intakes and toxicity values that a hypothetical person will develop cancer over a
lifetime as a result of assumed exposures. Using the SF for cadmium, estimated daily intakes
averaged over a lifetime of exposure were converted to incremental risks of a hypothetical
person developing cancer. The following formulae were used to estimate potential ELCR
from inhalation exposures:
Risk=Intake x SF
EPA's target range for carcinogenic risk associated with Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites and specified in the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 300.430) is l-in-10,000 (1 x 10"4) to l-in-1,000,000 (1 x 10"6). That is, the
risk associated with site-related exposures should not exceed this target range.
5.2 Approach for Non-carcinogens Other than Lead
Estimates of potential non-carcinogenic health risks were developed by calculating a Hazard
Quotient (HQ) for each COPC by exposure route. The HQ was calculated as the ratio of the
estimated intake to the RfD as follows:
,,,, Intake
If the estimated daily intake for any COPC exceeded its RfD, the HQ exceeded 1. An HQ
that exceeds 1 indicates that there is a potential for adverse health effects associated with
exposure to that COPC, but it does not indicate the actual level of health effect.
A hazard index (HI) approach was used to evaluate non-carcinogenic health risks posed by
one or more COPCs to which a receptor may be exposed by one or more exposure routes.
The HI approach assumes that simultaneous sub-threshold exposures to several COPCs or
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008374
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
exposure routes are additive. The HI is equal to the sum of the HQs, and is calculated as
follows:
Total HI = (/, /RfD, ) + (/2 /RJD.) ¦ ... ¦ (I: / RfDi)
Where:
I = Intake level [chronic daily intake [CDI] (mg/kg-day)
RfD = Chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day)
I; = Intake level (intake) for the 7th chemical
RfD; = Reference dose for the 7th chemical
The HI approach was used to estimate potential non-cancer health effects associated with
COPCs. When the sum of HQs for a receptor exceeds unity (one), there may be concern for
potential non-cancer health effects, assuming that the cumulative effect of multiple sub-
threshold exposures is additive, and may result in an adverse health effect to a particular
target organ.
The Tar Creek OU4 HHRA estimated HQs separately for the following receptors:
• General public child
• General public adult
• Adolescent recreator
• Native American child
• Native American adult with high-fish diet
• Native American adult with high-game diet
Risk assessment of non-lead COPCs followed EPA guidelines. Residential soil EPCs (for
cadmium and zinc) were the maximum detected concentrations for all 46 yards sampled. The
fraction of ingested soil that a child typically obtains from areas other than his or her own
yard is essentially unknown. The consequences of using maximum detected EPC values is to
overestimate risk for all residents except for those living at the residence with the maximum
detected concentration.
5.3 Approach for Lead
As mentioned in Section 4.2, risk assessments for lead rely on observed or predicted BLLs in
a community, as BLLs have been directly related to adverse outcomes in adults and children.
In 1991, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) promulgated specific
guidelines aimed at reducing BLLs in individual children (CDC, 1991). These are
summarized in Table 5-1.
Because vast quantities of lead have been distributed throughout Tar Creek due to historical
mining-related activities, the HHRA devoted substantial effort to characterizing the risks of
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-2
008375
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
lead toxicity. The IEUBK model was used to estimate risks to children from lead exposure
from soil and other media. The EPA's Adult Lead Model (ALM) was used to evaluate
residential adult and adolescent recreator exposures to lead in soil.
At sites like Tar Creek, EPA policies seek to protect the health of the most vulnerable
populations, namely children and women of childbearing age. EPA policy (EPA, 1994)
strives to reduce soil lead levels so that no child would have more than a 5 percent chance of
exceeding a BLL of 10 |ig/dL.
5.4 Results
Potential ELCRs, His, and BLLs were calculated using RME assumptions for the general
public, Native American residents, and recreators for the exposure pathways identified in
Section 3.1. The following potential risks were calculated. Current intakes and risks are
presented in Appendix C, Table 7, and summarized in Table 9 (and updated in Appendix
C), while current BLLs are calculated in Appendices G and H. Future intakes, risks, and
BLLs are presented in Appendix I, and a statistical evaluation of the future modeled soil
concentrations is presented in Appendix J. A summary of the risk estimates is also
presented in Tables 5-1 through 5-3, and includes both the original risk estimates and the
updated risk estimates provided in Appendix C.
5.4.1 Current Child Resident (General Public)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil/dust from residential yards (44 homes
with measured surface soil data), ground water ingestion, and inhalation of ambient air were
quantified for a general public residential child.
Children were the most sensitive receptors when quantifying risks for COPCs. For cadmium
and zinc, the maximum target organic-specific HI is 1 based on the maximum detected
concentration of cadmium and zinc in the 0-1 inch surface soil samples and ground water,
and the modeled UCL95 air concentrations. Approximately 60 percent of the estimated risks
were associated with incidental ingestion of soils.
Of the 44 homes where surface soil samples (0-1 inch or 0-6 inches) were collected, six
homes had one or more soil samples with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg. Using the
average surface soil sample concentration (from the 0-1 inch interval) and default ground
water concentration of 4 |ig/L (or measured concentration if available for that residence),
potential BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl for children were estimated for four homes.
For the six homes with measured ground water concentrations but not soils, the percentage of
the population with BLLs exceeding 10 |ig/dl were within acceptable levels.
At the 50 (44 plus 6) private rural residential properties, the percentage of the child
population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl ranged from 0.002 percent to 99.536 percent.
Based on averaging the probabilities at all 52 residences (50 plus the two properties on BIA
land), the average percentage of the "neighborhood" with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl is 2.98
percent. Four individual residences on private (non-BIA) land exceed the EPA's target.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-3
008376
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
No COPCs exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and
zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only chemical of concern
(COC) for this receptor.
Overall risk estimates for the current child resident on non-BIA land did not change when
calculations were performed based on the updated soil dataset. The COPC concentrations in
soil at the newly sampled (October 2005) residential property were below their respective
screening levels. The risk estimates based on maximum detected concentrations of cadmium
and zinc remained the same. After eliminating soil samples from the home at the former
smelter, the maximum percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl
decreased to 21.6 percent and the number of homes exceeding the EPA's target concentration
decreased to five.
Based on the updated soil dataset, the average percentage of the "neighborhood" with a BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl is less than 5 percent. Three individual residences on non-BIA land
exceed the EPA's target.
5.4.2 Current Adult Resident (General Public)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil from residential yards, ground water
ingestion, and inhalation of ambient air were quantified for a general public residential adult.
An ELCR of 8xl0"8 and maximum target organ-specific HI of 0.2 were calculated.
At the 44 public rural residential properties, the percentage of the population with a BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl ranged from 1.3 percent to 73.8 percent. Two individual residences
exceed the EPA's target.
No COPCs exceeded an individual ELCR of lxlO"6 or HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated
with cadmium and zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only COC
for this receptor.
The ODEQ fish study concluded that fillets of fish caught in ponds within the Tar Creek
Superfund Site and the Spring and Neosho Rivers are safe to eat at rates up to six 8-ounce
meals per month. Whole-uneviscerated and whole-eviscerated portions of all fish from the
Oklahoma sections of the Spring and Neosho Rivers downstream to Grand Lake and ponds in
the Tri-State Mining Area should not be consumed due to lead concentrations. The higher
fish tissue lead concentrations are positively correlated to lead concentrations in the
sediments of the area waters (ODEQ, 2003; Appendix B).
Overall risk estimates for current adult residents on non-BIA land did not change when
calculations were performed on the updated soil dataset. The COPC concentrations in soil at
the newly sampled (October 2005) residential property were within their respective screening
levels. The risk estimates based on the maximum detected concentrations of cadmium and
zinc remained the same. After eliminating soil samples from the home at the former smelter,
the maximum percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl decreased to 6.7
percent and only one home exceeded EPA's target concentration.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-4
008377
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
5.4.3 Current Child Resident (Native American)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil/dust from the two residential yards
sampled on BIA land, ground water ingestion, inhalation of ambient air, and ingestion of
dairy milk were quantified for a Native American child. For cadmium and zinc, the
maximum calculated target organ-specific HI is 0.33 based on the maximum detected
concentration of cadmium and zinc in the 0-1 inch surface soil samples and ground water,
and the modeled UCL95 air concentrations. Approximately 75 percent of the estimated risks
were associated with incidental ingestion of soils.
Using the average surface soil sample concentration (from the 0-1 inch interval) detected at
these two residences and default ground water concentration of 4 |ig/L (or measured
concentration if available for that residence), potential BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl for children
were estimated for the two homes. The percentage of the child population with a BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl ranged from 0.011 percent to 0.036 percent. Based on averaging the
probabilities at all 52 residences (two on BIA land plus the 50 on non-BIA land), the average
percentage of the "neighborhood" with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl is 2.98 percent. Neither
home on BIA land had soil samples above 500 mg/kg.
No COPCs exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and
zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.
Risk estimates for the current Native American child resident did not change when
calculations were performed based on the updated soil dataset, except for the slight decrease
in risks associated with ingestion of milk.
5.4.4 Current Adult Resident (Native American, High-Fish and High-Beef Diets)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil from residential yards on BIA land,
ground water ingestion, inhalation of ambient air, and ingestion of biota (fish, small game,
beef, aquatic food, asparagus, willow, and cattail) were quantified. An ELCR of 2xl0"7 (both
high-fish diet and high-beef diet) and maximum target organ-specific His of 700 and 600
were calculated for the high-fish diet and high-beef diet, respectively.
At the two rural residential properties on BIA land (Res_3 and Res_5), the percentage of the
population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 100 percent at both homes (Appendix H).
Cadmium and zinc exceeded an individual HI of 1 due to the asparagus, willow, and cattail
ingestion pathways. In addition, cadmium exceeded an individual HI of 1 from the aquatic
food ingestion and fish ingestion pathways. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and
zinc exceed acceptable levels, and lead, cadmium, and zinc were identified as COCs for this
receptor.
Additional evaluation was conducted using the updated soil dataset including transition zone
soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background soil, for the BUM. Overall
risk estimates for Native American adult resident did not change based on the updated soil
dataset. An ELCR of 2xl0"7 and maximum target organ-specific HI of 600 were calculated
for both high-fish diet and high-beef diet. The percentage of the population with a BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl (100 percent) did not change at the two rural residential properties.
Overall risk estimates did not change for cadmium and zinc based on the updated soil dataset.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-5
008378
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
5.4.5 Current Adult Resident (More Typical Native American)
Using more typical exposure factors for Native American subsistence residents as presented
in EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1997), ingestion of biota (beef, small game,
fish, aquatic food, asparagus, willow, and cattail) were quantified. The maximum target
organ-specific HI was 300, driven by the edible plant exposures. However, aquatic food
exposures also posed an unacceptable HI.
At the two rural residential properties on BIA land, the percentage of the population with a
BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 100 percent (Appendix K)
Cadmium and zinc exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium
and zinc exceed acceptable levels, and cadmium, lead, and zinc were identified as COCs for
this receptor.
An additional evaluation was conducted using the updated soil dataset including transition
zone soil, updated residential yard soil, rural area soil, and background soil for the BUM.
Overall risk estimates did not change for cadmium and zinc based on the updated soil dataset.
The percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl (100 percent) did not
change at the two rural residential properties.
5.4.6 Current/Future Recreator
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface materials on chat piles, chat bases, and
tailings ponds were quantified. The maximum target organ-specific HI was 0.1. The
percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl is 22.3 percent (Appendix H).
No COPCs exceeded an individual HI of 1. Therefore, risks associated with cadmium and
zinc are within acceptable levels and lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.
5.4.7 Future Child Resident (General Public and Native American)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil/dust and inhalation of ambient air at
any future location within the Tar Creek area (except on chat piles, chat bases, or mill ponds)
were evaluated based on the range of potential future soil concentrations modeled assuming
airborne deposition with depletion and the modeled air concentrations (Appendices D, E,
and J). Since the same exposure factors were used for evaluating soil and air exposures for
child residents, the general public child and Native American resident child are addressed
together here. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentration for the Tar
Creek area, the maximum HI is 0.08 (Appendix C, Table 9). Therefore, cadmium and zinc
were not identified as COCs for these receptors.
Based on the combination of the maximum modeled soil and maximum modeled ambient air
concentration for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the child population with a BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 100 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, three other
soil and air concentration combinations were evaluated, and the percent of the population
with a BLL above 10 |ig/dL is indicated:
• Mean soil (370 mg/kg) and maximum air (0.18 |ig/m3) - 6.5 percent;
• Mean soil (370 mg/kg) and mean air (0.011 |ig/m3) - 5.9 percent;
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-6
008379
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• 75th percentile soil (291 mg/kg) and maximum air (0.18 |ig/m3) - 3.5 percent.
Therefore, lead was identified as the only COC for these receptors.
An additional evaluation was conducted for a future child resident based on the updated
future soil dataset. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentrations for
the Tar Creek area, the maximum HI is 0.2 (Appendix C, Table 9). Therefore, cadmium
and zinc were not identified as COCs for these receptors.
Based on the combination of the maximum modeled soil and maximum modeled ambient air
concentration for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the child population with a BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 100 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, another
evaluation was conducted using mean soil (131 mg/kg) and maximum air (0.18 |ig/m3)
concentrations, and the percent of the population with a BLL above 10 |ig/dL was 0.094
percent. It should be noted that the mean and 75th percentile soil concentrations were the
same. Therefore, lead was identified as the only COC for these receptors.
5.4.8 Future Adult Resident (General Public)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil and inhalation of ambient air at any
future location within the Tar Creek area (except on chat piles, chat bases, or mill ponds)
were evaluated based on the range of potential future soil concentrations modeled assuming
airborne deposition with depletion and the modeled air concentrations (Appendices D, E,
and J). Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek
area, the maximum ELCR is 4xl0"6 and maximum HI is 0.02 (Appendix C, Table 9). Since
cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding lxlO"6, cadmium was identified as a COC for
this receptor.
Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (33,066 mg/kg) for the Tar
Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 99 percent
(Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean soil concentration (370.6 mg/kg) was
evaluated; the percentage of the population with a BLL above 10 |ig/dL is 3.9 percent, which
is an acceptable level. Therefore, the 75th percentile and median soil concentrations, which
are lower than the mean concentration, will also be within acceptable levels. Lead was also
identified as a COC for this receptor.
An additional evaluation was conducted for future adult residents based on the updated future
soil dataset. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentrations for the Tar
Creek area, the maximum ELCR is 4xl0"6 and maximum HI is 0.03 (Appendix C, Table 9).
Since cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding lxlO"6, cadmium remained as a COC
for this receptor. Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (18,900
mg/kg) for the Tar Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10
|ig/dl was 95.4 percent (Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean soil
concentration (131 mg/kg) was evaluated with the maximum modeled ambient air
concentration; the percentage of the population with a BLL above 10 |ig/dL is 2.0 percent,
which is an acceptable level. Lead also remained as a COC for this receptor.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-7
008380
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
5.4.9 Future Adult Resident (Native American)
Ingestion and dermal contact exposures to surface soil and inhalation of ambient air at any
future location within the Tar Creek area (except on chat piles, chat bases, or mill ponds)
were evaluated based on the range of potential future soil concentrations modeled assuming
airborne deposition with depletion and the modeled air concentrations (Appendices D, E,
and J). Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentration for the Tar Creek
area, the maximum ELCR is lxlO"5 and maximum HI is 0.04 (Appendix C, Table 9). Since
cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding lxlO"6, cadmium was identified as a COC for
this receptor.
Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (33,066 mg/kg) for the Tar
Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 100 percent
(Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean and median soil concentrations (370.6
and 110.6 mg/kg, respectively) were evaluated; the percentages of the population with a BLL
above 10 |ig/dL are 37.5 and 9.5 percent, respectively. These percentages exceed the target
level. Lead was also identified as a COC for this receptor.
An additional evaluation was conducted for a future adult resident based on the updated
future soil dataset. Based on the maximum modeled soil and ambient air concentrations for
the Tar Creek area, the maximum ELCR is lxlO"5 and maximum HI is 0.03 (Appendix C,
Table 9) Since cadmium poses an individual ELCR exceeding lxlO"6, cadmium remained as
a COC for this receptor.
Based on the maximum modeled future soil lead concentration (18,900 mg/kg) for the Tar
Creek area, the percentage of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl was 100 percent
(Appendix I). For purposes of comparison, the mean and median soil concentrations (131
and 45.6 mg/kg, respectively) were evaluated with the maximum modeled ambient air
concentration; the percentages of the population with a BLL above 10 |ig/dL are 11.6 and 3.8
percent, respectively. The percentage based on the mean exceeds the target level. Therefore,
lead also remained as a COC for this receptor.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 5-8
008381
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table 5-1
Risk Summary - General Public Exposures
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
Hazard
Index (HI)
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(ELCR)
Value
Units
Basis
Rationale
Current
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Resident
(General Public)
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
4.8E+01
mg/kg
Max
(1)
7.E-02
--
ZINC
7.7E+03
mg/kg
Max
(1)
4.E-02
-
Dermal
CADMIUM
4.8E+01
mg/kg
Max
(1)
1.E-02
-
ZINC
7.7E+03
mg/kg
Max
(1)
1.E-04
--
Child
Ingestion
CADMIUM
4.8E+01
mg/kg
Max
(1)
6.E-01
-
ZINC
7.7E+03
mg/kg
Max
(1)
3.E-01
--
Dermal
CADMIUM
4.8E+01
mg/kg
Max
(1)
7.E-02
--
ZINC
7.7E+03
mg/kg
Max
(1)
9.E-04
-
Ambient Air
Adult
Inhalation
CADMIUM
8.08E-05
ug/m3
95% UCL
(2)
4E-04
--
Child
8.08E-05
ug/m3
95% UCL
(2)
9E-04
--
Adult/Child
8.08E-05
ug/m3
95% UCL
(2)
--
7.6E-08
Current/Future
Private wells
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
3.0E-03
mg/L
Max
(1)
2.E-01
--
ZINC
1.1E+00
mg/L
Max
(1)
1.E-01
--
Child
CADMIUM
3.0E-03
mg/L
Max
(1)
4.E-01
-
ZINC
1.1E+00
mg/L
Max
(1)
2.E-01
--
Future
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
3E-03
(6E-03)
--
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
2E-03
(4E-03)
--
Dermal
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
5E-04
(1E-03)
--
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
7E-06
(2E-05)
--
Child
Ingestion
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
3E-02
(6E-02)
--
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
2E-02
(4E-02)
--
Dermal
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
3E-03
(7E-03)
--
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(3)
5E-05
(1E-04)
--
Ambient Air
Adult
Inhalation
CADMIUM
4.3E-06
mg/m3
Max
(4)
2E-02
-
Child
4.3E-06
mg/m3
Max
(4)
5E-02
--
Adult/Child
4.3E-06
mg/m3
Max
(4)
-
4.0E-06
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
No. of Homes
with BLL
Exceeding
Criterion
Percent Above
Target BLL
of 10 ug/dl
Value or Range
Units
Basis
Rationale
Current
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Resident
(General Public)
Adult
Ingestion
Lead
12.6-7470
(12.6-643)
mg/kg
Mean
(5)
4/44
(3/44)
--
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Child
Ingestion
12.6-7470
(12.6-643)
mg/kg
Mean
(5)
4/52
(3/44)
--
Private wells
0.65 - 26.2
ug/L
Mean
(6)
Indoor Dust
Determined using lEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis
Ambient Air
Inhalation
1.6e-7-8.1e-6
mg/m3
Point
(7)
Future
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult
Ingestion
3.31 E+04
(1.89E+04)a
mg/kg
Max
(8)
--
99.0
(95.4)
3.71 E+02
(1.31E+02)a
mg/kg
Mean
(8)
--
3.9
(2.0)
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Child
Ingestion
3.31 E+04
(1.89E+04)a
mg/kg
Max
(9)
99.9
(99.9)
Ambient Air
Inhalation
1.80E-01
ug/m3
Max
(9)
Private wells
Ingestion
Default Groundwater Concentration of 4 ug/L is used.
Indoor Dust
Determined using lEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
3.71 E+02
(1.31E+02)a
mg/kg
Mean
(9)
6.535
(0.094)
Ambient Air
Inhalation
1.80E-01
ug/m3
Max
(9)
Private wells
Ingestion
Default Groundwater Concentration of 4 ug/L is used.
Indoor Dust
Determined using lEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
2.92E+02
(1.31E+02)a
mg/kg
75th Percentile
(9)
3.468
(0.094)
Ambient Air
Inhalation
1.80E-01
ug/m3
Max
(9)
Private wells
Ingestion
Default Groundwater Concentration of 4 ug/L is used.
Indoor Dust
Determined using lEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
3.71 E+02
mg/kg
Mean
(9)
5.87
Ambient Air
Inhalation
1.10E-02
ug/m3
Mean
(9)
Private wells
Ingestion
Default Groundwater Concentration of 4 ug/L is used.
Indoor Dust
Determined using lEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis
EPC Rationale:
(1) Highest average detected concentration at the 44 individual residences on non-BIA land; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of measured residential concentrations.
(2) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software based on the modeled concentrations at the 44 individual residences.
(3) Maximum modeled concentration after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.
(4) Maximum modeled concentration in ambient air in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.
(5) Mean (average) measured concentration at 44 individual residences; evaluation was conducted for each individual residence.
(6) Mean (average) measured concentration at individual residential wells; evaluation was conducted for each individual residence.
(7) Modeled concentration at each home.
(8) Two sets of statistical values based on modeled future concentrations in soil (0-1") after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas.
(9) Four sets of statistical values based on modeled future concentrations in soil (0-1") after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas and in ambient air.
Note:
EPCs and risk estimates presented in parentheses are those revised in the Addendum,
a - EPCs and risk estimates are based on the modeled future soil data.
008382
1 of 1
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC
008383
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table 5-2
Risk Summary - Native American Exposures
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Scenario
Exposure
Receptor
Receptor
Exposure
Chemical of
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
Hazard
Excess Lifetime
Timeframe
Point
Population
Age
Route
Potential Concern
Value
Units
Basis
Rationale
Index (HI)
Cancer Risk
(ELCR)
Current
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
9.6E+00
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
5.E-02
-
ZINC
1.9E+03
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
4.E-02
-
Dermal
CADMIUM
9.6E+00
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
2.E-03
-
ZINC
1.9E+03
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
4.E-05
-
Child
Ingestion
CADMIUM
9.6E+00
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
3.E-01
-
ZINC
1.9E+03
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
2.E-01
-
Native American
Dermal
CADMIUM
9.6E+00
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
1.E-02
-
(Subsistence)
ZINC
1.9E+03
mg/kg
Measured
(1)
2.E-04
-
Small Game
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
3.58E+01
(2.74E+01)a
(6.22E+01)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
2E-03
(4E-04)a
-
(e.g., Rabbit)
5.31 E+03
2E-04
(7E-05)a
ZINC
(5.39E+03)a
(2.95E+03)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
—
Beef (Cattle)
CADMIUM
3.58E+01
(2.74E+01)a
(6.22E+01)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
2E-08
(2E-08)a
-
* high fish diet
ZINC
5.31 E+03
(5.39E+03)a
(2.95E+03)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
6E-09
(7E-09)a
-
Beef (Cattle)
CADMIUM
3.58E+01
(2.74E+01)a
(6.22E+01)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
2E-07
(2E-07)a
-
* high beef diet
ZINC
5.31 E+03
(5.39E+03)a
(2.95E+03)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
6E-08
(6E-08)a
-
Milk (Dairy)
Child
Ingestion
CADMIUM
3.58E+01
(2.74E+01)a
(6.22E+01)b
ug/L
95% UCL
(2)
6E-02
(5E-02)a
-
ZINC
5.31 E+03
(5.39E+03)a
(2.95E+03)b
ug/L
95% UCL
(2)
5E-02
(6E-02)a
-
Asparagus
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
5.5E+00
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
2E+01
-
(above ground)
ZINC
1.4E+02
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
2E+00
-
Asparagus
CADMIUM
1.2E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
5E+01
-
(root)
ZINC
1.4E+03
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
2E+01
-
Willow
CADMIUM
1.8E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
7E+01
-
(above ground)
ZINC
4.7E+02
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
6E+00
-
Willow
CADMIUM
5.0E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
2E+02
-
(root)
ZINC
4.6E+03
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
6E+01
-
Cattail
CADMIUM
2.0E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
8E+01
-
(above ground)
ZINC
2.6E+03
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
3E+01
-
Cattail
CADMIUM
6.1E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
2E+02
-
(root)
ZINC
4.4E+03
mg/kg
95% UCL
(3)
6E+01
-
Ambient Air
Adult
Inhalation
CADMIUM
8.08E-05
ug/m3
95% UCL
(4)
6E-04
2E-07
Child
CADMIUM
8.08E-05
ug/m3
95% UCL
(4)
1E-03
3E-08
Current/Future
Private wells
Adult
Ingestion
ZINC
2.2E-01
mg/L
Max
(1)
4.E-02
-
Child
ZINC
2.2E-01
mg/L
Max
(1)
5.E-02
-
Aquatic Foods
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
4.0E+00
mg/kg
Mean
(5)
7E+00
(4E+00)
-
(e.g., Mussels)
ZINC
3.6E+02
mg/kg
Mean
(5)
2E-01
(7E-01)
-
Fish
CADMIUM
1.7E-01
mg/kg
Mean
(6)
2E+00
-
* high fish diet
ZINC
2.1E+01
mg/kg
Mean
(6)
9E-01
-
Fish
CADMIUM
1.7E-01
mg/kg
Mean
(6)
2E-01
-
* high beef diet
ZINC
2.1E+01
mg/kg
Mean
(6)
8E-02
-
Future
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult
Ingestion
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
1E-02
(3E-02)
-
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
7E-03
(2E-02)
-
Dermal
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
5E-04
(1E-03)
-
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
7E-06
(2E-05)
-
Child
Ingestion
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
6E-02
(1E-01)
-
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
3E-02
(7E-02)
-
Dermal
CADMIUM
2.2E+00
(4.6E+00)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
3E-03
(6E-03)
-
ZINC
4.0E+02
(8.5E+02)
mg/kg
Max
(7)
5E-05
(1E-04)
-
Ambient Air
Adult
Inhalation
CADMIUM
4.3E-06
mg/m3
Max
(8)
3E-02
-
Child
4.3E-06
mg/m3
Max
(8)
5E-02
-
Adult/Child
4.3E-06
mg/m3
Max
(8)
-
1E-05
008384
1 of 2
-------
Table 5-2
Risk Summary - Native American Exposures
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
Hazard
Index (HI)
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(ELCR)
Value
Units
Basis
Rationale
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
No. of Homes
with BLL
Exceeding
Criterion
Percent Above
Target BLL
of 10 ug/dl
Value or Range
Units
Basis
Rationale
Current
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Native American
(Subsistence)
Adult
Ingestion
Lead
29.1 -88.4
mg/kg
Mean
(9)
2/2
(2/2)
100
(100)
Small Game
3.10E+03
(4.41 E+02)a
(2.01 E+04)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
Beef
3.10E+03
(4.41 E+02)a
(2.01 E+04)b
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
Aquatic Foods
2.90E+01
mg/kg
Mean
(5)
Fish
4.27E-01
mg/kg
Mean
(6)
Asparagus (above ground)
1.88E+01
mg/kg
Mean
(10)
Asparagus (root)
5.58E+02
mg/kg
Mean
(10)
Willow (above ground)
1.09E+01
mg/kg
Mean
(10)
Willow (root)
1.02E+03
mg/kg
Mean
(10)
Cattail (above ground)
2.87E+02
mg/kg
Mean
(10)
Cattail (root)
1.08E+03
mg/kg
Mean
(10)
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Child
Ingestion
29.1 -88.4
mg/kg
Mean
(9)
0/2
(0/2)
-
Private wells
0.42 - 4
ug/L
Mean
(11)
Milk
(1.01 E-01)a
mg/kg
95% UCL
(2)
Indoor Dust
Determined using lEUBK's Multiple Source Analysis
Ambient Air
Inhalation
3.7e-7 - 4.2e-7
mg/m3
Point
(12)
Future
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult
Ingestion
3.31 E+04
(1.89E+04)c
mg/kg
Max
(13)
-
100
(100)
3.71E+02
(1.31 E+02)c
mg/kg
Mean
(13)
-
37.5
(11.6)
1.10E+02
(4.56E+01)c
mg/kg
Median
(13)
-
9.5
(3.8)
EPC Rationale:
(1) Highest average detected concentration at the 2 individual residences currently on BIA land; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of measured residential concentrations.
(2) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software and measured concentrations in surface soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) - used to model concentrations in biota; soil concentrations presented.
(3) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software based on the measured concentrations in these plants.
(4) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software and modeled concentrations at 46 rural residential properties.
(5) Mean detected sediment concentrations used to model concentrations in aquatic biota - obtained from ODEQ's fish tissue study (ODEQ, 2003); sediment concentration presented.
(6) Mean detected concentrations in fish tissue obtained from ODEQ's fish tissue study (ODEQ, 2003).
(7) Maximum modeled concentration after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.
(8) Maximum modeled concentration in ambient air in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas; demonstrates acceptable risk associated with the range of modeled concentrations.
(9) Mean (average) measured concentration at 2 individual residences on BIA land; evaluation was conducted for each individual residence.
(10) Mean (average) measured concentrations.
(11) Mean (average) measured concentration at 2 individual residential wells; for the 1 home without a well, the default concentration of 4 ug/L was used.
(12) Modeled concentration at each home.
(13) Three sets of statistical values based on modeled future concentrations in soil after 30 years in residential, transition zone, and smelter-affected soil areas.
Note:
EPCs and risk estimates presented in parentheses are those revised in the Addendum.
a - EPCs and risk estimates are based on the soil data collected from residential properties, rural areas, and transition zone,
b - EPCs are based on the soil data collected from smelter-affected areas,
c - EPCs and risk estimates are based on the modeled future soil data.
008385
2 of 2
-------
Table 5-3
Risk Summary - Recreator Exposures
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
Hazard
Index (HI)
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk
(ELCR)
Value
Units
Basis
Rationale
Current/Future
Chat and Tailings
Material
Recreator
Adolescent
Ingestion
CADMIUM
9.3E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(1)
1.E-01
ZINC
1.8E+04
mg/kg
95% UCL
(1)
6.E-02
Dermal
CADMIUM
9.3E+01
mg/kg
95% UCL
(1)
1.E-02
ZINC
1.8E+04
mg/kg
95% UCL
(1)
2.E-04
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Exposure Point Concentration (EPC)
Percent Above
Target BLL
of 10 ug/dl
Value
Units
Basis
Rationale
Current/Future
Chat and Tailings
Material
Recreator
Adolescent
Ingestion
Lead
3.46E+03
mg/kg
Mean
(2)
22.3%
EPC Rationale:
(1) Calculated using EPA's ProUCL software and measured concentrations in sieved (250 um) samples collected from 0-1 inch or 0-6 inches.
(2) Mean (average) measured concentration in chat and tailings samples collected from 0-1 inch or 0-6 inches and sieved.
008386
1 of 1
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC
008387
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
6.0 Blood Lead Studies in Tar Creek
The following text was excerpted from Report to Congress - Tar Creek Snperfund Site
(ATSDR, 2004; Appendix I)
6.1 Datasets Reviewed
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reviewed and analyzed
data on the BLLs of children living at the site from January 1995 through February 2004
(Appendix M, Figure 3). The Ottawa County Sunshine Clinic, the Ottawa County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program (OCLPPP) managed by the Ottawa County Health
Department (OCHD), Tribal Efforts Against Lead (TEAL) and Community Health Action
and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) surveys, Tribal Health Clinics, private physicians, and
other private and public clinics collect blood from children and test for lead. These programs
send data to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Surveillance System (CLPPSS), which then transmits aggregate data to
the CDC and Prevention's Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance Program.
The most useful data sources for assessing BLLs of children living at the site were the 1995—
2002 OSDH CLPPSS, the 1997 and 2000 TEAL survey, and the 1999-2004 OCLPPP
screening data (Appendix M, Tables 4 and 5). Children were considered to live at the site if
their medical records indicated that they lived at addresses in the northeast Oklahoma towns
of Cardin, Commerce, North Miami, Picher, or Quapaw. For this analysis, all children with
addresses from North Miami were included as living at the site—even though a portion of
North Miami is outside the site boundaries (Appendix M, Figure 1). ATSDR included this
portion of North Miami in the estimates for the population or number of children living at the
site.
OCLPPP provides blood lead testing free of charge to children living at the site and to all
other children, including tribal children, living in Ottawa County. Families with young
children who may be at risk for lead poisoning are highly encouraged to participate in the
voluntary program. OCLPPP personnel offer testing on site at the OCHD and conduct regular
screening efforts at schools, preschools, daycare centers, Head Start programs, and local
shopping areas. OCLPPP also conducts identification and screening efforts in coordination
with the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program and with other public health
programs. In addition, OCLPPP provides on-location testing services to potential high-risk
areas, as warranted (13).
ATSDR used the OCLPPP data as the source for 2003 BLLs for tested children living at the
site because those data incorporate:
• The most recent and current data available at the time of this analysis;
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 6-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008388
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• A substantial number of children tested (40% of the estimated population of children,
aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site—based on 2000 census block data analysis for
population estimate);
• Numerous BLL tests throughout the year (total of 308 for children, aged 1 to 5 years,
living at the site in 2003);
• A high level of test result recording accuracy (a check of existing BLL entries with
actual patient paper records showed only four errant electronic entries in 390 follow-
up patient records that contain up to 14 entries each);
• BLLs reported to the 10th |ig/dL (OSDH CLPPSS data were rounded to the nearest
whole number) with consistent application of non-detect values (statistical values
assigned to test results when lead in a blood sample is too low to be detected);
• Data based on results obtained from consistent testing protocols and analysis criteria;
and
• Targeted testing for potentially higher risk children (Head Start programs, siblings of
children with elevated BLLs, WIC).
The OCLPPP data system is the largest contributor of data to the OSDH CLPPSS system.
Both OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets are comprised primarily of capillary blood lead
testing data (under OCLPPP, a confirmatory venous test is provided after an elevated
capillary test result). Both the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets consist of convenience
samples rather than representative samples. All TEAL survey blood lead tests were venous,
and TEAL used a door-to-door sampling method. In calculating geometric means for the
OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP data for each year, ATSDR used the highest test of each child
tested in the respective year.
The simple arithmetic mean is not suitable for representing "average" conditions when a
large proportion of the observations are clustered at one end of the data range. This is often
the situation with blood lead levels. The occurrence of a few high numbers would result in a
perceived "average" far higher than a number that would be reflective of actual conditions. In
such situations, the geometric mean is a more appropriate measure of central tendency than
the arithmetic mean. The result represents a more accurate estimate of common or typical
conditions.
6.2 Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs
Among tested children aged 1-5 years living in the Tar Creek Superfund site, the percentage
of BLL elevations and the geometric BLL mean declined from 1995-2003 (Appendix M,
Figures 4 and 6). In 1996, OSDH CLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5
years living at the site, 31.2 percent (67/215) had BLL at or above 10 |ig/dL and the
geometric mean was 6.65 |ig/dL. In 2003, OCLPPP data showed that among tested children
aged 1-5 years living at the site, 2.8 percent (7/250) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric
mean was 3.04 |ig/dL. These 2003 statistics are slightly higher than the findings of the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) for children living in the
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 6-2
008389
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
United States as a whole. NHANES data indicate that among U.S. children aged 1-5 years
during 1999-2000, 2.2 percent had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 2.2 |ig/dL.
6.3 Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund
Site as a Whole
Of the children in Picher and Cardin who were tested for blood lead, the percentage with
elevated BLLs and the geometric mean declined from 1995-2003 (Appendix M, Figures 5
and 7). In 1996, OKCLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in
Picher and Cardin, 44.6 percent (41/92) had elevated BLLs and the geometric mean was 9.17
|ig/dL. In 2003, the OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in
Picher and Cardin, 3.4 percent (3/88) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.82
M-g/dL.
In 1996, the percentage of children identified with elevated BLLs and the geometric BLL
mean for all children tested were higher in the combined areas of Picher and Cardin than at
the site as a whole. However, these differences have diminished in recent years.
6.4 Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs
From January 2000 to March 2004, 37 children under 6 years of age living at the site were
identified with elevated BLLs (at or above 10 |ig/dL) by the OCHD. Of these children 41
percent (15/37) were from five households. This could suggest that high-risk behaviors were
shared by these family members or that common exposure sources were present.
In 2003, OCLPPP identified seven children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site as having
elevated BLLs. The OCLPPP program conducted or received data from environmental
assessments of the residences of six of these children at various points in time (some prior to
2003). The potential sources of lead exposure found to be present at the respective residences
are described in Appendix M, Table 7 in the appendix and include lead-based paint, lead-
containing floor dust (at or above 10 ng/fb), and soil with elevated lead levels (above 500
mg/kg).
6.5 Data Limitations
Any comparisons of the OCLPPP data with NHANES U.S. data should be viewed with
caution because the NHANES data are based on a representative sample of the United States
(1, 14), and the OCLPPP data comprises a convenience sample rather than representative
samples of the site area. As shown in Appendix M, Tables 4 and 5, the OKCLPPSS, TEAL,
and OCLPPP data samples include a substantial proportion but not all of the estimated
population of children, aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site.
NHANES data are generalized to the U.S. population and were not intended to provide
estimates for smaller areas or for specific populations where the risk for elevated BLLs is
high (14). Furthermore, all NHANES blood lead tests are collected by venous sampling (14),
whereas the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP programs primarily collect blood through
capillary sampling.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL 2006-02\TC HHRA DRAFTFINALRA.DOC
6-3
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Because sample contamination of a capillary test can over-estimate BLLs (15, 16) and
because ATSDR used each tested child's highest BLL to calculate geometric means,
geometric means of the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets probably overestimate actual
geometric means.
The 1997 and 2000 TEAL surveys measured lead from venous blood. Given the relatively
high availability of free screening in the area, it is not known if the use of venous testing and
the presence of incentives to participant families could have resulted in higher relative TEAL
participation in areas of lower median income and among children with higher risk factors
for lead poisoning.
Many other relative factors could be explored, including the prevalence of pre-1950 housing
units and poverty at the site area as compared to that of the United States (Appendix M,
Table 3). An updated NHANES blood lead survey might show a further decline in national
BLLs since 1999-2000. BLLs in U.S. children have been declining (14).
6.6 Interventions
Many activities may have been instrumental in reducing elevated BLLs at the site. In 1995,
after the confirmation of elevated BLLs, ATSDR funded the OSDH to conduct extensive
blood lead testing throughout Ottawa County. OSDH determined that 28.3% of children
tested had BLLs at or above 10 |ig/dL. Several projects implemented over the past several
years have increased community knowledge of exposure and the harmful effects of lead.
Some of those include CHAMP and TEAL. Beginning in 1995, EPA began testing and
remediating residential soils and areas where children play (such as school and city parks and
playgrounds, ball fields, and daycare centers). Since 1998, the OCHD has conducted
extensive blood lead screening, and community and health provider education. OCHD has
distributed HEPA vacuums to area households who have children with elevated BLLs. The
area also received U.S. Housing and Urban Development funds for lead abatement in homes.
These activities, combined, may have helped to reduce BLLs in Ottawa County. BLLs of
children living at or near the site might increase without these interventions.
6.7 Conclusions
Two potential sources were found for lead in children in the Tar Creek site area: mine
tailings and lead-based paint. Both could contribute lead to house dust and soil, which most
likely are the points of exposure for children. The relative contributions of exposure to mine
tailings and exposure to lead-based paint on the BLLs of people living at the site cannot be
determined from existing information.
The evidence available to ATSDR indicates that mine tailings in the residential area soil
exposure pathway may have been a primary source of the lead in children's blood before
EPA remediated the Tar Creek residential areas. Exposure to mine tailings still could occur
because Tar Creek area residents, especially those in Picher and Cardin, remain near tailings
piles, ponds, and embankments and can readily access these tailings deposits. Additionally,
the close proximity of these tailings to residences increases the risk for recontamination of
residential soil because of blowing dust or residential or commercial use of the tailings.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 6-4
008391
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
A decline in the average BLLs among tested children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site from
1995-2003 has been observed, as was a decrease in the percentage of tested children with
elevated BLLs from 1995 to 2003. The average BLLs and the percentage of elevated BLLs
among tested children living at the site in 2003 were slightly higher than for children living
in the United States as a whole in 1999-2000 (1). However, this comparison should be
viewed with caution because the U.S. data are based on a representative sample of the United
States (1), the Tar Creek data is from a convenience sample and not a representative sample,
and U.S. child BLLs also may have declined since 2000.
Declining BLLs among tested children living at the site should not be interpreted to mean
that existing interventions in the Tar Creek area are no longer needed. Potential lead sources,
including unremediated yards, chat piles, tailings ponds, and residential lead-based paint,
remain at the site.
Existing programs should be evaluated to determine how they may have contributed to this
decline. The OCHD should continue existing blood lead screening and public health
education efforts. Ongoing screening efforts are needed to confirm and monitor trends.
Ongoing public health education reinforces the need for adult, parental, and child behaviors
that may reduce exposure to lead and subsequent health effects.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 6-5
008392
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 6-6
008393
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
7.0 Uncertainties
This section presents a discussion of the assumptions and procedures that introduce the
greatest amount of uncertainty in the HHRA, as well as their effect on the estimates of
potential risk. The discussion of their effect is qualitative because in many instances not
enough information exists to quantify the magnitude of these uncertainties.
Calculated RME ELCRs presented in Section 5.4 are estimates of potential upper-bound
risks that are useful in regulatory decision-making. It is improper to consider these assumed
risks as representative of the actual risk to potentially exposed individuals because they were
estimated by making numerous conservative assumptions (i.e., assumptions that overestimate
potential exposure and potential risk). Thus, they have uncertainty associated with them.
Some of the assumptions have a firm scientific basis while others do not.
Some level of uncertainty is introduced into the risk assessment process every time an
assumption is made. In regulatory risk assessment, the methodology dictates that
assumptions err on the side of overestimating potential exposure and risk. The effect of using
numerous assumptions, each of which overestimates potential risk, is to exaggerate estimates
of potential risk. Such estimates do not provide a realistic estimate of the potential health
impacts associated with a site.
This uncertainty analysis is divided into subsections that correspond to the four steps in the
HHRA process described by EPA.
7.1 Data Evaluation
The purpose of data evaluation is to determine which chemicals are present at the site at
concentrations requiring evaluation in the risk assessment. Uncertainty with respect to data
evaluation can arise from many sources, such as the quality of the data used to characterize
the site and the process used to select data included in the risk assessment. Analytical
parameters were selected based upon knowledge of historical site activities (mining).
There is some uncertainty associated with the size of the Tar Creek study area and the limited
number of samples that were collected from the various media. However, the data are
expected to represent the range of concentrations that may be contacted in the various media
within the Tar Creek area. Use of this data is not expected to affect the conclusions of the
HHRA significantly, but adds uncertainty to the locations that may warrant risk management.
7.2 Exposure Assessment
An exposure assessment consists of two basic elements: estimation of potential EPCs and
estimation of potential intakes. The following sections discuss important sources of
uncertainty associated with these two elements.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 7-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008394
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
7.2.1 Exposure Point Concentrations
The following concentrations were used as EPCs for cadmium and zinc in the intake
calculations:
• current residential yard soil - maximum detected concentrations;
• current/future ground water - maximum detected concentrations;
• current ambient air - UCL95 of modeled concentrations at 46 yards where soil
samples were collected;
• future soil -maximum modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area;
• future ambient air - maximum modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area;
• current/future chat pile material/tailings - UCL95 of detected concentrations;
• current/future edible plants - UCL95 of detected concentrations for each plant
species;
• current/future small game - modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from
soils in residential yards, smelter area, transition zone, and rural areas, and
bioaccumulation factor (BAF) from soil to small game;
• current/future beef - modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in
residential yards, smelter area, transition zone, and rural areas, and biotransfer from
soil/plants to beef;
• current/future dairy milk - UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential
yards, smelter area, transition zone, and rural areas, and biotransfer from soil/plants to
milk;
• current/future fish - mean detected concentrations from the ODEQ (ODEQ, 2003)
study; and
• current/future aquatic food - modeled using mean detected concentrations in
sediments from the ODEQ (2003) study.
In addition, the following concentrations were used as EPCs for lead in the intake
calculations:
• current residential yard soil - average detected concentration at each yard; if a soil
sample was not collected but a ground water sample was collected and the residence
was addressed under OU2, 500 ppm (the OU2 cleanup level) was assumed; if a
ground water sample was collected and the residence was not addressed under OU2,
the average detected concentration at all residential yards on public land was used
(since the ground water samples [without accompanying soil samples] were collected
on public land).
• Current residential indoor dust - the default dust-to-soil ratio provided in the IEUBK
model was used; although four indoor dust samples were collected in October 2005
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 7-2
008395
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
from four properties where residential yard concentrations exceeded 500 ppm, the
dust sample size was small (lead was detected in only two of the four samples) and
the outdoor soil-to-indoor dust correlation was not strong; the observed correlation
was therefore not applied to the rural residential properties in Tar Creek.
• current/future ground water - average detected concentration at each home where
measured; if a well was not present, the default ground water concentration in the
IEUBK model was used;
• current ambient air - modeled concentration at each residence;
• future soil - (original calculations: maximum, mean, median, and 75th percentile
modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek Area); updated calculations included the
maximum and mean (same as 75th percentile) modeled concentrations for the Tar
Creek Area;
• future ambient air - maximum and mean modeled concentrations for the Tar Creek
Area;
• current/future chat pile material/tailings - UCL95 of detected concentrations;
• current/future edible plants - average detected concentrations for each plant species;
• current/future small game - modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from
soils in residential yards, smelter area, and transition zone, and BAF from soil to
small game; the updated EPC incorporated a lower cadmium concentration in
transition zone soil and additional samples from rural areas.
• current/future beef - modeled using UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in
residential yards, smelter area, and transition zone, and biotransfer from soil/plants to
beef; the updated EPC incorporated a lower cadmium concentration in transition zone
soil and additional samples from rural areas.
• current/future dairy milk - UCL95 of detected concentrations from soils in residential
yards, smelter area, and transition zone, and biotransfer from soil/plants to milk; the
updated EPC incorporated a lower cadmium concentration in transition zone soil and
additional samples from rural areas.
• current/future fish - mean detected concentrations from the ODEQ (ODEQ, 2003)
study; and
• current/future aquatic food - modeled using mean detected concentrations in
sediments from the ODEQ (2003) study.
This will likely lead to an overestimation of actual exposure because receptors are assumed
to be exposed to the maximum or UCL95 concentration for the entire exposure duration. As
the data indicate, COPCs were detected in environmental media within a large range of
concentrations. In addition, cadmium and lead were not detected in most fish samples
collected by ODEQ (2003). Thus, the assumption that all potential exposures are to the
maximum or UCL95 concentrations will likely result in an overestimation of actual
exposures and estimates of potential risk.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 7-3
008396
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
For all media except soil, the future concentrations were assumed to be unchanged.
However, materials currently situated within chat piles may be removed from the Tar Creek
area in the future, lowering potential soil and ambient air concentrations. Therefore, this is
expected to be a conservative approach to evaluating future exposures. Since the chat piles
and tailings ponds have been located in this area for many years, it is expected that ground
water concentrations detected in private wells will not increase significantly over those
concentrations detected during the RI.
The concentrations in plants consumed by beef cattle during grazing were modeled using soil
uptake information presented in EPA guidance (EPA, 2005a) and the UCL95 concentration
in soil from yards, smelter-affected soil, transition zones, and rural areas. Use of the model
may overestimate or underestimate potential plant concentrations for some cattle depending
on the specific chemical, resulting in under- or overestimation of risks from beef and milk
ingestion. Maximum detected concentrations in composite plant samples (on which cattle
graze: Blue Stem, Bermuda, Red Clover, Yellow Hop, White Clover, Crab Grass, Fescue,
Lespidiza, and Switch Grass) collected from the smelter area and the modeled plant
concentrations are indicated below:
• lead - 28.6 ppm (detected) versus 0.045 ppm (modeled);
• cadmium - 3 ppm (detected) versus 13 ppm (modeled); and
• zinc - 193 ppm (detected) versus 1300 ppm (modeled).
Homegrown vegetable samples were not collected during the RI for OU4, although they were
collected for OU2. The HHRA prepared for OU2 included an evaluation of soil and
homegrown produce at various homes in Picher, and analytical results from the homegrown
produce were used to evaluate potential risks in the OU2 HHRA. Soil and dust ingestion
accounted, on average, for 82% of the estimated total lead uptake within the study group.
The contribution of diet to total lead uptake was substantially lower (16%). Most of the
estimated dietary lead uptake was derived from default dietary lead intake and a smaller
portion from homegrown produce. Therefore, although homegrown produce intakes were
not quantified in the OU4 HHRA, it is not expected to affect the results of the HHRA
significantly.
7.2.2 Estimated Intakes
Significant uncertainty exists in assumptions used to calculate chemical intakes from
exposure to various media (e.g., rate of ingestion, frequency and duration of exposure,
absorption efficiency). Conservative exposure factors (i.e., health-protective) are used when
available information is limited. This may result in an overestimation of risk.
This HHRA follows EPA guidance and estimates ELCRs and His for a theoretical RME
individual. For example, the Native American resident is assumed to contact soil dermally
350 days per year for 70 years. An individual Native American resident is unlikely to contact
soil at this frequency and duration, but 350 days per year is expected to be a conservative
estimate. Actual risks are likely to be less than the potential risks presented in this HHRA.
Significant uncertainty exists in assumptions used to calculate chemical intake from exposure
to various media (e.g., rate of ingestion, frequency and duration of exposure, absorption
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 7-4
008397
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
efficiency). Conservative (i.e., health-protective) exposure factors were used since site-
specific values were not available. This is expected to result in an overestimation of potential
risk for the COPCs and exposure pathways quantified in the HHRA.
There are uncertainties in the modeling used to estimate lead exposures by adolescent
recreators. The more significant uncertainties include the use of the ALM for an adolescent
population, the potential for a lead higher absorption factor (i.e., up to 30%), the potential for
a higher soil ingestion rate (e.g., 200 mg/day), the potential for a lower exposure frequency
(e.g., 78 days/year), and a potential lower baseline BLL than that assumed in the risk
calculations. However, a potentially higher absorption factor and lower baseline BLL are
likely to cancel each other out in the lead exposure calculations.
The food intakes assumed for a high-beef diet and high-fish diet Native American resident
were obtained from the Spokane Tribe study, which may not be applicable for the Native
American residents at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The ingestion rates that were assumed
include approximately 2.6 pounds of meat/fish and approximately 3.5 pounds of vegetables
per day, all grown on impacted soil. It was also assumed that cattail, willow, and asparagus
comprise 100 percent of their diet, which is unrealistic. The EPA Exposure Factors
Handbook presents intake rates for the Native American scenario that are much lower than
the Spokane Tribe rates assumed in this HHRA. Therefore, the risks presented in this HHRA
for the Native American resident are expected to be overestimated and are likely better
represented by the assumptions for more typical Native Americans (in the Exposure Factors
Handbook).
There is uncertainty associated with the inputs used in the ambient air modeling and
deposition modeling based on limited data from chat piles and mill ponds. Thirty years of
deposition are assumed to be extrapolated to the entire Tar Creek Area, including those areas
where samples have not been collected. Kreiging was used to estimate concentrations at
locations where no soil data were available.
Exposure to COPCs via the breastmilk pathway were not evaluated due to the lack of
available bioaccumulation data. Therefore, the risks associated with this pathway were not
addressed and are underestimated.
The bioavailability of lead in soil at the Tar Creek site was not measured. However, the
bioavailability of lead in soil was evaluated at the Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site, a
similar site to Tar Creek OU4 in terms of waste sources and environmental conditions
(Casteel et al., 1996). Three soil samples from the site (composites from different areas of
the site) were used in a study to measure the gastrointestinal absorption of lead from soil.
Concentrations in the three soil samples ranged from 4,050 to 10,800 ppm lead. The amount
of lead absorbed by each animal was evaluated by measuring the amount of lead in the blood,
liver, kidney, and bone. Results indicate bioavailability in the range of 29 to 40 percent.
Therefore, the default bioavailability factor of 30% used in the IEUBK model seems to fall
within the ballpark of the actual bioavailability for the site soil and, as such, the assumed
bioavailability does not over- or underestimate site risk.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 7-5
008398
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
7.3 Toxicity Assessment
Dermal toxicity values are not available in the standard toxicity references. Therefore, dermal
toxicity values were calculated using oral toxicity values and available oral absorption
efficiencies for the study animals for which oral RfDs were derived. Depending on the
quality of the data available for absorption efficiencies, and depending on whether or not
dermal exposures result in the same type of target effect (as observed in the oral study), this
may result in underestimation or overestimation of risk.
7.4 Risk Characterization
Generally, the goal of a baseline HHRA is to estimate an upper-bound, but reasonable,
potential risk. Such an upper-bound estimate can be derived in several ways, depending on
how conservative one wants the final estimate. In the baseline HHRA, several upper-bound
assumptions and numerous exposure pathways were combined to estimate potential risks.
Most of the assumptions about exposure and toxicity used in the HHRAs are representative
of statistical upper-bounds or even maximums for each parameter. The result of combining
several such upper-bound assumptions is that the final estimate of potential exposure or
potential risk is conservative.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 7-6
008399
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
8.0 Preliminary Remediation Goals
The risk calculations presented in Section 7 indicate unacceptable risks from the COPCs for
the receptors and exposure routes indicated below:
• General Public Child and Adult Resident - lead (soil and groundwater) for both child
and adult; cadmium (soil) for adult;
• General Public Adolescent Recreator - lead (source materials); and
• Native American Adult Resident - cadmium and zinc (vegetables and edible plants)
and lead (the specific media driving the risk were not identified).
This section further evaluates key pathways to estimate target concentrations (Preliminary
Remediation Goals or PRGs) that are protective for persons residing in OU4 based on
various possible exposure scenarios. Lead has been shown to be the primary COC such that
PRGs focused on protective concentrations of lead will also be protective for cadmium and
zinc exposures. The target % of the population with BLL >10 |ig/dl is 5. Both the ALM and
IEUBK model were used for calculating RGs for lead. PRGs for cadmium and zinc were
estimated based on a target Hazard Index (HI) of 1 (unity). Since they have different target
organs, the PRGs for these chemicals were developed independently.
The PRGs, which are presented in Appendix N, address the following media:
• Groundwater
• Rural residential soil
• Source materials (chat piles, chat bases, tailing ponds)
o Recreational use
• Rural non-residential soil
o Pastureland (for game animals or beef cattle)
• Food Items
8.1 Groundwater
The lead concentration in two shallow rural residential wells exceeds the Federal Action
Level of 15 |ig/L for protection of drinking water. In the future, if additional shallow wells
are installed in other areas of Tar Creek for rural residential purposes, groundwater
concentrations may pose unacceptable risks. The remedial goal for lead in groundwater is
15 ng/L.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008400
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
8.2 Rural Residential Soil
Residential properties are assumed to be less than 0.5 acres, with more frequent contact of
soils occurring near the home. Of the potential routes of exposure, incidental ingestion of soil
by children is commonly the primary exposure pathway. Exposure may also occur via indoor
dust. An attempt was made to correlate indoor dust concentrations with outdoor soil
concentrations. However, an insufficient quantity of data was available and the statistical
evaluation indicated that the correlations between indoor dust and outdoor soil concentrations
were not strong (Appendix N, Figures 1-6). Therefore, the default ratio embedded in the
IEUBK model was used. If there is additional dietary intake of COPCs (e.g., eating beef and
drinking milk from cows grazing on impacted pastureland), soil PRGs that are more
conservative may be needed. The PRGs are discussed below for rural residential soils for
General Public and Native American populations.
8.2.1 General Public Rural Residential Use
Unacceptable concentrations of lead (defined as one or more samples at concentrations above
500 ppm) were identified at six of 46 current rural residential properties. One of these
residences (a home at the former smelter) was subsequently remediated in November 2005.
In addition, if additional properties were used for rural residential purposes in the future, soil
concentrations of cadmium and lead on some properties would pose unacceptable risks. The
PRG for lead in residential soil that was developed for OU2 (500 mg/kg) was identified as
the PRG for rural residential soil in OU4. The EPA Region 6 MSSL for cadmium of 39
mg/kg on residential properties was identified as the PRG for cadmium.
Potential modification of these PRGs was considered for rural residential properties where
homegrown produce may be ingested. The PRGs protective for ingestion of homegrown
produce (including incidental ingestion of soil) were estimated based on four assumptions
regarding dietary intake percentages of homegrown produce (i.e., 10, 25, 50, and 100%)
using the biotransfer factors presented in EPA's Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) and are
presented in Tables 8-1 through 8-3.
The HHRA prepared for OU2 included an evaluation of soil and homegrown produce at
various homes in Picher, and analytical results from the homegrown produce were used to
evaluate potential risks. Soil and dust ingestion accounted, on average, for 82% of the
estimated total lead uptake within the study group. The contribution of diet to total lead
uptake was substantially lower (16%). Most of the estimated dietary lead uptake was derived
from default dietary lead intake and a smaller portion from homegrown produce. Therefore,
the remedial goal for lead in soil at OU2 (500 mg/kg) was based on exposures to soil/dust.
Consequently, soil lead concentrations at 500 mg/kg are considered protective of homegrown
vegetable exposures.
This type of produce data was not specifically collected for OU4, and the conclusion for OU2
is recommended. This is considered protective at OU4 for several reasons:
• Lead, the primary COC, does not significantly accumulate in common homegrown
produce.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-2
008401
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• Child exposures are not significantly increased because they do not typically perform
gardening and have limited intake of these homegrown produce.
• Food ingestion from small residential gardens reflects only a relatively small
percentage of a person's total diet.
Table 8-1
Cadmium - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown Produce
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Adult
Child
Soil PRG
(mg/kg)
Plant Cone,
(mg/kg)
% of Plants
Eaten
Soil PRG
(mg/kg)
Plant Cone,
(mg/kg)
% of Plants
Eaten
9.4
1.18
10
4.86
0.608
10
3.8
0.474
25
2.02
0.253
25
1.9
0.237
50
1.02
0.128
50
0.95
0.119
100
0.515
0.0644
100
Table 8-2
Zinc - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Consumption of Homegrown Produce
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Adult
Child
Soil PRG
(mg/kg)
Plant Cone,
(mg/kg)
% of Plants
Eaten
Soil PRG
(mg/kg)
Plant Cone,
(mg/kg)
% of Plants
Eaten
3580
351
10
1830
179
10
1450
142
25
767
75.2
25
726
71.2
50
390
38.2
50
364
35.7
100
197
19.3
100
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-3
008402
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-3
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of
Homegrown Produce
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil PRG (mg/kg)
Plant Cone, (mg/kg)
% of Plants Eaten
112
1.52
10
52
0.71
25
28
0.38
50
14
0.19
100
(Note: A highly conservative biotransfer factor from soil to plants was used in the calculations; it is overly conservative
based on results of produce sampling in OU-2).
Additionally, the PRGs protective for ingestion of beef from cattle grazing on the residential
property (and incidental ingestion of residential soil) were estimated based on four
assumptions regarding dietary intake percentages of beef from cattle raised on their yards for
general public adults (Table 8-4).
Assuming children on a rural residential property consume 10% of their milk and beef from
cows raised on their land, a range of soil PRGs (31 to 350 mg/kg) was evaluated in terms of
the associated lead concentrations in milk and beef calculated using the biotranser factors
presented in EPA's Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a). The IEUBK model results indicate
that a soil PRG of approximately 300 mg/kg is protective of these additional dietary sources
(Table 8-5)
Table 8-4
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Adult Consumption of
Beef from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil PRG (mg/kg)
Beef Cone, (mg/kg)
% of Meat Eaten
455
0.13
10
448
0.12
25
436
0.12
50
414
0.11
100
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-4
008403
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-5
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child
Consumption of 10% of Beef and Milk from Cattle Grazing on
Rural Residential Property
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil. PRG
(mg/kg)
Grazing
Plant
Cone,
(mg/kg)
Beef
Cone.(mg/kg)
Milk
Cone.(mg/kg)
%of
Population
with a BLL
above 10
1-ig/dL
31
1.4
0.0083
0.0077
0.026
50
2.3
0.013
0.012
0.055
100
4.5
0.027
0.025
0.26
150
6.8
0.040
0.037
0.78
200
9
0.054
0.050
1.8
250
11
0.067
0.062
3.3
300
13
0.081
0.075
5.4
350
16
0.094
0.087
8.0
(Note: 5% is the target % of the population with a BLL above 10 pg/dL.)
8.2.2 Native American Rural Residential Land Use
Unacceptable concentrations of COPCs were not identified in soil or groundwater at the two
current rural residential properties on BIA land. However, if additional BIA land is used for
rural residential purposes in the future, soil concentrations on some properties could pose
unacceptable risks.
For the general public, the lead soil PRG of 500 mg/kg is based on protection of children
and/or the fetus of adult pregnant women using default assumptions for incidental ingestion
of soil. Native American residents may have higher exposures based on higher intake
estimates for ingestion of soil as well as additional exposure pathways.
Assuming modification of the soil ingestion rates only with no additional sources of COPCs:
• The most sensitive receptor of soil ingestion for cadmium and zinc is a child. If the soil
ingestion rates were assumed to increase from 200 to 400 mg/day (a highly conservative
soil ingestion rate from Harper, et al.), the soil PRGs would be 38 mg/kg and
11,250 mg/kg for cadmium and zinc, respectively.
• For lead, if the average soil ingestion rate (100 mg/day) in the IEUBK Model is
hypothetically changed for Native American children to 400 mg/day (i.e., 4 times higher),
the PRG for a child would decrease to approximately 102 mg/kg. It should be noted that
the ingestion rates embedded in the IEUBK model are not supposed to be changed.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_SECTION08.DOC
008404
8-5 FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The ALM is not intended for residential use. However, using a soil ingestion rate of 400
mg/day results in an estimated PRG of 110 mg/kg. The ALM is based on protection of the
fetus of a pregnant woman, and it is likely overly conservative to estimate this soil intake for
365 days per year at this higher level. The ALM recommends a soil ingestion rate of 50
mg/day, with 100 mg/day considered a reasonable upper-bound intake for an adult in an
industrial scenario. Using 100 mg/day, a PRG of 441 mg/kg is estimated (assuming a
homogeneous population of receptors with this type of exposure).
The impact of additional dietary intakes on the estimating additional PRGs for rural
residential soil is complex. Similar to the general public, the PRGs protective for ingestion of
soil and homegrown produce were estimated based on four assumptions regarding dietary
intake percentages of homegrown produce (i.e., 10, 25, 50, and 100%) using the biotransfer
factors presented in EPA's Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) and are presented in Tables
8-6 through 8-8. It is important to note that the default biotransfer factors in the EPA
Combustion Guidance appear to overestimate plant concentrations (especially homegrown
vegetables) by several orders of magnitude based on the soil/plant correlation observed
during sampling at OU-2.
Table 8-6
Cadmium - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of
Homegrown Produce
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil PRG (mg/kg)
Plant Cone, (mg/kg)
% of Plant Eaten
7.84
0.980
10
3.22
0.403
25
1.63
0.203
50
0.817
0.102
100
Table 8-7
Zinc - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil PRG (mg/kg)
Plant Cone, (mg/kg)
% of Plant Eaten
2960
290
10
1230
120
25
621
60.8
50
312
30.6
100
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-6
008405
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-8
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Homegrown
Produce
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil PRG (mg/kg)
Plant Cone, (mg/kg)
% of Plant Eaten
33
0.45
10
16
0.22
25
9
0.12
50
5
0.062
100
Additionally, the PRGs protective for ingestion of beef from cattle grazing on the rural
residential property (and incidental ingestion of residential soil) were estimated based on four
assumptions regarding dietary intake percentages of beef from cattle raised on their yards for
Native American adults (Table 8-9). If beef grazing on the rural residential property are
consumed, it is estimated that the PRG for an adult consuming 400 mg soil/day is decreased
to 107 mg/kg. This is based on a daily intake of approximately 0.4 lbs of beef, with 25
percent from the property. For the assumption of soil ingestion at 100 mg/day, the PRG of
441 mg/day would be reduced to 395 mg/kg for the same assumptions for beef ingestion.
Table 8-9
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Adult Consumption of Beef from Cattle
Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil PRG (mg/kg)
Beef Cone, (mg/kg)
% of Meat Eaten
109
0.030
10
107
0.030
25
104
0.029
50
99
0.027
100
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-7
008406
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-10
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on Tribal Child Consumption of 50% of Beef
and Milk from Cattle Grazing on Rural Residential Property
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Soil
PRG
(mg/kg)
Grazing
Plant
Cone,
(mg/kg)
Beef Cone,
(mg/kg)
Milk
Cone.
(mg/kg)
% of Population
with a BLL
above 10 j^ig/dL
31
1.395
0.0083
0.0077
0.078
50
2.25
0.0134
0.0124
0.237
100
4.5
0.02688
0.02485
1.686
150
6.75
0.0403
0.0373
5.269
200
9
0.05376
0.0497
10.958
250
11.25
0.0672
0.0621
18.09
300
13.5
0.0806
0.0746
25.878
350
15.75
0.094
0.0869
33.714
(Note: 5% is the target % of the population with a BLL above 10 pg/dL.)
Assuming children on a rural residential property consume 50% of their milk and beef from
cows raised on their land, a range of soil PRGs (31 to 350 mg/kg) was evaluated in terms of
the associated lead concentrations in milk and beef calculated using the biotranser factors
presented in EPA's Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a). The IEUBK model results indicate
that a soil PRG of approximately 150 mg/kg is protective of these additional dietary sources
(Table 8-10)
Additional considerations of dietary intake of edible plants grown regionally are presented in
Section 8.4.2,
8.3 Rural Non-Residential Soil/Source Material
8.3.1 Recreational Use
Outside of the rural residential properties, the public may be exposed to COPCs in source
areas during recreational activities such as driving all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on chat piles
and millponds. Unacceptable BLLs were identified for this scenario in the HHRA.
To estimate the PRG protective for an adolescent recreator, the ALM was adopted as
recommended by the Technical Review Workgroup for metals and asbestos (TRW) in their
Frequently Asked Questions document (EPA, 2005f). The target receptor for this PRG is an
adolescent; however, the ALM is targeted for protection of the most sensitive receptor (a
fetus). Therefore, use of the ALM assumes that the receptor is a pregnant woman. In
addition, the assumption that the receptor plays in the source areas each day that weather
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-8
008407
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
permits is highly unrealistic. Therefore, the PRGs for lead in rural non-residential soils or
source materials were also calculated assuming an exposure frequency of three days per
week for 26 weeks. The PRGs were evaluated based on various possible exposure
assumptions (model parameters) presented below. The estimated PRGs range from 350 to
1,047 mg/kg.
Table 8-11
Lead - Source Material PRGs Based on Recreational Adolescent Scenario
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
GSD
Baseline PbB ((ig/dL)
Ingestion
Rate
(mg/day)
Absorption
fraction
Exposure
frequency
(days/yr)
PRG
(mg/kg)
2.3 (default)
1.7 (default)
200
0.12
(default)
78c
547
2.3 (default)
1.7 (default)
100
0.12
(default)
78
1,095
2.1 (NHANES
HI)
1.16 (NHANES III)
100
0.30a
184b
350
2.1 (NHANES
HI)
1.16 (NHANES III)
100
0.30
78
826
2.1 (NHANES
HI)
1.16 (NHANES III)
200
0.30
78
413
2.1 (NHANES
III)
1.16 (NHANES III)
200
0.20
78
620
a High-end absorption value.
b 184 sunny days above freezing temperature based on a yearly average of weather
meteorological monitoring data collected between 1999 and 2004.
c 78 days (3 days per week for 26 weeks) or approximately 2.6 summer months.
GSD = Geometric standard deviation of baseline blood lead level.
Some chat piles are close to rural residential areas and there is a potential for younger
children to desire to play on them. In addition, adolescents playing on the chat will likely
come in contact with unvegetated fine source materials at a higher rate than on sodded soil
materials and are therefore expected to have a higher-end ingestion rate. The proposed lead
PRG of 500 mg/kg is between two PRGs (413 and 547 mg/kg) based on the high-end
ingestion rate (200 mg/kg), realistic exposure frequency (78 days/yr), and two different
absorption factions (the upper and lower estimates).
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-9
008408
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
8.3.2 Pastureland
If beef or game that graze on rural non-residential property (pastureland) are consumed, a
soil PRG may be estimated based on models that correlate soil concentration with
concentrations in beef. The correlations used to develop PRGs are based on the values
presented in the EPA Combustion Guidance (EPA, 2005a) and are assumed to be the same
for beef and game.
Assuming approximately 50 percent of a person's dietary intake of meat (170 g/day or
approximately 0.4 lbs/day) is from animals grazing on pastureland, an average soil
concentration in the pastureland of approximately 1,600 mg/kg is estimated that would be
protective for an adult using reasonably conservative intake estimates.
The PRGs for lead in pastureland soil combined with PRGs for rural residential soil were
developed. Identifying a PRG for one soil area (e.g., rural residential soil) allows calculation
of the PRG for pastureland soil. For example, if a PRG of 335 mg/kg lead is used for rural
residential soils, then the PRG for pastureland soil is 31 mg/kg (background concentration).
Because of this relationship between the rural residential yard soils and the pastureland soils,
the PRG is presented as a paired set of PRGs for a variety of lead concentrations.
Beef and milk samples were collected for the Jasper Superfund Site in Missouri, a site with
mining wastes similar to Tar Creek. These data were reviewed for their usefulness in
developing PRGs for Tar Creek OU4. Based on the available information, the following
issues were identified:
• The concentration ranges in the grazing areas (pastureland) for the cattle were
not provided.
• The sample size was very small (only two individual samples for beef, liver, and
milk were collected, one from each of two grazing areas).
• Appropriate QA/QC documentation was lacking (local residents collected the
beef, liver, and milk samples, stored the food products in their freezer, and then
provided the samples to a third party for submittal to the laboratory; it appeared
that chain-of-custody backup was lacking.)
Therefore, the data were not concluded to be useful for developing soil PRGs for pastureland
at Tar Creek OU4.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-10
008409
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-12
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Milk from Cattle
Grazing on Pastureland
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Rural Residential
Yard PRG
(mg/kg)
Pastureland
PRG
(mg/kg)
Grazing
Plant Cone,
(mg/kg)
Milk
Cone.
(mg/kg)
% of Milk
Consumed
50
3430
154
0.78
10
325
741
33.3
0.17
10
50
1360
61.2
0.312
25
325
297
13.4
0.068
25
Table 8-13
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of Beef from Cattle
Grazing on Pastureland
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Rural Residential
Yard PRG
(mg/kg)
Pastureland
PRG
(mg/kg)
Grazing
Plant Cone,
(mg/kg)
Beef
Cone.
(mg/kg)
% of Meat
Eaten
50
6910
311
1.9
10
300
836
37.6
0.23
10
50
2730
123
0.75
25
300
363
13.5
0.10
25
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-11
008410
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-14
Lead - Soil PRGs Based on General Public Child Consumption of 10% of Beef and Milk
from Cattle Grazing on Pastureland
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Rural
Residential
Yard PRG
mg/kg)
Pasture-land
PRG
(mg/kg)
Grazing
Plant
Cone,
(mg/kg)
Beef
Cone.
(mg/kg)
Milk
Cone.
(mg/kg)
%of
Population
with a BLL
above 10
1-ig/dL
31
2000
90
0.5376
0.497
5.047
335
31
1.395
0.0083
0.0077
5.111
200
900
40.5
0.2419
0.2236
5.055
(Note: 5% is the target % of the population with a BLL above 10 pg/dL.)
8.4 Food Items
Remedial actions are focused on abiotic media (e.g., soil or groundwater) that may protect
public health based on direct ingestion/contact or secondary exposures based on transfer of
COPCs from soil to food. The above discussions considered the relationship between soil and
beef, milk, and homegrown produce. This section considers other dietary intakes.
8.4.1 Fish
Previous studies have indicated elevated risk levels associated with fish and aquatic biota
ingestion exposures by residents in the Tar Creek area. However, ecological PRGs for
protection of fish populations will generally be more conservative for these COPCs. The
ODEQ has identified safe consumption levels for fish from rivers and ponds in the Tar Creek
Area (ODEQ, 2003) PRGs for surface water and sediment are not evaluated as part of OU4.
8.4.2 Plants
Native American diet may include a variety of plants (e.g., asparagus, cattail, willow) that
grow in the region. Some of these plants, like cattails, have higher uptake of metals than
many other plants. The baseline HHRA assumed that any of these individual plant types
might be a substantial portion of the entire diet. However, it should be noted that most of the
plants that were collected were growing in source material areas, not growing within typical
soils of the Tar Creek area.
A soil PRG that would reduce plant tissue concentrations to levels where these may be the
primary diet for adults were not estimated. In part, this is because a simple correlation
between plants and soils was not identified (see Section 8.4.3), Even concentrations near
background suggested that plant intake might be unacceptable if these plants constitute the
entire diet, which is not a realistic assumption.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-12
008411
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Root concentrations were much higher than aboveground plant concentrations by a factor of
nearly 4 for cadmium and nearly 70 for lead. Based on the open literature (e.g., Hansel,
2001; Newville, 2004), many of the metals in roots of plants like cattails may be highest on
the outer surface, such that peeling these roots would significantly reduce intake of metals
like lead.
However, in general, consumption of roots should be restricted, particularly if these are eaten
without removing the outer surface.
8.4.3 Evaluation of Correlation Between Edible Plants and Soil
During preparation of the HHRA, an evaluation of the correlation between the sampled
edible plants and their associated root soil was performed. Plant concentrations were
obtained from 19 samples from each of three plant types (asparagus, cattail, and willow). For
each plant type, both root and aboveground tissue were submitted for analysis in both washed
and unwashed states. It should be noted that the "washed" state was not washed clean, but
was lightly rinsed with deionized water in the field. These samples were analyzed for
cadmium, lead, and zinc. A discrete sample (rather than composite) was obtained from soil
in contact with each root sample. An evaluation was performed to determine an appropriate
set of paired plant-soil data to develop an equation predicting soil concentrations from plant
concentrations.
For each COPC, there were 12 different scenarios (3 plant types, unwashed and washed,
roots, and aboveground tissue) for evaluating the correlation between plant and soil
concentrations. This evaluation included calculations of the Pearson correlation coefficient
(the most widely used measure of paired correlation) and a nonparametric version (based on
ranks), the Spearman correlation coefficient. Both of these values range from -1 to 1 where 1
represents perfect correlation, -1 represents perfect inverse correlation, and 0 represents no
correlation. Another well-known measure of correlation, R2, was also calculated. This value
is merely the square of the Pearson correlation coefficient and thus ranges from 0 to 1 where
increasing correlation or inverse correlation is indicated by higher R2 values.
Thus, concentration data from unwashed plants (aboveground), unwashed roots, washed
plants (aboveground), and washed roots were evaluated with regard to correlation with the
corresponding root soil concentration data. This evaluation was performed for each of the
three plant types (asparagus, cattail, and willow).
Review of all cases (and some additional scenarios including combined plant types, etc.)
revealed that the data sets for cattail roots offered the most promising correlation between
plant and soil concentrations. The chosen plant type for cadmium and zinc was washed
roots, while the chosen plant type for lead was unwashed roots. The calculated measures of
correlation are presented in Table 8-15 with the estimates for the regression coefficient and
intercept; plots are presented in Appendix N, Figures 1-6. If the correlation is deemed to be
adequately strong, the soil concentration is calculated using the following equation:
Soil Concentration = (Plant Concentration * Regression Coefficient) + Intercept
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-13
008412
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-15
Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Regression and Correlation Statistics for Predictive Equations
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Plant
Type
Plant
Media
COPC
Regression
Coefficient
Intercept
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
Spearman
Correlation
Coefficient
R2
Cattail
Washed
Root
Cadmium
4.031
19.42
0.651
0.547
0.424
Cattail
Unwashed
Root
Lead
3.836
190.9
0.836
0.576
0.698
Cattail
Washed
Root
Zinc
8.19
3070
0.710
0.493
0.504
One issue in calculating measures of correlation is that some individual data pairs (plant-soil
concentration pairs) might be highly influential on the calculated correlation (although the
nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficient is more robust toward influence by
individual data pairs). Indeed, the cases presented in Table 8-15 were first evaluated for such
influential pairs, some of which were excluded prior to calculating these regression and
correlation statistics.
In data plots, such influential pairs can be visually identified, but it is also prudent to perform
a mathematical test to ensure that this identification is consistent for all scenarios. The
mathematical parameter termed "Cook's distance" was calculated for each scenario (Draper,
1998) A large value for Cook's distance indicates that the estimates of a regression equation
will change substantially if the data pair is removed.
For each case in Table 8-15, the chosen data for calculating the regression equation involved
the exclusion of two data pairs. The excluded data are presented in Table 8-16. The exact
Cook's distance required for data exclusion is not a firm value, although some practitioners
suggest an F distribution value for probability of 0.50 (Graybill and Iyer, 1994). With the
19 sample pairs initially available, this value is 0.47. As seen in Table 8-16, the Cook's
distance for each of these values exceeds 0.47.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-14
008413
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-16
Cattail and Root Soil Correlation - Excluded Plant-Soil Data Pairs
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
Station ID
COPC
Plant
Type
Plant Media
Plant
Concentration,
mg/kg
Soil
Concentration,
mg/kg
Cook's
distance
TC4-BIO-
21D
Cadmium
Cattail
Washed Root
32.27
1520
0.76
TC4-BIO-
44D
Cadmium
Cattail
Washed Root
110.22
764
17
TC4-BIO-
09C
Lead
Cattail
Unwashed
Root
2759.77
3980
0.86
TC4-BIO-
54C
Lead
Cattail
Unwashed
Root
1.95
8680
0.52
TC4-BIO-
21D
Zinc
Cattail
Washed Root
1514.27
117000
0.58
TC4-BIO-
34D
Zinc
Cattail
Washed Root
3604.6
5410
0.89
More important than an exact threshold, the calculation of Cook's distances allows a
consistent measure of the influence of any given data pair on the regression equation. The
excluded pairs can be visualized in Appendix N, Figures 1, 3, and 5 for cadmium, lead, and
zinc, respectively. In these figures, the excluded data pairs are marked with an X symbol.
The remaining data are better viewed in Appendix N, Figures 2, 4, and 6 for cadmium, lead,
and zinc, respectively. These figures also provide a visual presentation of the regression line
drawn as a best fit through the data (the same regression line described by the regression
coefficients and intercept in Table 8-15).
The cattail data was initially deemed promising due to superior correlations relative to the
other plant types. The higher soil concentrations associated with the cattail concentrations
reinforced this decision. In Table 8-17, the mean concentrations for each COPC and each
plant type is provided for 1) all soil data, 2) the soil data associated with unwashed roots after
data exclusions (based on the Cook's distance calculations), and 3) the soil data associated
with washed roots after data exclusions. These means show that cattail data are either
associated with the highest typical soil concentration or, at least, a soil concentration almost
as high as the other plant types (e.g., cadmium concentration associated with roots). Use of
these higher soil concentrations associated with cattail are expected to bring an increased
level of conservatism since they lead to higher soil concentrations being predicted by the
regression equations. However, the correlations are not adequately strong for use in
predicting plant concentrations and therefore were not used in PRG calculations.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-15
008414
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Table 8-17
Mean Root Soil Concentrations at Edible Plant Sampling Locations
Tar Creek OU4 Superfund Site
All Soil Data
Asparagus
Cattail
Willow
Cadmium
34
161
56
Lead
884
1550
1256
Zinc
5889
14748
8412
Soil Data Associated with
Unwashed Roots
After Data Exclusions
Cadmium
32
47
52
Lead
668
987
828
Zinc
5096
7565
7006
Soil Data Associated with Washed
Roots
After Data Exclusions
Cadmium
32
46
49
Lead
737
1154
828
Zinc
5366
9283
6973
8.5 Other Rural Areas
The soil samples collected from rural areas (i.e., not currently used for residential land use
and not in the vicinity of source materials) indicate low concentrations near background
levels. Therefore, PRGs do not need to be developed for the rural areas that comprise most
of the land in OU4.
For purposes of evaluation here, rural residential yard soil samples were combined with rural
area surface soil, transition zone soil, and background soil samples. Collectively, these soil
samples were considered to be representative of the lead contamination in rural surface soil
for Tar Creek OU4. These surface soils were sampled as part of the effort for characterizing
the OU4 site and for developing the HHRA for the site.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run on the soil lead data from four separate
areas (background, rural residential, rural, and transition zone) to determine if there was a
statistically significant difference between the soil data collected from the four areas. Due to
the large number of samples available, the results using untransformed data were used even
though the residuals from the ANOVA were found to be not normally distributed. This
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-16
008415
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
analysis showed that there was not a statistical significant difference between the soil data
collected from different areas except for the transition zone soil ( The F-ratio for this analysis
had p-value of 0.6266). Therefore, the surface soil data without the transition zone data were
combined in one group to represent the general rural soil and the transition zone soil data was
separated to represent surface soil in the areas adjacent to chat piles or chat bases. The
surface soil other than the transition zone soil data were found to range between 0.0125 and
1,160 mg/kg. The data were found to be not normally or lognormal distributed. The ProUCL
program was used to calculate the UCL95 on the arithmetic mean of the data. A Chebyshev
95% non-parametric UCL was calculated to be 141 mg/kg. This is a substantial reduction
over the UCL95 of 422 mg/kg prior to remediation of the home at the former smelter.
About 2.5 percent of the data (after remediation of the home at the former smelter) were
above 500 mg/kg lead. If these data points above 500 mg/kg were replaced with clean fill
containing 31 mg/kg lead (assuming areas above 500 mg/kg lead were excavated and
replaced with clean fill), the UCL95 on the arithmetic mean for the surface soil would
decrease from 141 mg/kg to 101 mg/kg (about 3 times the background concentration of 31
mg/kg) and the average median value would be 35 mg/kg, which is very close to the average
background level of 31 mg/kg.
For transition zone soil, the soil lead data ranged between 16.9 and 4,450 mg/kg. The data
were found to be not normally or lognormally distributed. The Chebyshev 95% non-
parametric UCL was calculated to be 1,573 mg/kg using the ProUCL program. About 37
percent of the data were above 500 mg/kg. If we replace data points above 500 mg/kg lead
with clean fill containing 31 mg/kg lead, the UCL95 on the arithmetic mean for the data
decreases from 1,573 mg/kg to 123 mg/kg. However, recall that the percentage of soil
samples above 500 mg/kg in our dataset was high, about 37 percent.
These evaluations indicate that if the current sampling locations above 500 mg/kg lead are
remediated and replaced with soil at background concentrations of lead, the average lead
concentration in the Tar Creek area will be near background concentrations.
8.6 Uncertainties in PRGs
There are various uncertainties in the derivation of the PRGs. By presenting a range of
PRGs, some of those uncertainties are mitigated. The soil, beef, milk, and vegetable
ingestion rates vary by person. Additionally, the amount of food eaten from an impacted
area varies by person. Further, the chemical concentration in the food item will vary based
on the type of food item, the source of the food item, the part of the food item eaten (e.g.,
above-ground or below-ground portion of the plant, body part of the animal) and the food
preparation method. In addition, it was assumed that the chemical uptakes into beef, milk,
and vegetables were adequately represented by the biotransfer factors presented in EPA's
Combustion Guidance. Additionally, in most cases, upperbound estimates of ingestion rates
(e.g., 95th percentile values) were used to calculate PRGs.
It is important to note that the default biotransfer factors in the EPA Combustion Guidance
that were used to calculate PRGs appear to overestimate plant concentrations (especially
homegrown vegetables) by several orders of magnitude based on the soil/plant correlation
observed during sampling at OU-2.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-17
008416
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
8.7 Conclusions
PRGs were identified for rural residential and recreational scenarios. The lowest PRGs were
identified for soil used for growing vegetables. The PRGs are provided for EPA Risk
Managers for their use in selecting the final remedial goals for the site.
Based on results of the HHRA, the most significant risks are associated with ingestion of
edible plants in the Tar Creek area. If locally-grown edible plants are a significant portion of
a person's diet, unacceptable risks may result. Therefore, it is recommended that edible plant
intakes be limited.
The locations with elevated cadmium and zinc concentrations occur at areas where elevated
lead concentrations are also present. Therefore, remediating specific locations for lead will
also address the areas where cadmium and zinc risks are unacceptable.
The elevated risk levels calculated for OU4 are driven by exposure to the source materials
(i.e., chat piles, chat bases, tailings ponds, and smelter area) and the transition zones around
the piles/bases. Most of the lead concentrations on rural land in OU4 (represented by the
rural area samples collected in December 2005) are at concentrations near background.
Therefore, if source areas are remediated to PRGs, the area-wide residual risks in the OU4
area are expected to be at acceptable levels.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 8-18
008417
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
An HHRA was conducted for OU4 of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The site is
approximately 40 square miles in size and is an area of former mining activities, with waste
materials (chat piles, chat bases, tailings ponds) present on approximately 10% of the land
within the 40 square mile area. Residences are present throughout this area, on both public
land and land owned by the BIA. On BIA land, 10 Native American tribes are represented,
and it is reasonable to assume that Native Americans are enjoying cultural practices
currently, and will in the future in at least some of these areas. Soil samples collected from
non-residential rural areas indicate concentrations near background levels.
It is assumed that in the future, the waste materials will remain in the Tar Creek area and
residential use will continue on both private and Indian lands. Based on the AOC, the COPCs
at the site are cadmium, lead, and zinc; analytical data for additional metals supports the
selection of these three COPCs as those of primary concern at the site from mining activities.
Two sets of residential receptors were evaluated: general public and Native American
(representing the tribal way of life). Both adult and child receptors were evaluated within
these scenarios. Additionally, a recreator scenario was evaluated for adolescents who may
play on chat piles and tailings ponds when the weather permits.
It is assumed that a general public resident would be exposed to surface soil, ground water,
and ambient air using exposure assumptions considered conservative for a typical residential
setting (e.g., exposures at 350 days/year for 30 years). For the Native American resident,
exposures to surface soil, ground water, ambient air, milk, beef, fish, aquatic food, small
game, asparagus, willow, and cattail were quantified using conservative exposure
assumptions presented in the Spokane Tribe Study (Harper et al., 2002), with much higher
intakes than those for the general public. In addition, food ingestion rates presented in the
EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1997) for Native Americans were used for
comparison. Sieved (250 |im) soil samples collected from a depth of 0-1 inch were used to
evaluate exposures to residential yard soil. It was assumed that an adolescent recreator may
contact surface materials (0-6 inches) on chat piles and tailings ponds during outdoor
activities.
Previous studies have indicated that while areas of the shallow aquifer have been impacted,
the deeper aquifer has not. Of the 14 shallow, private wells that were identified in the study
area, 13 were sampled during the RI. Maximum detected concentrations of lead were only
slightly higher than the EPA Action Level for drinking water (28 |ig/L versus 15 |ig/L) in
two wells located near each other on the eastern portion of OU4. Cadmium and lead were
detected above background in these wells, suggesting potential mining-related impacts.
Exposures to ground water were quantified in the HHRA by both general public and Native
American residents. The HHRA does not address future uses of impacted shallow ground
water at locations other than those sampled as part of OU4, and restrictions on potable use of
shallow ground water may be warranted in other locations.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT-FINAL 2006-02\TC HHRA DRAFTFINALRA.DOC
9-1
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
There is the potential for future concentrations in the wells to increase. If concentrations
remain low, no additional risks will be identified. However, because lead concentrations are
currently above the MCL at two wells, the cause of the elevated levels and the need for an
alternative water supply should be evaluated.
The following estimated risks were identified, as summarized in Tables 5-1 through 5-3:
• Current Child Resident (General Public) - maximum HI of 1; six homes with lead
concentrations above 500 mg/kg; potential BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl for children at
four homes; 2.98 percent of the "neighborhood" with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl; lead
was identified as the only COC for this receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset,
risks remained the same for cadmium and zinc; five homes had lead concentrations
above 500 mg/kg; less than 5 percent of the "neighborhood" had a BLL exceeding 10
|ig/dl; lead remained as the COC for this receptor.
• Current Adult Resident (General Public) - maximum HI of 0.2; potential BLL
exceeding 10 |ig/dl at two homes; lead was identified as the only COC for this
receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset, risks remained the same for cadmium and
zinc; potential BLLs exceeded 10 |ig/dl at one home; lead remained as the COC for
this receptor.
• Current Child Resident (Native American) - maximum HI of 0.3; neither of two
homes with lead concentrations above 500 mg/kg; potential BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl
for neither home; lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor. Based on the
updated soil dataset, risks remained the same for cadmium and zinc, and lead risks
were lower.
• Current Adult Resident (Native American, High-Fish and High-Beef Diets) - ELCR
of 2xl0"7, maximum His of 700 and 600 (for high-fish diet and high-beef diet,
respectively); 100 percent of the population with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl;
cadmium and zinc exceeded HI of 1 due to the asparagus, willow, and cattail
ingestion pathways. Cadmium exceeded an individual HI of 1 from the aquatic food
ingestion and fish ingestion pathways. Lead, cadmium, and zinc were identified as
COCs for this receptor. Based on the updated soil dataset, ELCR of 2xl0"7, maximum
His of 600 for both high-fish diet and high-beef diet; 100 percent of the population
with a BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl; cadmium and zinc exceeded HI of 1 due to the
asparagus, willow, and cattail ingestion pathways. Cadmium exceeded an individual
HI of 1 from the aquatic food ingestion and fish ingestion pathways. Lead, cadmium,
and zinc remained as COCs for this receptor.
• Current Adult Resident (More Typical Native American) - estimated risks are lower
for a Native American resident with more typical Native American exposures than
those estimated using the Spokane Tribe exposure factors; however, estimated risks
still exceed acceptable levels, driven by the edible plant exposures. Based on the
updated soil dataset, the original risk estimates were unchanged.
• Current/Future Recreator - maximum HI of 0.1; 22.3 percent of the population with a
BLL exceeding 10 |ig/dl; lead was identified as the only COC for this receptor.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 9-2
008419
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• Future Child Resident (General Public and Native American) - maximum HI is 0.08;
maximum and mean modeled future soil concentrations exceed acceptable BLLs,
although 75th percentile soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum
modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead was identified as the only COC
for these receptors. Based on the updated future soil dataset, maximum HI is 0.1;
maximum modeled future soil concentration exceeds acceptable BLLs, although
mean and 75th percentile soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum
modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead remained as the only COC for
these receptors.
• Future Adult Resident (General Public) - maximum ELCR is 4xl0"6 and maximum HI
is 0.02; maximum modeled future soil concentration exceeds the target, although the
mean soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs. Maximum modeled air
concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead and cadmium were identified as COCs for
this receptor. Based on the updated future soil dataset, maximum ELCR is 4xl0"6 and
maximum HI is 0.03; maximum modeled future soil concentration exceeds the target,
although the mean and 75th percentile soil concentrations yield acceptable BLLs.
Maximum modeled air concentrations are below NAAQS. Lead and cadmium
remained as COCs for this receptor.
• Future Adult Resident (Native American) - maximum ELCR is lxlO"5 and maximum
HI is 0.04. Maximum, mean, and median modeled future soil lead concentrations
exceed the target population with a BLL above 10 |ig/dL. Lead and cadmium were
identified as COCs for this receptor. Based on the updated future soil dataset,
maximum ELCR is lxlO"5 and maximum HI is 0.02; maximum, mean and 75th
percentile modeled future soil concentrations exceed acceptable BLLs, although
median soil concentration yields acceptable BLLs. Lead and cadmium were
identified as COCs for this receptor.
Historically, BLL measurements have been collected for children living in the Tar Creek
area. BLLs have been decreasing since 1996, and are now within the target level on a
neighborhood-scale. However, individual children and locations remain at concentrations of
concern. Exposures should be limited in areas with elevated lead concentrations.
Additionally, remaining sources in the Tar Creek area should be considered during future
remedial activities in Tar Creek.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 9-3
008420
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 9-4
008421
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
10.0 References
AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2004. Final Data Gap Analysis Report, Tar Creek OU4
RI/FSProgram. September 2004.
AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary,
Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program. September 2005.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2004. Report to Congress.
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. October 2004.
Casteel, Stan W., Weis, Christopher, Brattin, William, and Hammon, Tracy. Bioavailability
of lead in Soil Samples From the Jasper County, Missouri Superfund Site. May.
CH2M HILL, 2004. Work Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OUNo. 4, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. July 2004.
CH2M HILL, 2005a. Work Plan Revision Request 01, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 2005.
CH2M HILL, 2005b. Work Plan Revision Request 02, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August 2005.
Draper, N.R. and H. Smith.. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1998.
Duggan, et al., 1985. lead in playground dust and on the hands of schoolchildren. Sci. Total
Environ. 44(l):65-79.
Duggan, M.J., and M.J. Inskip, 1985. Childhood exposure to lead in surface dust and soil: A
community health problem. Public Health Rev. 13(1-2): 1-54.
Graybill, F.A. and H.K. Iyer, Regression Analysis: Concepts and Applications, Duxbury
Press, 1994.
Hansel, C.M., Fendorf, S., Sutton, S., Newville, M. 2001. Characterization of Fe plaque and
associated metals on the roots of mine-waste impacted aquatic plants. Department of
Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, California 94305, USA.
October 2001.
Harper, Barbara L., Brian Flett, Stuart Harris, Corn Abeyta, and Fred Kirschner, 2002. The
Spokane Tribe's Multipathw ay Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening level
RME. Risk Analysis, Vol. 22, No. 3.
Holden, H, 1980. Farther mortality studies on workers exposed to cadmium fumes. Presented
at Seminar on Occupational Exposure to Cadmium. March 20, 1980, London,
England.
Kipling, M.D. and J.A.H. Waterhouse. 1967. Cadmium and prostatic carcinoma. Lancet. 1:
730.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 10-1 FEBRUARY 2006
008422
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Kissel, J.C., K.Y. Richter, and R.A. Fenske, 1996. Factors affecting soil adherence to skin in
hand-press trials. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 56(5):722-728.
Lemen, R. A., J.S. Lee, J.K. Wagoner and H.P. Blejer, 1976. Cancer mortality among cadmium
production workers. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 271: 273.
Nagy, 2001. Food requirements of wild animals: Predictive equations for free living-
mammals, reptiles, and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 71: 21R-
32R.
Newville, Matthew, Peter Eng, Steve Sutton, Mark Rivers. 2004. GSECARS X-ray
Microprobe for Earth and Environmental Science. Presentation to the Consortium for
Advanced Radiation Sources (CARS). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL January
2004.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2003. Fish Tissue Metals
Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area. FY03 Section 106 Water Quality Management
Program, 1-006400-01. July 2003.
Oklahoma Mesonet. www.mesonet.org.
Parker, G.H. and J. Hamr, 2001. Metal Levels in body tissues, forage and fecal pellets of elk
(Cervus elaphus) living near the ore smelters at Sudbury, Ontario. Environmental
Pollution. 113:347-355.
Sheppard, S.C., and W.G. Evenden, 1994. Contaminant enrichment and properties of soil
adhering to skin. J. Environ. Qual. 23(3):604-613.
Sorahan, T. and J.A.H. Waterhouse, 1983. Mortality study of nickel-cadmium battery
workers by the method of regression models in life tables. Br. J. Ind. Med. 40: 293-
300.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. http://factfinder.census.gov. 2004.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part A,
Baseline Risk Assessment). EPA540-189-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (PartB,
Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals). EPA540-R92-003.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992a. Data Quality Objectives Process for
Superfund, Interim Final Guidance. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC. EPA540-R93-071. OSWER Directive 9355.9-01.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 10-2
008423
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992b. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Calculating the Concentration Term. Publication. No. 9285.7-081. PB92-963373.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993a. Preliminary review draft: Superfund's
Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable
Maximum Exposure. 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for
CERCLA Sites andRCRA Corrective Action Facilities. Memorandum: OSWER
Directive 9355.4-12. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/products/oswerdir.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995a. EPA Risk Characterization Program.
Memorandum from Administrator Carol Browner. Office of the Administrator,
Washington, DC. March 21, 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook Volume II.
Food Ingestion Factors. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-95/002Fb.
August 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Short Sheet: TRW Recommendations
for Sampling and Analysis of Soil at Lead Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.7-38.
Prepared for EPA by Technical Review Workgroup for Lead. April 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent for
RI/FSfor OU4. December 2003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a. Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA530-R-05-006.
September 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005b. Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for
Tar Creek OU4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005c. Superfund and Mining Megasites,
Lessons Learnedfrom the Coeur d' Alene River Basin. July 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005d. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). Available online.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005e. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity
Values. Available online.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005f. Frequently Asked Questions From
Risk Assessors on the Adult Lead Methodology (ALM). Updated November 4.
Available online.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 10-3
008424
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT-FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA.DOC 10-4
008425
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Figures
008426
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008427
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
008428
-------
RS2417-30
RS2417-41
RS2417-31
RS2318-16
GW 2420-6(A,B)
RS2419-45 GW 2420-2(A,B)
\ "¦ —©
GW 2429-3(A.B)
GW 2417-5(A,B)
iRS2429-43
GW 2429-9(A.B)
RS2431-44
GW2429-8(A,B) I
RS2429-37
GW 2429-4(A,B)
GW 2431-12(A,B)
RS2431-22
RS2406-21
RS2301-19
RS23Q1-34
RS2301-33
RS2406-2Q
RS2301^7j
RS2406-38
RS2406-40
iPWRieA*;
RS2301-18
. "4,
GW2301-1 (A,B,D) 500 ppm Lead
O Shallow Aquifer Well Samples
O Shallow Aquifer Well Samples Exceeding MCLfor Lead (0.015 mg/L)
Site Boundary
Tribal Lands (2005)
N
A
I Miles
0.5
FIGURE 2
Tar Creek OU4
Rural Residential Sampling Summary
•AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
A ATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins. Colorado. USA
-------
Appendix A
Split and Supplemental Sampling Summary
008430
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008431
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
CH2MHILL
Appendix A
Technical Memorandum
Split and Supplemental Sampling Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED UNDER:
DATE:
DCN NUMBER::
Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM
CH2M HILL, Inc.
EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-VV6-0025,
Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW
October 21, 2005
05-8225
1.0 Background
This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the sampling and analytical activities
completed by CH2M HILL. These activities were completed in support of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) efforts under Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the
Tar Creek Superfund Site located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This work was
completed under Contract No. 68-W6-0025, and the approved project work plan (WP)
and subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW
(CH2M HILL 2004, 2005a, and 2005b)
The Respondents are responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) of OU4 under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that was
executed on December 9, 2003 (EPA, 2003a). As part of this agreement, EPA is
responsible for completing the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and the
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA).
Under this work assignment, CH2M HILL was directed by EPA to complete the HHRA
and perform the following activities associated with the RI/FS:
• Perform limited oversight of the Respondents' sampling efforts.
• Collect split samples of Respondents' samples.
• Collect supplemental samples in support of the HHRA and to a limited extent, for
the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) being completed by EPA.
• Collect plant samples that were requested by Quapaw Tribe.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 1 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008432
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
Sampling activities were completed in accordance with the approved Field Sampling Plan
(FSP), the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and the Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
(CH2M Mil l . 2005c, 2005d, and 2005e) Field oversight and split and supplemental
sampling activities were completed during the following timeframes:
• May 16 to May 26, 2005: Collection of chat and chat base samples.
• June 13 to June 30, 2005: Collection of tailings, transition zone soils, and plant
samples.
• July 11 to July 22, 2005: Collection of smelter area samples and residential
samples.
2.0 Sampling Summary
2.1 Split Samples
In accordance with the project WP, FSP, and QAPP, split samples were collected from up
to 20-percent of the Respondents' RI samples for solid media and up to 10-percent of the
Respondents' RI samples for liquid media. All split samples were analyzed through
EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) or through EPA's Regional Laboratory in
Houston, Texas. At a minimum, all samples were analyzed for the three Contaminants of
Concern (COCs); cadmium, lead, and zinc. In most cases, the samples were analyzed for
the full Target Analyte List (TAL) of metals, including mercury. Split samples were
collected for all media that the Respondents collected and analyzed samples with the
exception of surface water and aquatic macrophyte vegetation.
2.2 Supplemental Samples
In accordance with the project WP, FSP, and QAPP, supplemental samples were
collected from site media to support the risk assessments. All samples were analyzed
through EPA's CLP or through EPA's Regional Laboratory in Houston, Texas. At a
minimum, all samples were analyzed for the three COCs; cadmium, lead, and zinc. In
most cases, the samples were analyzed for the full TAL of metals, including mercury.
Select samples of chat, chat base, and fine tailings were submitted for off-site
geotechnical testing and analysis. This included determination of particle size
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008433
2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
distribution by American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D-422 and
analysis of material passing through select sieve sizes. Specifically, samples were sieved
and analyzed in the following fashion:
• Passing #60/retained on the #140
• Passing #140/retained on the #200
• Passing #200/retained in the pan
These samples were analyzed for cadmium, lead, and zinc, with 10% of the samples
being analyzed for the TAL of metals, including mercury.
Tables A-l through A-8 present a summary of the Respondents' sampling efforts and
associated split and supplemental samples that were collected.
2.2.1 Plant Sampling
At the request of EPA and the Quapaw Tribe, plant samples were collected as part of the
supplemental sampling activities. Five samples were associated with each individual
plant that consisted of washed roots, unwashed roots, washed leaves, unwashed leaves,
and co-located soil samples. A total of 57 plants were sampled this way, for a total of
285 individual samples. The Quapaw Tribe assigned a representative to our sampling
team to determine which areas would be sampled, locate each individual plant sampling
location, and identify the plants in the field.
As directed by EPA, only three plant species were to be selected by the Quapaw Tribe for
sampling and analysis. The plants selected included willow, cattail, and asparagus. In
general, at each sampling area, the three plant species were usually found growing very
close together and were sampled as a group. Coordinates for each sampling location
were determined using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and were used to
plot the locations on Figure A-l. Each plant sampling location was photographed.
Additionally, a soil pH reading was taken from the soil growing around each plant's
roots. Sampling procedures and methodologies were completed in accordance with the
approved FSP and QAPP.
The plant samples were submitted to CLP for analysis of TAL metals, including mercury.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008434
3
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
3.0 Data Usability Evaluation
3.1 Data Validation
In accordance with the project WP and the QAPP, all analytical data obtained in support
of this project were validated according to EPA's National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Data Review (EPA 2004).
Analytical data provided by CLP laboratories were validated by the EPA Region 6
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT). The CH2M HILL project chemist
then reviewed the findings of the ESAT validation. All non-CLP analytical data were
validated by the CH2M HILL project chemist.
Sample results were assigned data qualifiers in the validation process to express the
degree of usability based upon overall data quality. In cases where serious quality control
failures were encountered the data were rejected and were not used to support project
decisions.
3.2 Field Duplicate Analysis
In our evaluation with the CH2M HILL data, field duplicate sample results were
excluded, whereas the associated "normal" samples were retained for all analyses. Only
one sample from each duplicate pair can be included to ensure that the data set consists of
independent results. The duplicate result pairs are presented in Table A-9 to document
that this straightforward choice did not accidentally bias the data used in the HHRA.
The HHRA focuses on the average concentration, so it would take a consistent bias of
results to impart a significant bias on calculated values. By the nature of field duplicates,
which are treated as other samples by the analyzing laboratory, such a consistent bias
would seem very unlikely. Inspection of the paired values and the relative percent
difference (RPD) values in Table A-10 indicate that this data set, as expected, is not
biased by simple exclusion of the field duplicate member of the duplicate pairs. (An
RPD is a percentage of the actual difference between two values relative to the average of
the two values.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008435
4
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
The information from the field duplicate pairs was used, however, in the quality control
process. Concentrations associated with a precision (measured as the RPD) outside
stated criteria, were qualified as estimated.
3.3 Split Sample Analysis
A split sampling program was pursued between the Respondents and CH2M HILL data
sets. As discussed previously, the split samples from the Respondents and CH2M HILL
data sets are not pure splits since there were some intentional differences in the sample
make-up, primarily due to different sieving protocol. Regardless of these differences, it
is obviously still expected that samples from a split pair carry greater similarity than a
random Respondent and CH2M HILL sample. For this reason, it is beneficial to maintain
this paired relationship through the evaluation.
EPA's Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook (EPA, 2003b)
considers split analyses with varying make-up (such as depth) and suggests a paired t test
for comparison. A paired t test does not pool all results from the two populations (i.e.
CH2M HILL and Respondent populations) into two groups, but rather considers the
population of differences between the paired results. It answers the question of whether
or not the observed differences indicate a significant deviation from zero. If there is a
significant deviation, then the conclusion that the two populations are not equivalent is
drawn. The results of this testing are presented in Table A-10.
This test carries an assumption of normality which was either rejected (when a healthy
number of differences, say 20, was available and the p-value for normality was less than
0.05) or not well defended (when a fewer number of differences was available). Thus,
the nonparametric version of the paired t test, the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, was used
to compare the two populations. The p-values from this testing were compared to a
significance level of 0.05 (which ensured that cases where the two populations were
actually equivalent would only be determined to be different 5% of the time, or less).
When the p-value was not less than 0.05, the conclusion is drawn that the two
populations are statistically equivalent. If the p-value is below 0.05, the conclusion is
drawn that the two populations are statistically different.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008436
5
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
The analysis via the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicates that splits for Chat Base, Chat
Pile, and Washed Fines data are not significantly different (between CH2M HILL and
Respondent data). Split data for Fine Tailings, Residential Yard Soil, and Transition
Zone Soil are, however, significantly different.
For those cases where there appears to be a statistical difference between the splits (via
the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test), the actual differences still appear rather small. The
RPDs of the mean concentrations for these cases are presented in Table A-ll. They are
seen to range from 16% to 30%. These low RPDs suggest that these differences,
although statistically significant due to relatively low variability in the data, have limited
practical significance in accessing environmental risks, etc.
4.0 References
CH2M HILL, 2004. Work Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. July 2004.
CH2M HILL, 2005a. Work Plan Revision Request 01, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 2005.
CH2M HILL, 2005b. Work Plan Revision Request 02, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August 2005.
CH2M HILL, 2005c. Field Sampling Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4, Ottawa
County, Oklahoma. May 2005.
CH2M HILL, 2005d. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. May 2005.
CH2M HILL, 2005e. Revised Health and Safety Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site OU No. 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. September 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003a. Administrative Order on Consent for
Tar Creek RI/FSfor OU4. December 2003.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008437
6
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003b. Saperfand Lead-Contaminated
Residential Sites Handbook. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
2003.
U. S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review.
EPA/540/R-04/004. October, 2004
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008438
7
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008439
8
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tables
008440
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008441
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-1
Chat Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Chat (Chat Piles)
Respondents Sub Media Definition
Bulk Chat
Surface Chat
Sample Depth
1 foot below surface
0-6 inches
0-1 inch
Sample Preparation Method
Note 1
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Pile
Respondents
HHRA
Respondents
HHRA
Quantity
Location
Local Pile Name
Rl Samples
Rl Split
Supplemental(3>
Rl Samples
Rl Split
Supplemental
1
T29N-R22E-13-1
Bird Dog
8
1
5
0
0
0
2
T29N-R22E-23-1
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
8
2
0
0
0
0
3
T29N-R22E-25-9
Pioneer
8
1
5
0
0
0
4
T29N-R23E-13-2
Semple
8
2
0
0
0
0
5
T29N-R23E-16-1
Sooner
8
2
0
2
0
0
6
T29N-R23E-17-12
Howe
8
2
0
0
0
0
7
T29N-R23E-17-9
Ottawa
8
2
0
2
0
0
8
T29N-R23E-18-5
Gordon
8
1
5
0
0
0
9
T29N-R23E-19-7
Western (Anna Beaver)
8
2
0
0
0
0
10
T29N-R23E-19-8
Western (John Beaver)
8
2
0
2
0
0
11
T29N-R23E-20-11
OKO
8
2
0
2
0
0
12
T29N-R23E-20-16
Kenoyer
8
2
0
2
0
0
13
T29N-R23E-20-8
St. Joe
8
2
0
0
0
0
14
T29N-R23E-21-1
Fisher (Mahutska)
8
2
4
0
0
0
15
T29N-R23E-21-11
Royal (Thompson)
8
0
0
2
0
0
16
T29N-R23E-28-12
Lawyers
8
1
5
0
0
0
17
T29N-R23E-29-14
Admiralty
8
2
0
0
0
0
18
T29N-R23E-29-8
Skelton
8
2
0
0
0
0
19
T29N-R23E-30-13
Blue Goose
8
1
0
2
0
0
20
T29N-R23E-30-1
Pearl (Bill Baily)
8
2
5
0
0
0
21
T29N-R23E-22-7
Atlas (Tulsa)
0
0
5
0
0
0
Totals
160
33
34
14
0
0
NOTES:
1 = Samples crushed and ground so that all material passes through #100 mesh sieve.
2 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.
3 = Sample quantities include samples collected for grain size distribution and subsequent analysis.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA1_Ch at
008442
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008443
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-2
Chat Base Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Chat Base
Respondents Sub Media Definition
None
Sample Depth
1 foot below surface
0-6 inches
Sample Preparation Method
Note 1
Note 2
Note 2
Pile
Respondents
HHRA
Quantity
Location
Local Pile Name
Rl Samples
Rl Split
Supplemental(3>
1
T29N-R22E-25-9
Pioneer
4
1
5
2
T29N-R23E-18-5
Gordon
4
1
5
3
T29N-R23E-20-16
Kenoyer
4
2
0
4
T29N-R23E-20-8
St. Joe
2
0
0
5
T29N-R23E-28-12
Lawyers
4
1
5
6
T29N-R23E-30-13
Blue Goose
4
1
5
Totals
22
6
20
NOTES:
1 = Samples crushed and ground so that all material passes through #100 mesh sieve.
2 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.
3 = Sample quantities include samples collected for grain size distribution and subsequent analysis.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA2_ChatBase
008444
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008445
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-3
Tailings Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Fine Tailings
Respondents Sub Media Definition
Washed Fines
Flotation Tailings
Surface Fine Tailings
Sample Depth
Depth Integrated Composite
0-6 inches
Depth Integrated Composite
0-6 inches
0-1 inch
Sample Preparation Method
None
None
Note 1
None
None
Note 1
None
Pile
Quantity
Location
Local Pile Name
Respondents
Rl Samples**
Rl Split
HHRA
Supplemental<2>
Respondents
Rl Samples **
Rl Split
HHRA
Supplemental<2>
Respondents Rl
Samples **
1
T29N-R22E-13-1
Bird Dog
10
2
4
6
2
5
3
2
T29N-R22E-25-9
Pioneer
10
2
4
5
2
1
1
3
T29N-R23E-13-2
Semple
11
2
0
4
1
0
1
4
T29N-R23E-17-9
Ottawa
11
2
2
5
2
0
5
T29N-R23E-19-8
Western (John Beaver)
10
0
0
7
4
2
1
6
T29N-R23E-28-12
Lawyers
10
2
4
4
2
1
1
7
T29N-R23E-31-1
Central Mill Pond
11
2
5
5
2
0
1
8
T29N-R23E-29-8
Skelton
11
3
1
6
2
0
1
9
T29N-R23E-30-13
Blue Goose
10
2
2
8
2
0
1
10
T29N-R23E-22-7
Atlas (Tulsa)
7
2
2
5
2
2
1
Totals
101
19
24
55
21
11
13
NOTES:
** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.
1 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.
2 = Sample quantities include samples collected for grain size distribution and subsequent analysis.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA3_FineTailings
008446
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008447
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-4
Smelter Waste Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Smelter Waste
Respondents Sub Media Definition
Slag
Clinker
Sample Depth
Surface
Surface
Sample Preparation Method
None
None
None
None
Respondents
Respondents
HHRA
Respondents
HHRA
Sample ID
Waste Type
Location
Rl Samples**
Rl Split
Supplemental
Rl Samples
Rl Split
Supplemental
SM2324-1
Clinker (85%) + Slag (15%)
T29N-R2E-24
0
0
0
1
1
0
SM2324-2
Slag (massive)
T29N-R2E-24
1
1
0
0
0
0
SM2324-3
Slag (pellets)
T29N-R2E-24
2
0
0
0
0
0
SM2324-4
Clinker (50%) + Slag (50%)
T29N-R2E-24
0
0
0
1
0
0
SM2324-5
Slag (massive)
T29N-R2E-24
1
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
4
1
0
2
1
0
NOTES:
** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA4_SmelterWaste
008448
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008449
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-5
Soils - Background Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Soils
Respondents Sub Media Definition
Background
Sample Depth
0-6 inches
Sample Preparation Method
None
None
Respondents Rl
HHRA
Respondents Sample ID
Site No.
Samples **
Rl Split
Supplemental
BS2318-1
1
1
0
0
BS224-2/BS224-8
2
2
1
0
BS2236-3
3
1
0
0
BS2325-4
4
1
1
0
BS2327-5
5
1
0
0
BS2332-6
6
1
0
0
BS2419-7
7
1
0
0
Totals
8
2
0
NOTES:
** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ PAGE 1 OF 1
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA5_Soils-Background
008450
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008451
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-6
Soils - Transition Zone
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Sub Media
Sample Depth
Sample Preparation
Soils
Transition Zone (1)
0-1 Inch
6-inch
12-inch
24-inch
None
None
None
Pile
Quantity
Location
Local Pile Name
Respondents Rl
Samples
Respondents
Rl Samples
Respondents
Rl Samples
Respondents
Rl Samples
1
T29N-R22E-23-1
Adams-Mudd (Barrett)
2
T29N-R22E-25-9
Pioneer
3
T29N-R23E-21 -11
Royal (Thompson)
4
T29N-R23E-22-7
Atlas (Tulsa)
5
T29N-R24E-30-1
Pearl (Bill Baily)
Totals
65
58
55
46
Primary Media
Sub Media
Sample Depth
Sample Preparation
Soils
Transition Zone'1'
0-1 Inch
6-inch
12-inch
24-inch
Note 2
Note 2
None
None
Pile
Quantity
Location
Local Pile Name
Rl Split
Rl Split
Rl Split
Rl Split
1
T29N-R22E-23-1
Adams-Mudd (Barrett)
3
3
6
6
2
T29N-R22E-25-9
Pioneer
3
3
6
7
3
T29N-R23E-21 -11
Royal (Thompson)
0
0
0
0
4
T29N-R23E-22-7
Atlas (Tulsa)
5
5
5
2
5
T29N-R24E-30-1
Pearl (Bill Baily)
4
3
5
6
Totals
15
14
22
21
Primary Media
Soils
Sub Media
Transition Zone'1'
Sample Depth
0-6 inches
Sample Preparation
Note 2
Pile
Quantity
Location
Local Pile Name
HHRA Supplemental
1
T29N-R22E-23-1
Adams-Mudd (Barrett)
2
2
T29N-R22E-25-9
Pioneer
2
3
T29N-R23E-21 -11
Royal (Thompson)
0
4
T29N-R23E-22-7
Atlas (Tulsa)
2
5
T29N-R24E-30-1
Pearl (Bill Baily)
2
Totals
8
NOTES:
(1) = Samples collected at determined distances away from the pile along north and south transects.
2 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA6_Soils-TZ
008452
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008453
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-7
Soils - Rural Residential Yard Summary
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Respondents Sub Media Definition
Sample Depth
Sample Preparation Method
Soils
Rural Residential Yard
0-1 inch
0-1 inch
0-6 inch
0-6 inch
Note 1
Note 1
None
Note 1
Respondents Rl
Samples **
Rl Split
Respondents Rl
Samples **
Rl Split
Totals
179
8
179
24
NOTES:
** = Quantity includes duplicate samples.
1 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA7_Soils-Yard
008454
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008455
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-8
Soils - Smelter Affected
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Primary Media
Respondents Sub Media Definition
Sample Depth
Sample Preparation Method
Soils
Smelter-Affected
0-1 inch
0-1 inch
0-6 inch
None
Note 1
Note 1
Respondents Rl
Samples
Rl Split
HHRA
Supplemental
Transect Totals
35
8
2
Smelter Pasture Land
0
0
4
NOTES:
1 = Samples sieved using #60 mesh sieve.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA8_Soils-Smelter
008456
PAGE 1 OF 1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008457
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Arsenic
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
3
3.1
3
Arsenic
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
3.8
3.7
3
Arsenic
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
53.3
55.3
4
Arsenic
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
2.5
3.7
39
Arsenic
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
4.5
5.8
25
Arsenic
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
1.9
1.7
11
Arsenic
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
6.8
7
3
Arsenic
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
2.9
3.4
16
Arsenic
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
2.1
2.4
13
Arsenic
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
5.6
6.1
9
Arsenic
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
2.4
3.5
37
Arsenic
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
7.7
7.5
3
Arsenic
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
5.7
5.5
4
Arsenic
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
3.3
3.2
3
Arsenic
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
10.9
10.6
3
Arsenic
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
13.2
15.1
13
Arsenic
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
10.5
10.8
3
Arsenic
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
3.5
3.6
3
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.2
0.3
40
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
1.1
1.1
0
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.67
0.53
23
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.27
0.2
30
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.31
0.29
7
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
2.6
2.3
12
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
2
2.7
30
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.39
0.26
40
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.43
0.34
23
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.57
1
55
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.48
0.55
14
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
0.53
1
61
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
0.43
0.88
69
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
3.7
4.1
10
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
0.85
1.4
49
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
1.7
1.1
43
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.63
0.82
26
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
5.7
0.21
186
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.19
0.38
67
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.34
0.66
64
Arsenic
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.61
0.38
46
Aluminum
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
4630
4890
5
Aluminum
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
3740
4130
10
Aluminum
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
4710
3980
17
Aluminum
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
790
546
37
Aluminum
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
4630
4070
13
Aluminum
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
303
253
18
Aluminum
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
2820
2840
1
Aluminum
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
342
626
59
Aluminum
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
1080
1340
21
Aluminum
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
564
663
16
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 1 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008458
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Aluminum
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
556
508
9
Aluminum
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
441
436
1
Aluminum
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
613
602
2
Aluminum
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
327
364
11
Aluminum
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
1200
1010
17
Aluminum
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
3900
3420
13
Aluminum
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
943
994
5
Aluminum
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
4910
5200
6
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
24.5
41.5
52
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
25
32.2
25
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
226
265
16
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
125
112
11
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
31.1
29.4
6
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
48.8
27.7
55
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
2310
1820
24
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
2140
2040
5
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
32.2
37.1
14
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
48.5
43.2
12
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
70.1
115
49
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
52.1
65.5
23
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
303
415
31
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
291
278
5
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
1660
1800
8
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
419
531
24
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
25.9
22.1
16
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
31.6
22.4
34
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
784
507
43
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
200
181
10
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
3300
137
184
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
114
146
25
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
177
254
36
Aluminum
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
203
147
32
Ant
mony
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
0.39
0.35
ND
Ant
mony
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.5
0.5
ND
Ant
mony
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
304
366
19
Ant
mony
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
0.24
0.35
ND
Ant
mony
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
1.4
1.4
0
Ant
mony
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
0.75
0.87
15
Ant
mony
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
0.435
3
ND
Ant
mony
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
3
3
ND
Ant
mony
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
0.8
0.89
11
Ant
mony
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
3
3
ND
Ant
mony
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
1.8
1.5
18
Ant
mony
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
0.64
1.2
61
Ant
mony
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
1
1.2
18
Ant
mony
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
0.325
0.355
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
0.165
0.305
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.14
0.255
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
0.305
0.475
ND
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 2 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008459
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.375
0.445
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.215
0.265
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.415
0.2
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
0.365
0.28
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
0.225
0.305
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.28
0.21
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.415
0.3
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.405
0.22
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.295
0.335
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.335
0.375
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.26
3
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
0.31
0.29
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.165
0.145
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
0.12
0.185
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.22
0.13
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.13
3
ND
Ant
mony
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
3
3
ND
Bar
um
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
102
102
0
Bar
um
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
92.2
93
1
Bar
um
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
77.7
80.3
3
Bar
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
12
10.2
16
Bar
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
91.5
77.4
17
Bar
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
1.9
1.3
ND
Bar
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
77.3
76.2
1
Bar
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
4.4
7
46
Bar
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
10.7
15.1
34
Bar
um
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
4.3
4.8
11
Bar
um
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
15.6
5.1
101
Bar
um
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
58.9
52.4
12
Bar
um
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
10
10.05
ND
Bar
um
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
5.2
5.1
2
Bar
um
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
43.6
41
6
Bar
um
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
20.2
18.6
8
Bar
um
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
72.4
74.4
3
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
4.3
4.1
5
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
4.5
4
12
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
3.7
7
62
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
5.1
3.8
29
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
2.95
3.2
ND
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
6.55
3.65
ND
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
49.7
32.9
41
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
55.7
42.7
26
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
2.4
2.7
12
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
3.3
2.7
20
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
1.3
1.6
21
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.83
1.9
78
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
26.6
32.2
19
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
27
25.8
5
Bar
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
41
32.1
24
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 3 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008460
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Normal
Result
FD
Result
RPD,
%
Barium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
2.65
2.4
ND
Barium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
2.65
1.9
ND
Barium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
49.8
41.7
18
Barium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
47.2
32.7
36
Barium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
9
4.5
ND
Barium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
4
4.45
ND
Barium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
1.4
1.6
ND
Barium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
1.55
1.05
ND
Beryll
um
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
0.42
0.42
0
Beryll
um
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.46
0.48
4
Beryll
um
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
0.53
0.55
4
Beryll
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
0.13
0.12
8
Beryll
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
0.59
0.6
2
Beryll
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
0.1
0.09
11
Beryll
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
0.44
0.46
4
Beryll
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
0.0465
0.065
ND
Beryll
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
0.06
0.07
ND
Beryll
um
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
0.24
0.27
12
Beryll
um
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
0.083
0.086
4
Beryll
um
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
0.2
0.2
0
Beryll
um
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
0.096
0.1
4
Beryll
um
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
0.165
0.155
ND
Beryll
um
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
0.91
0.76
18
Beryll
um
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
0.44
0.43
2
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
0.125
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.125
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
0.0115
0.023
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.0135
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
0.16
0.125
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
0.14
0.155
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.01
0.0165
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
0.24
0.25
4
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
0.05
0.071
35
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.25
0.25
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
0.096
0.057
51
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.027
0.014
63
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.0065
0.00445
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.0075
0.009
ND
Beryll
um
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.009
0.006
ND
Cadm
um
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
3.1
3.5
12
Cadm
um
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.38
0.4
5
Cadm
um
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
101
95
6
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 4 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008461
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Cadmium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
31.5
32.3
3
Cadmium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
26.3
48.7
60
Cadmium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
29.2
29.9
2
Cadmium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
87.4
98
11
Cadmium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
88.6
82
8
Cadmium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
27.3
25.4
7
Cadmium
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
79.1
92.5
16
Cadmium
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
54.3
61.2
12
Cadmium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
78.9
76.8
3
Cadmium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
77
83.2
8
Cadmium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
85.6
84.7
1
Cadmium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
100
104
4
Cadmium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
88.8
102
14
Cadmium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
114
108
5
Cadmium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
3.9
3.9
0
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
5
4.6
8
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
5.9
6.4
8
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
24.4
28.7
16
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
22.6
17.9
23
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
6.6
8.7
27
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
15
8
61
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
39.4
46
15
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
39.7
38.2
4
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
18
11.6
43
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
13.9
19.9
36
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
41.4
34.8
17
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
57.3
36.5
44
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
6.2
6.3
2
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
5.6
4.8
15
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
73
69.9
4
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
40.9
48.3
17
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
37.2
35
6
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
40
30.5
27
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
118
113
4
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
139
97
36
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
54.7
14.1
118
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
6.4
6.1
5
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
15.1
17.5
15
Cadmium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
17.8
11.5
43
Calcium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
2190
2220
1
Calcium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
2150
2180
1
Calcium
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
19300
22400
15
Calcium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
5230
7270
33
Calcium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
3380
6410
62
Calcium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
22300
16400
30
Calcium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
8680
8750
1
Calcium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
5930
8970
41
Calcium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
5220
9480
58
Calcium
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
34100
33700
1
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 5 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008462
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Calcium
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
19600
25200
25
Calcium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
51300
51000
1
Calcium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
36000
34900
3
Calcium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
29000
30300
4
Calcium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
27300
25700
6
Calcium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
28100
36900
27
Calcium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
30900
32400
5
Calcium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
3680
3530
4
Calcium
Tailing Ponds
Gordon
TC4-SO-16K
84.1
Calcium
Tailing Ponds
Gordon
TC4-SO-16K
90
Calcium
Tailing Ponds
Lawyers
TC4-SO-33S
214
Calcium
Tailing Ponds
Lawyers
TC4-SO-33S
217
Calcium
Tailing Ponds
Woodchuck
TC4-SO-41A
103
Calcium
Tailing Ponds
Woodchuck
TC4-SO-41A
103
Calcium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
16500
17200
4
Calcium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
11900
10400
13
Calcium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
4120
5510
29
Calcium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
5570
4690
17
Calcium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
5930
4890
19
Calcium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
10600
5620
61
Calcium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
3830
4420
14
Calcium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
4160
3560
16
Calcium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
10700
11700
9
Calcium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
12500
9420
28
Calcium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
4990
7550
41
Calcium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
4150
5030
19
Calcium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
16600
21000
23
Calcium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
16400
15900
3
Calcium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
5450
5000
9
Calcium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
2950
4010
30
Calcium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
6910
6530
6
Calcium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
7300
5960
20
Calcium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
21900
24600
12
Calcium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
29500
32500
10
Calcium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
4200
11000
89
Calcium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
10300
9990
3
Calcium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
1550
1760
13
Calcium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
1840
1270
37
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
9.9
10.1
2
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
5.9
6.2
5
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
9
6.9
26
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
2.2
2.4
9
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
7.9
9.5
18
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
2.5
2
22
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
8.1
8
1
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
2
2.5
22
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
5.6
4.5
22
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
5.9
8.4
35
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
3
4.6
42
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 6 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008463
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
7.3
7.9
8
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
6.7
8.1
19
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
4.4
4.8
9
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
7.1
6.2
14
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
17.2
17.4
1
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
7.2
7.5
4
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
6.4
6.8
6
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
1.8
2.1
15
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.185
0.175
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.205
0.145
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
4
4.2
5
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
3.7
5
30
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.15
0.205
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
1.1
2.1
63
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
1.2
1.5
22
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
1.1
1.1
0
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
5.8
5.8
0
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
1.7
2.2
26
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.19
0.17
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.065
0.05
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
3.6
2.2
48
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.36
0.49
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.28
0.26
ND
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
1.3
2.3
56
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
1.5
1.3
14
Cobalt
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
6
6.2
3
Cobalt
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
5.9
6
2
Cobalt
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
11.6
10.3
12
Cobalt
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
1.4
1.5
7
Cobalt
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
7.2
8.7
19
Cobalt
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
1.1
0.9
20
Cobalt
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
5
4.8
4
Cobalt
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
0.65
1.1
51
Cobalt
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
1.3
1.7
27
Cobalt
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
2.5
2.8
11
Cobalt
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
1.6
1.4
13
Cobalt
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
2.5
2.3
8
Cobalt
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
3.3
3.1
6
Cobalt
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
2.2
2
10
Cobalt
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
3.5
3.5
0
Cobalt
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
4.9
5.4
10
Cobalt
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
4.7
5.1
8
Cobalt
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
4.9
4.8
2
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.074
0.15
68
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
0.56
1
56
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.55
0.43
24
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
2.5
2.5
ND
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
3.2
2.3
33
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
2.8
3
7
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 7 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008464
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
2.5
2.5
ND
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.097
0.13
29
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.37
0.55
39
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.39
0.38
3
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
0.66
0.88
29
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
0.62
0.52
18
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
2.7
3.1
14
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
0.91
1.3
35
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.62
0.66
6
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.52
0.44
17
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
1.3
0.91
35
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.61
0.44
32
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
5.4
0.27
181
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.28
0.2
33
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.27
0.32
17
Cobalt
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.29
0.23
23
Copper
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
13
12.3
6
Copper
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
5.6
5.7
2
Copper
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
89.7
108
19
Copper
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
21.1
19.2
9
Copper
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
19.1
30.2
45
Copper
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
31.7
28.7
10
Copper
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
52
52.7
1
Copper
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
40.1
39.1
3
Copper
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
11.9
11.9
0
Copper
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
54.6
62.8
14
Copper
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
35.7
69.3
64
Copper
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
71.6
70.1
2
Copper
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
104
107
3
Copper
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
48.6
48.3
1
Copper
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
286
291
2
Copper
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
824
712
15
Copper
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
233
219
6
Copper
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
19.3
17.9
8
Copper
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
6.3
6.3
0
Copper
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
7.6
8.7
13
Copper
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
13.4
18.7
33
Copper
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
12.8
11.4
12
Copper
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
20.6
23.6
14
Copper
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
16.2
18
11
Copper
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
6.6
5.7
15
Copper
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
6.9
7.4
7
Copper
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
17.4
22.3
25
Copper
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
20.5
18.4
11
Copper
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
7
7.4
6
Copper
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
6.9
6.7
3
Copper
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
37
37.7
2
Copper
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
17.1
21.4
22
Copper
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
4
4
0
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 8 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008465
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Copper
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
4.1
3.5
16
Copper
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
50
35.2
35
Copper
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
23.5
13.5
54
Copper
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
9
6.7
29
Copper
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
6.2
6.5
5
Copper
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
4.6
5
8
Copper
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
5.4
3.8
35
Iron
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
7600
7800
3
Iron
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
7550
7830
4
Iron
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
19300
20800
7
Iron
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
3330
4260
25
Iron
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
9200
13400
37
Iron
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
2740
2620
4
Iron
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
10000
10100
1
Iron
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
2520
3360
29
Iron
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
4720
5040
7
Iron
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
5490
5990
9
Iron
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
3910
5100
26
Iron
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
6930
6610
5
Iron
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
7060
7120
1
Iron
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
4500
4450
1
Iron
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
11000
10900
1
Iron
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
17700
17200
3
Iron
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
13800
14300
4
Iron
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
9310
9340
0
Iron
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
61.6
67
8
Iron
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
60.8
55.6
9
Iron
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
3990
1350
99
Iron
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
622
492
23
Iron
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
62.2
53.4
15
Iron
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
117
71.8
48
Iron
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
4560
3810
18
Iron
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
3650
5020
32
Iron
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
75.6
67.1
12
Iron
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
89.9
82.6
8
Iron
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
496
1030
70
Iron
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
329
445
30
Iron
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
811
1060
27
Iron
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
768
719
7
Iron
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
5700
5970
5
Iron
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
1480
1700
14
Iron
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
45.3
44
3
Iron
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
45.7
33
32
Iron
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
2170
1270
52
Iron
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
421
397
6
Iron
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
10500
381
186
Iron
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
315
365
15
Iron
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
598
860
36
Iron
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
656
455
36
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 9 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008466
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Lead
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
73.8
75.6
2
Lead
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
16
16.9
5
Lead
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
70800
42200
51
Lead
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
1070
1380
25
Lead
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
537
1180
75
Lead
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
898
737
20
Lead
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
1090
1100
1
Lead
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
296
486
49
Lead
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
468
558
18
Lead
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
1680
1940
14
Lead
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
754
1660
75
Lead
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
769
727
6
Lead
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
6070
6410
5
Lead
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
3220
3140
3
Lead
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
37700
38600
2
Lead
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
7040
9380
29
Lead
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
4490
4350
3
Lead
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
79.7
79.5
0
Lead
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
9.1
9.4
3
Lead
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
14.6
11.1
27
Lead
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
448
599
29
Lead
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
307
244
23
Lead
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
2.3
2.2
4
Lead
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
9.8
2.7
114
Lead
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
566
661
15
Lead
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
322
547
52
Lead
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
10.9
11.8
8
Lead
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
9.9
6.5
41
Lead
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
211
453
73
Lead
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
205
242
17
Lead
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
42.1
53.5
24
Lead
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
39.6
37.8
5
Lead
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
596
690
15
Lead
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
203
254
22
Lead
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
550
352
44
Lead
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
211
122
53
Lead
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
159
29.2
138
Lead
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
26.8
27.3
2
Lead
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
113
162
36
Lead
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
158
92.1
53
Magnesium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
532
566
6
Magnesium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
395
419
6
Magnesium
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
915
731
22
Magnesium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
810
848
5
Magnesium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
1140
2640
79
Magnesium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
2630
2080
23
Magnesium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
2150
3280
42
Magnesium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
2010
3120
43
Magnesium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
1320
1220
8
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 10 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008467
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Magnesium
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
10100
9910
2
Magnesium
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
3470
3760
8
Magnesium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
11700
11700
0
Magnesium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
5080
5070
0
Magnesium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
8030
8370
4
Magnesium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
5150
4920
5
Magnesium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
4330
5340
21
Magnesium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
2470
2290
8
Magnesium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
584
617
5
Magnesium
Tailing Ponds
Gordon
TC4-SO-16K
8.24
Magnesium
Tailing Ponds
Gordon
TC4-SO-16K
8.4
Magnesium
Tailing Ponds
Lawyers
TC4-SO-33S
15.8
Magnesium
Tailing Ponds
Lawyers
TC4-SO-33S
16.4
Magnesium
Tailing Ponds
Woodchuck
TC4-SO-41A
10.3
Magnesium
Tailing Ponds
Woodchuck
TC4-SO-41A
10.4
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
1970
2130
8
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
1380
1260
9
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
709
902
24
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
584
534
9
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
1510
1380
9
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
3020
1410
73
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
1060
1260
17
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
1120
1200
7
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
1690
1530
10
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
1950
1940
1
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
667
1240
60
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
332
746
77
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
1490
1630
9
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
1650
1520
8
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
2090
1770
17
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
1010
1220
19
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
1970
1910
3
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
1960
1810
8
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
1700
1300
27
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
1080
1140
5
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
1510
1550
3
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
1400
1230
13
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
216
234.5
ND
Magnesium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
202.5
183.5
ND
Manganese
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
445
450
1
Manganese
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
387
387
0
Manganese
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
470
447
5
Manganese
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
53.6
38.5
33
Manganese
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
303
417
32
Manganese
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
135
93.6
36
Manganese
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
275
295
7
Manganese
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
28.1
50.7
57
Manganese
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
115
128
11
Manganese
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
148
151
2
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 11 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008468
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Manganese
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
128
84.3
41
Manganese
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
167
165
1
Manganese
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
152
151
1
Manganese
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
107
108
1
Manganese
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
149
143
4
Manganese
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
150
158
5
Manganese
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
99.6
114
13
Manganese
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
368
366
1
Manganese
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
41.8
43.7
4
Manganese
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
26.4
20.8
24
Manganese
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
23.9
96.4
121
Manganese
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
35.7
32.8
8
Manganese
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
28.9
24.6
16
Manganese
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
72
27.7
89
Manganese
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
147
106
32
Manganese
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
125
123
2
Manganese
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
75.8
72.7
4
Manganese
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
105
73.1
36
Manganese
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
33.2
69.2
70
Manganese
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
14.9
61.1
122
Manganese
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
85.1
104
20
Manganese
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
79.8
74.7
7
Manganese
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
180
157
14
Manganese
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
67.3
92.1
31
Manganese
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
246
260
6
Manganese
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
326
271
18
Manganese
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
159
166
4
Manganese
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
162
153
6
Manganese
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
319
107
100
Manganese
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
124
116
7
Manganese
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
16.4
19.8
19
Manganese
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
16.8
12.2
32
Mercury
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
0.17
0.27
45
Mercury
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
0.26
0.21
21
Mercury
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
0.065
0.15
79
Mercury
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
0.016
0.047
98
Mercury
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
0.44
0.47
7
Mercury
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
0.012
0.06
ND
Mercury
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
0.044
0.05
ND
Mercury
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
0.18
0.19
5
Mercury
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
0.4
0.2
67
Mercury
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
0.16
0.2
22
Mercury
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
0.16
0.18
12
Mercury
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
0.4
0.33
19
Mercury
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
0.47
0.51
8
Mercury
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
0.19
0.27
35
Mercury
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
0.73
0.58
23
Mercury
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
0.005
0.005
ND
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 12 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008469
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Mercury
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
0.015
0.05
108
Mercury
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
0.0225
0.045
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
0.01
0.0275
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.05
0.05
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
0.05
0.06
18
Mercury
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.0075
0.01
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.0075
0.0075
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
0.03
0.0175
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.0125
0.015
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
0.0375
0.0125
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.0125
0.0125
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.015
0.0125
ND
Mercury
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.0075
0.0175
ND
Nickel
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
5.6
5.7
2
Nickel
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
6.1
6.3
3
Nickel
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
13.5
14.7
9
Nickel
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
5.1
6.4
23
Nickel
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
8.3
14.1
52
Nickel
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
5.1
4.8
6
Nickel
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
11.4
11.6
2
Nickel
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
2.9
4.3
39
Nickel
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
4.2
4.4
5
Nickel
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
12.1
14.5
18
Nickel
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
6
9.3
43
Nickel
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
13.9
13.3
4
Nickel
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
15.2
15.3
1
Nickel
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
11.6
11.3
3
Nickel
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
19.1
18.9
1
Nickel
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
36.6
33.6
9
Nickel
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
22.4
22.9
2
Nickel
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
7
6.8
3
Nickel
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
0.12
0.125
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.15
0.21
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
1.3
1.5
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
1
0.75
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.11
0.175
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.225
0.12
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
4.8
4.9
2
Nickel
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.225
0.22
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.255
0.245
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.75
1.35
ND
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 13 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008470
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Nickel
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.95
0.85
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
0.4
0.465
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
0.365
0.37
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
6.7
7.5
11
Nickel
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
1.05
1.3
ND
Nickel
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.96
1
4
Nickel
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.89
0.8
11
Nickel
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
5
3.5
35
Nickel
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
2.4
1.7
34
Nickel
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
9.4
0.58
177
Nickel
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.51
0.54
6
Nickel
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.86
1.4
48
Nickel
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.99
0.79
22
Potassium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
655
673
3
Potassium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
321
344
7
Potassium
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
251
248.5
ND
Potassium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
79.5
82.5
ND
Potassium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
206.5
176
ND
Potassium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
135
101
ND
Potassium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
175
186
ND
Potassium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
65
100
ND
Potassium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
98.5
114.5
ND
Potassium
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
250.5
250.5
ND
Potassium
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
250.5
250.5
ND
Potassium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
250
250.5
ND
Potassium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
250
251
ND
Potassium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
251.5
251
ND
Potassium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
239.5
237
ND
Potassium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
1560
1370
13
Potassium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
704
699
1
Potassium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
219
227.5
ND
Potassium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
4990
6090
20
Potassium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
6670
9960
40
Potassium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
6410
7300
13
Potassium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
7830
8060
3
Potassium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
14000
14000
0
Potassium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
13000
14000
7
Potassium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
4030
4370
8
Potassium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
5940
5230
13
Potassium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
19900
20300
2
Potassium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
22200
22500
1
Potassium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
11200
8640
26
Potassium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
10800
10800
0
Potassium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
19300
19800
3
Potassium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
20900
20400
2
Potassium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
6980
7420
6
Potassium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
8670
10200
16
Potassium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
8250
8490
3
Potassium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
8910
8390
6
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 14 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008471
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Potassium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
2360
3250
32
Potassium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
3420
3480
2
Potassium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
1560
16500
165
Potassium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
17700
17400
2
Potassium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
10600
8700
20
Potassium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
9780
9370
4
Selenium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
0.37
0.57
43
Selenium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.58
0.52
11
Selenium
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
7
7.6
8
Selenium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
0.95
0.68
33
Selenium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
0.14
0.14
ND
Selenium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
0.75
0.56
29
Selenium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
0.16
0.14
ND
Selenium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
1.75
1.75
ND
Selenium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
1.75
1.75
ND
Selenium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
1.6
1.6
0
Selenium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
2.6
2.3
12
Selenium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
2.3
2.3
ND
Selenium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
1.5
1.7
13
Selenium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
0.71
0.97
31
Selenium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
1.1
1.2
9
Selenium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
1
0.98
2
Selenium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
1.2
0.67
57
Selenium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.82
0.64
25
Selenium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.7
0.7
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.7
0.65
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
0.45
0.445
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
0.48
0.47
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.96
1.6
50
Selenium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
1
1.2
18
Selenium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
1
0.67
40
Selenium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
1.1
0.86
24
Selenium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
1
1.3
26
Selenium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
1.3
1.3
0
Selenium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
0.6
0.82
31
Selenium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
0.85
0.91
7
Selenium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.75
0.65
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.7
0.48
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
0.75
0.65
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.75
0.65
ND
Selenium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
0.81
1.3
46
Selenium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
1.4
1.5
7
Selenium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
1.1
1.1
0
Selenium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
1.2
0.95
23
Sodium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
1380
1520
10
Sodium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
309
334
8
Sodium
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
11400
11300
1
Sodium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
15300
14600
5
Sodium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
8910
18600
70
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 15 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008472
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Sod
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
15800
18500
16
Sod
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
33800
36400
7
Sod
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
37200
27800
29
Sod
um
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
12200
9670
23
Sod
um
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
43000
51100
17
Sod
um
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
250.5
250.5
ND
Sod
um
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
34000
33200
2
Sod
um
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
250
251
ND
Sod
um
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
251.5
251
ND
Sod
um
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
68900
67700
2
Sod
um
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
330.5
326.5
ND
Sod
um
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
43900
42100
4
Sod
um
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
1480
1500
1
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
706
713
1
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
698
686
2
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
5520
7900
35
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
4160
3710
11
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
174
172.5
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
9070
10800
17
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
5240
8220
44
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
762
744
2
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
825
682
19
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
3320
6280
62
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
3720
3440
8
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
1320
1620
20
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
1230
1210
2
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
23500
24600
5
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
7910
10100
24
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
47.9
42.6
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
17.15
17.45
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
250
250
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
250
250
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
49.65
42.75
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
87.5
42.75
ND
Sod
um
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
61
65
ND
Silver
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
0.3
0.305
ND
Silver
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.305
0.305
ND
Silver
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
0.41
0.41
0
Silver
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
0.1
0.11
ND
Silver
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
0.09
0.09
ND
Silver
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
0.28
0.27
4
Silver
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
0.1
0.085
ND
Silver
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
0.09
0.085
ND
Silver
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
1.4
1.4
0
Silver
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
0.085
0.085
ND
Silver
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
3.3
3.2
3
Silver
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
0.085
0.085
ND
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 16 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008473
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Silver
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
0.085
0.085
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
0.25
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.25
0.095
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.11
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
0.11
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.24
0.18
29
Silver
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.19
0.21
10
Silver
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
0.11
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.3
0.27
11
Silver
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
0.5
0.5
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
0.39
0.23
52
Silver
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.043
0.066
42
Silver
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.105
0.08
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.085
0.1
ND
Silver
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.085
0.075
ND
Thallium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
0.77
0.77
0
Thallium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
0.53
0.45
16
Thallium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
0.19
0.19
ND
Thallium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
0.215
0.235
ND
Thallium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
0.185
0.19
ND
Thallium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
0.195
0.195
ND
Thallium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
0.215
0.185
ND
Thallium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
0.185
0.185
ND
Thallium
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
0.18
0.18
ND
Thallium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
1.65
1.65
ND
Thallium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
0.18
0.18
ND
Thallium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
0.185
0.185
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
0.65
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
0.65
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
1.25
1.25
ND
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 17 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008474
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Normal
FD
RPD,
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Result
Result
%
Thallium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
1.25
1.25
ND
Thallium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
1.25
1.25
ND
Vanadium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
14.1
14.5
3
Vanadium
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
14.6
14.9
2
Vanadium
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
17.2
13.4
25
Vanadium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
3.3
3
10
Vanadium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
16.2
20.4
23
Vanadium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
2.2
1.9
15
Vanadium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
10.1
10.2
1
Vanadium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
2
2.9
37
Vanadium
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
6.6
6.2
6
Vanadium
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
4.9
5.3
8
Vanadium
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
4.7
3.5
29
Vanadium
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
6
6.1
2
Vanadium
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
2.5
2.5
ND
Vanadium
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
4.3
4.5
5
Vanadium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
6.7
5.7
16
Vanadium
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
14.7
13.8
6
Vanadium
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
5.3
5.3
0
Vanadium
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
14.6
15.1
3
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
0.455
0.55
ND
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
0.275
0.225
ND
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
0.12
0.17
34
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
7.8
6
26
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
6.6
8
19
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
0.12
0.099
19
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
0.15
0.14
7
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
0.47
0.86
59
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
0.27
0.47
54
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
1.3
1.7
27
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
1.2
1.1
9
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
5.9
6.2
5
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
0.3
0.25
18
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
2.5
2.5
ND
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
2.9
1.8
47
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
0.66
0.58
13
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
15.9
0.59
186
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
0.53
0.54
2
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028V\PPENDICIES\ PAGE 18 OF 19 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008475
-------
Table A-9
Field Duplicate Comparisons for CH2M HILL Tar Creek OU4 Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Parameter
Media Grouping
Location F2L
Station ID
Normal
Result
FD
Result
RPD,
%
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
0.78
1.1
34
Vanadium
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
0.87
0.59
38
Z
nc
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #14
TC4-RS-14A
525
585
11
Z
nc
Residential Yard Soil
Residential Location #8
TC4-RS-08B
87.2
91.2
4
z
nc
Smelter- Affected Soil
South Smelter Transect
TC4-SO-46K
4230
4160
2
z
nc
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10E
6460
6090
6
z
nc
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20E
3950
7740
65
z
nc
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30E
6180
7110
14
z
nc
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40E
15300
16600
8
z
nc
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50E
16500
9830
51
z
nc
Biota Associated Soil
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56E
4970
4010
21
z
nc
Chat Base
Gordon
TC4-SO-16G
20400
23400
14
z
nc
Chat Base
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04H
13400
16100
18
z
nc
Chat Pile
Atlas (Tulsa)
TC4-SO-31D
16500
16300
1
z
nc
Chat Pile
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01B
20900
21500
3
z
nc
Chat Pile
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04C
27700
27100
2
z
nc
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01H
35100
31400
11
z
nc
Fine Tailings
Bird Dog
TC4-SO-01N
11000
14000
24
z
nc
Fine Tailings
Pioneer
TC4-SO-04M
21200
24100
13
z
nc
Transition Zone Soil
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
TC4-SO-02U
639
645
1
z
nc
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10A
304
321
5
z
nc
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10B
271
257
5
z
nc
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10C
2370
3530
39
z
nc
Biota
Plant #10
TC4-BIO-10D
1670
1360
20
z
nc
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20A
131
147
12
z
nc
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20B
255
171
39
z
nc
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20C
3920
4610
16
z
nc
Biota
Plant #20
TC4-BIO-20D
2320
3600
43
z
nc
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30A
326
325
0
z
nc
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30B
355
281
23
z
nc
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30C
1480
2800
62
z
nc
Biota
Plant #30
TC4-BIO-30D
1640
1560
5
z
nc
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40A
576
699
19
z
nc
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40B
520
511
2
z
nc
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40C
8830
9270
5
z
nc
Biota
Plant #40
TC4-BIO-40D
3360
4250
23
z
nc
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50A
863
845
2
z
nc
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50B
975
780
22
z
nc
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50C
3790
2930
26
z
nc
Biota
Plant #50
TC4-BIO-50D
2230
1610
32
z
nc
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56A
1050
328
105
z
nc
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56B
253
302
18
z
nc
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56C
799
983
21
z
nc
Biota
Plant #56
TC4-BIO-56D
847
586
36
ND = No RPD was calculated since the normal or field duplicate result (or both) was non-detect.
P:\ll SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICI ES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA9_FieldDuplicate
008476
PAGE 19 OF 19
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008477
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-10
Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired) Test Results for Comparing CH2M HILL / Respondents Split Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Media Grouping
Parameter
CH2M HILL
Mean
PRP Mean
CH2M HILL
Median
PRP Median
Mean of
Differences
(CH2M HILL -
PRP)
Median of
Differences
(CH2M HILL -
PRP)
Number of
Data Pairs
Wilcoxon Signed
Rank p-value
Normality
p-value (of
difference
s)
Chat Base
Cadmium
92.6
95
86.6
94
-2.4
-12.7
6
0.563
0.272
Chat Base
Lead
2280
1860
2115
1955
420
-50
6
0.844
0.066
Chat Base
Zinc
25300
22500
21100
23150
2820
-1850
6
0.844
0.040
Chat Pile
Aluminum
431
840
396.5
810
-409
-413.5
4
0.125
0.936
Chat Pile
Antimony
1.05
0.225
0.86
0.25
0.828
0.71
4
0.125
0.537
Chat Pile
Arsenic
5.83
13.4
6
11.3
-7.55
-6.7
4
0.375
0.496
Chat Pile
Barium
5.59
13.5
4.7
6
-7.91
-2.3
4
0.625
0.158
Chat Pile
Beryllium
0.161
0.75
0.16
0.75
-0.589
-0.588
4
0.125
0.488
Chat Pile
Cadmium
98.4
92.6
71.65
87
5.84
-11.95
32
0.355
0.000
Chat Pile
Calcium
41800
48300
39900
46300
-6450
-6400
4
0.375
0.096
Chat Pile
Chromium
6.48
7.13
5.45
8
-0.65
-0.35
4
0.875
0.899
Chat Pile
Cobalt
2.78
3.75
2
3.75
-0.975
-0.5
4
0.250
0.207
Chat Pile
Copper
135
82.5
131.5
82.5
52.6
34
4
0.250
0.428
Chat Pile
Iron
7000
5440
6790
5440
1560
840
4
0.250
0.137
Chat Pile
Lead
1390
1380
1445
1465
10.3
-36.5
32
0.634
0.071
Chat Pile
Magnesium
13200
11700
12600
11700
1470
2190
4
0.375
0.330
Chat Pile
Manganese
229
163
232
140
66.3
40.5
4
0.250
0.289
Chat Pile
Mercury
0.508
0.158
0.325
0.165
0.35
0.19
4
0.125
0.099
Chat Pile
Nickel
9.55
7.63
8.45
7.5
1.93
3.55
4
0.375
0.065
Chat Pile
Potassium
251
475
251.25
500
-224
-248.75
4
0.250
0.799
Chat Pile
Selenium
1.32
20.8
1.32
20.55
-19.5
-19.235
4
0.125
0.034
Chat Pile
Silver
0.475
2
0.3
2
-1.53
-1.7
4
0.125
0.266
Chat Pile
Sodium
47600
125
50850
125
47500
50725
4
0.125
0.649
Chat Pile
Thallium
1.25
0.62
1.25
0.28
0.63
0.97
4
0.250
0.029
Chat Pile
Vanadium
4.9
6.75
5.15
6.5
-1.85
-1.6
4
0.125
0.551
Chat Pile
Zinc
28400
23300
23650
23000
5120
650
32
0.322
0.000
Fine Tailings
Cadmium
122
146
109
145
-23.8
-9
21
0.004
*
0.000
Fine Tailings
Lead
4930
6280
3870
4720
-1350
-850
21
0.000
*
0.000
Fine Tailings
Zinc
24500
33100
25200
29100
-8580
-7000
21
0.000
*
0.000
Residential Yard Soil
Cadmium
3.62
4.25
0.59
1.45
-0.634
-0.495
28
0.000
*
0.000
Residential Yard Soil
Lead
858
1090
25.2
35
-231
-7.4
29
0.000
*
0.000
Residential Yard Soil
Zinc
501
639
133
244
-138
-72
29
0.000
*
0.000
Transition Zone Soil
Aluminum
3320
5620
3323.5
5615
-2290
-2291.5
2
P:\U SEPAX317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028WPPEN DICIESX
APPEN DIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA10 JVSRT
008478
PAGE 1 OF 2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-10
Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired) Test Results for Comparing CH2M HILL / Respondents Split Data
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Media Grouping
Parameter
CH2M HILL
Mean
PRP Mean
CH2M HILL
Median
PRP Median
Mean of
Differences
(CH2M HILL -
PRP)
Median of
Differences
(CH2M HILL -
PRP)
Number of
Data Pairs
Wlcoxon Signed
Rank p-value
Normality
p-value (of
difference
s)
Transition Zone Soil
Antimony
0.233
0.15
0.2325
0.15
0.0825
0.0825
2
Transition Zone Soil
Arsenic
4
5.2
4
5.2
-1.2
-1.2
2
Transition Zone Soil
Barium
56
65
56
64.95
-8.95
-8.95
2
Transition Zone Soil
Beryllium
0.275
0.4
0.275
0.4
-0.125
-0.125
2
Transition Zone Soil
Cadmium
13.1
16.9
0.89
2.1
-3.79
-1.2
65
0.000 *
0.000
Transition Zone Soil
Calcium
14700
16800
14665
16840
-2180
-2175
2
Transition Zone Soil
Chromium
7.5
11
7.5
11
-3.5
-3.5
2
Transition Zone Soil
Cobalt
3
2.75
3
2.75
0.25
0.25
2
Transition Zone Soil
Copper
26
25.5
26
25.5
0.5
0.5
2
Transition Zone Soil
Iron
7580
9130
7580
9130
-1550
-1550
2
Transition Zone Soil
Lead
175
229
20.95
26
-53.9
-6.2
66
0.000 *
0.000
Transition Zone Soil
Magnesium
4320
5380
4321.5
5380
-1060
-1058.5
2
Transition Zone Soil
Manganese
253
280
253
279.5
-26.5
-26.5
2
Transition Zone Soil
Mercury
0.0455
0.085
0.0455
0.085
-0.0395
-0.0395
2
Transition Zone Soil
Nickel
6.7
7.5
6.7
7.5
-0.8
-0.8
2
Transition Zone Soil
Potassium
174
600
173.5
600
-427
-426.5
2
Transition Zone Soil
Selenium
0.563
0.525
0.5625
0.525
0.0375
0.0375
2
Transition Zone Soil
Silver
0.085
0.5
0.085
0.5
-0.415
-0.415
2
Transition Zone Soil
Sodium
11100
37.5
11110
37.5
11100
11072.5
2
Transition Zone Soil
Thallium
0.183
0.11
0.1825
0.11
0.0725
0.0725
2
Transition Zone Soil
Vanadium
10.9
13.9
10.85
13.9
-3.05
-3.05
2
Transition Zone Soil
Zinc
2350
3040
144
227
-691
-40.9
66
0.000 *
0.000
Washed Fines
Cadmium
90.2
95.4
80.6
78.1
-5.14
-0.4
19
0.860
0.000
Washed Fines
Lead
3460
4050
2590
2370
-597
-121
19
0.196
0.000
Washed Fines
Zinc
17600
20500
11000
15200
-2830
-1200
19
0.066
0.001
NOTES:
BOLD = COPCs
* = Wilcoxon Signed Rank p-value is significant at the 0.05 significance level.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA10_WSRT
008479
PAGE 2 OF 2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table A-11
Comparison of Means for Cases Where CH2M HILL / Respondents Splits are Significantly Different (per the Wilcoxon
Signed Rank test)
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
CH2M
RPD
HILL
Respondents
Between
Media Grouping
Parameter
Mean
Mean
Means
Fine Tailings
Cadmium
122
146
18%
Fine Tailings
Lead
4930
6280
24%
Fine Tailings
Zinc
24500
33100
30%
Residential Yard Soil
Cadmium
3.62
4.25
16%
Residential Yard Soil
Lead
858
1090
24%
Residential Yard Soil
Zinc
501
639
24%
Transition Zone Soil
Cadmium
13.1
16.9
25%
Transition Zone Soil
Lead
175
229
27%
Transition Zone Soil
Zinc
2350
3040
26%
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ PAGE 1 OF 1
APPENDIX A\TC_HHRA_DraftRA_AppendixA_Tables.xls\TA11_WSRT_significant
008480
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\APPENDIXA\TABLES
008481
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Figures
008482
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008483
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Plant #57,
Plant #56
Plant #55
.<•: 'Plant#9
Plant #7.
- Plant #54]
" ' 1
Plant #8
Plant #48
Plant #47
Plant #46
Plant #23
Plant #45
Plant #43
Plant #44
Plant #22
Plant #18
Plant #13
Plant #14'
Plant #17,
Plant #30
Plant #15
Plant #16
Plant #27.
Plant #19
Plant #20
Plant #12 Hi
- v >-
Plant #3
Plant #25
Plant #1
Plant #29
Plant #10
Plant #42
Plant #6'
Plant #40
Plant #411
Plant #35
Plant #37
Plant #34
Plant #36
Plant #38
Plant #32
Plant #39
Plant #31
/u • -j'
CH2MHILL
• Plant Locations
Site Boundary
N
LEGEND
A
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\TarCreek\MXD\Bird_Dog.mxd 10\6\05 S Daigle 0 0.375 0.75
008484
FIGURE A-1
Tar Creek OU4
Plant Sampling Locations
¦ Miles
1.5
•AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: SPLIT AND SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING SUMMARY TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXA.DOC
008485
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Appendix B
Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State
Mining Area
008486
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008487
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(DEQ)
CUSTOMER SERVICES DIVISION
FY03 Section 106 Water Quality Management Program
1-006400-01
FY03/04 Carryover Project #8 (Task 600)
Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area
FY 2003
Final Report
Submitted by:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Customer Services Division
707 North Robinson
P. O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
Telephone: (405)702-1000
Effective: July 1, 2003
008488
-------
Acknowledgements
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality wishes to thank the US Fish
and Wildlife Service for their help in the collection of fish as well as advice and
counsel on development of sample preparation and analysis methods for this
study.
008489
-------
Executive Summary
The Customer Services Division (CSD) of the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) performed a study to determine the safety of
consuming fish caught in Oklahoma waters affected by runoff from the Tri-State
Mining Area and the Tar Creek Superfund Site. Responding to concerns by local
residents and tribes, this study was designed to determine levels of metals in fish
tissue that would be harmful to human health if consumed in excess amounts.
Local tribes from the Tar Creek area indicated traditional customs involve eating
whole fish, including bones, which have been canned by means of pressure-
cooking. Since metals are known to accumulate in the bones and organs offish,
there was a concern that these traditional methods of preparation would be
unsafe. Local tribes advised ODEQ they believed fish consumption rates were
higher among tribal members than among the general public.
CSD field personnel worked cooperatively with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
to collect fish from the Neosho and Spring Rivers and local ponds receiving mine
waste runoff. The State Environmental Laboratory developed sample
preparation and analysis methods specifically for this study. CSD risk
assessment personnel used EPA guidance to develop safe levels for cadmium
and zinc in fish, and utilized the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK)
Model for evaluating lead concentrations in fish that would be safe for the public
to consume.
Results of this study conclude that fillets of fish caught in ponds within the Tar
Creek Superfund Site and the Spring and Neosho Rivers are safe to eat at rates
up to 6 8-ounce meals per month based on laboratory reporting limits. Whole-
uneviscerated and whole-eviscerated portions of all fish from the Oklahoma
sections of the Spring and Neosho Rivers downstream to Grand Lake and ponds
in the Tri-State Mining Area should not be consumed. Fish from these waters
have higher concentrations of lead than fish collected in a national study. The
higher fish tissue lead concentrations are positively correlated (R2= 86%) to lead
concentrations in the sediments of the area waters.
A follow-up study is recommended to verify these results and to determine the
downstream extent of problems. Future studies should incorporate lower
analytical reporting limits.
008490
-------
Table of Contents
Background and Statement of Issues 1
Monitoring Methods
Sample Collection 2
Laboratory Analysis 2
Quality Assurance 4
Results 5
Data Analysis
Determination of Safe Consumption Levels 5
Cadmium and Zinc 5
Lead 7
Comparison of Fish Concentrations to Allowable Levels 11
Comparison of Preparation Methods 14
Relationship of Tissue Concentrations to Sediment and
Water Concentrations 17
Comparison to Historic Data 19
Comparison to National Data 19
Conclusions and Recommendations 21
References 23
Appendix A: Data Summary 25
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Sampling Locations 3
Figure 2. Boxplot Construction Legend 14
Figure 3. Boxplot of Cadmium by Preparation 15
Figure 4. Boxplot of Lead by Preparation 15
Figure 5. Boxplot of Zinc By Preparation 15
Figure 6. Regression Plots 18
Figure 7. Boxplot Comparing Cadmium Results for 20
NCBP and Tri-State Studies
Figure 8. Boxplot Comparing Lead Results for 20
NCBP and Tri-State Studies
Figure 9. Boxplot Comparing Zinc Results for 21
NCBP and Tri-State Studies
008491
-------
Table 1. Site Locations 2
Table 2. IEUBK Inputs 8
Table 3. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable 10
Contaminant Concentration Levels at Standard
Consumption Rates (1 meal per week)
Table 4. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable 12
Contaminant Concentration Levels at Elevated
Consumption Rates (2 meal per week)
Table 5. Regression Results 18
008492
-------
Background and Statement of Issues
The Tri-State Mining District located in northeast Oklahoma, southeast Kansas,
and southwest Missouri was once a major provider of lead and zinc ores in the
early to mid 20th century. Since the cessation of mining in the area, the mines
remain closed and abandoned. Metals located both in the mines and in waste
ore on the surface can become mobilized under low pH conditions and be
transported by ground and surface waters. Water has been discharging from the
closed mines since the 1970's and is a major source of contamination to Tar
Creek, a tributary of the Neosho River.
The Spring and Neosho Rivers and their tributaries (particularly Tar Creek) have
been impacted by runoff from these abandoned lead and zinc mines.
Additionally, the percolation of rainwater through chat piles mobilizes metals into
solution, which flows into local ponds, many of which are millponds at abandoned
ore processing sites. Fish caught locally in these rivers and ponds constitute a
significant portion of the diets of the citizens of the area. Furthermore, area tribal
members report that fish are prepared and consumed using a pressure cooker to
can and preserve whole fish including bones. These methods would potentially
increase the ingestion of metals that might accumulate in fish. Additionally, local
tribes advised that they believed fish consumption rates were higher among tribal
members than the general public. Questions have been raised about the safety
of eating fish from these waters.
The consumption offish containing elevated levels of metals is a concern
because chronic exposure to heavy metals can cause health problems. Chronic
lead exposure has been linked to anemia, neurological dysfunction and renal
impairment. Chronic cadmium exposure has been linked to renal damage,
hypertension, and cardiovascular effects. Although zinc is an essential nutrient
required for proper growth and development, the presence of zinc can affect the
body's metabolism of other metals.
This study evaluates the potential human health effects associated with the
ingestion offish from the Tri-State Mining Area in Oklahoma. In addition, an
evaluation of possible relationships between metals concentrations in fish tissue
and metals concentrations in water and sediment was done. Fish tissue
concentrations were also compared to values from the National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
008493
1
-------
Monitoring Methods
Sample Collection
Fish were collected from 4 ponds and 6 river sites in 2002 (Figure 1, Tablel).
The river sites were evenly split with 3 sites on Spring River and 3 sites on the
Neosho River. Two of the pond sites were millponds at former ore processing
locations and 2 pond sites were adjacent to and received runoff from chat piles.
The pond sites are located in the Tar Creek Superfund area while the stream
sites are outside the Superfund area proper but within the larger Tri-state Mining
District.
Table 1. Site Locations
Site ID
Site Name
Latitude
Longitude
TC-MPACP
Atlas Chat Pile Pond
36°58.867'
94°48.332'
TC-MPBG
Blue Goose Mill Pond
36°58.102'
94°51.784'
TC-MPNWWC
Northwest Western Chat Pile Pond
36°59.081'
94°51.349'
TC-MPWCP
Western Chat Pile Mill Pond
36°58.920'
94°51.436'
TC-NRCB
Neosho River at Conners Bridge
36°47.949'
94°49.165'
TC-NRECC
Neosho River at Elm Creek Confluence
36°53.470'
94°55.677'
TC-NRRP
Neosho River at Riverview Park
36°51.944'
94°52.728'
TC-SRBH
Spring River at Blue Hole
36°56.096'
94: 44.765"
TC-SRMB
Spring River at Mocassin Bend
36°52.3ir
94°45.933'
TC-SRTB
Spring River at Twin Bridges State Park
36°48.174'
94°45.213'
A total of 80 composite fish samples representing 8 species were collected using
various combinations of electrofishing, gill nets, and rod and reel. Species
targeted for collection and analysis were carp, channel catfish and white crappie.
At sites where those species were not available in sufficient numbers, other
commonly consumed species were collected. These include white bass, spotted
bass, largemouth bass, bluegill sunfish and smallmouth buffalo. Because
comparisons were to be made between different preparation methods, an
attempt was made to collect consistent size ranges within species at all sites.
Laboratory Analysis
Fish collections were delivered to ODEQ's State Environmental Laboratory
where they were sorted by site, species, and size. Fish were then sorted into
composites consisting of 3 to 8 individuals with the smallest fish in the composite
at least 75 percent of the length of the largest fish in the composite. Composite
samples of similar mean length were assembled for different preparation
methods: fillets, whole-uneviscerated fish, and whole-eviscerated fish. Sufficient
numbers offish were available to perform analyses using the 3 preparation
methods for carp and channel catfish at the 6 river sites, white crappie at 5 of the
river sites, and largemouth bass at the 4 pond sites. In addition, 25 composite
samples consisting of other commonly consumed species were assembled.
008494
-------
Figure!. Sampling Locations
Tri-State Mining District Fish Tissue Study Area
A sample preparation technique1 was developed to prevent cross-contamination
between samples as metals are found in both the mucous and scales offish.
Only stainless steel cutting utensils were used and the preparation surfaces were
3
008495
-------
sheeted in polyethylene. All utensils and equipment were thoroughly cleaned
and polyethylene sheeting replaced between the preparation of each sample.
Fish were skinned and filleted, simply eviscerated, or kept whole as appropriate.
A commercial grade food grinder with stainless steel cutting blades was used to
mascerate samples. The ground tissue was then homogeneously mixed before
being sent through the food grinder a second time. A subsample of the ground
tissue was then collected for analysis.
A microwave digestion technique2 was developed to prepare the subsamples for
analysis. One gram subsamples were digested in 10 milliliters of concentrated
nitric acid (HNO3) brought to 200° C under pressure in a four-step temperature
ramping process. Samples were held at 200° C for 10 minutes and then allowed
to cool for 15 minutes. All tissue, including bones if present, was at that point
dissolved into the HNO3. Digested sample aliquots were then diluted with ultra-
pure water to a volume of 50 mis and allowed to rest.
EPA Method 200.73 for the analysis of metals was used to analyze the fish tissue
samples. Digested samples were diluted again by 50 percent to create a 10%
HNO3 solution just before analysis on an inter-coupled plasma (ICP) Trace®
Analyzer. A 10 mil. aliquot of the digested sample was injected into the ICP and
3 readings of each element were recorded. The mean of the 3 readings as well
as the standard deviation was calculated. If the percent of the standard deviation
relative to the mean of the 3 readings exceeded 20 percent, the sample results
were rejected. The mean of the readings was used to calculate the amount of
each element in the 1-gram aliquot of digested fish flesh. This value was then
converted to mg/kg units and entered into the AQUARIUS laboratory information
system.
Quality Assurance
A total of 4 field replicate samples were submitted for fish. These consisted of
duplicate composite samples of the same species, similar in size, collected at the
same site. Each of the sample preparation methods was represented by a field
replicate. Precision values were all 0 percent for cadmium (all values below the
laboratory reporting limit), 7 to 14 percent for zinc, and 0 to 4 percent for lead. All
precision values fall within acceptable limits for field replicate samples as outlined
the Quality Assurance Project Plan4 for this study.
A total of 8 laboratory duplicate samples of fish tissue were prepared. These
consisted of duplicate subsamples of the ground composited tissue. These were
digested and analyzed alongside the rest of the samples. Precision values were
all 0 percent for cadmium (all values below the reporting limit), 1 to 25 percent for
zinc, and 0 to 18 percent for lead. All precision values fall within acceptable
limits for laboratory duplicates as outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan
for this study.
4
008496
-------
Results
Results for all analyses are included in Appendix A.
Data Analysis
Determination of Safe Consumption Levels
The determination of safe fish consumption levels for lead, zinc, and cadmium
was performed using 2 different methods. Zinc and cadmium levels were
determined by using methods described in the U.S. EPA document Guidance For
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use in Fish Advisories5. This method
utilizes Reference Dose values (RfDs) to calculate contaminant exposure levels
that would likely not result in an appreciable risk of adverse heath effects over a
lifetime. The level for lead was determined using EPA's Integrated Exposure
Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model for Lead6. This model considers total
environmental lead exposure and predicts the blood lead levels for children up to
84 months of age. A method similar to one utilized by the Washington State
Department of Health7 was used to establish the allowable levels of lead in fish
tissue. Since children are more sensitive to the deleterious effects of lead, the
consumption recommendations for lead are based on the protection of children.
It is assumed that levels that are protective of children are also protective of
adults.
To address the issue of elevated consumption rates among tribal members, safe
consumption levels were calculated using two different consumption rates: 1
meal per week as the Standard Consumption Rate and 2 meals per week as the
Elevated Consumption Rate.
Cadmium and Zinc
For cadmium and zinc safe consumption levels were calculated using the
following equations:
Cm= (RfD x BW)/CR|im
Where
Cm = measured concentration of chemical contaminant m in a given
species of fish (mg/kg)
RfD = reference dose (mg/kg-day)
BW = Consumer body weight (kg)
CR|jm = maximum allowable fish consumption rate (kg/d)
5
008497
-------
and:
Where
CR|jm — (CRmw x MS)/Tap
CRmw= maximum allowable fish consumption rate (meals/week)
MS = meal size (kg fish/meal)
Tap = time averaging period (days/week)
Combining equations yields:
Cm = (RfD x BW x Tap)/(CRmw x MS)
Reference dose values were obtained from the EPA Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) database8,9. Default values obtained from EPA's Guidance For
Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For Use in Fish Advisories5 were used for
body weight and meal size. Equation inputs are as follows:
Reference Dose Cadmium = 0.001 mg/kg-day
Zinc = 0.3 mg/kg-day
Body weight Children = 14.5 kg (32lb)
Adults = 70 kg (154 lb)
Meal Size 0.227 kg (8 oz)
Consumption Rate Standard Rate = 1 meal/week
Elevated Rate = 2 meals/week
Time averaging Period 7 days/week
From this, the following allowable fish contaminant concentrations were
calculated:
Standard Rate:
Cadmium
Zinc
Children
0.45 mg/kg
135 mg/kg
Adults
2.2 mg/kg
650 mg/kg
Elevated Rate:
Cadmium
Zinc
Children
0.22 mg/kg
67 mg/kg
Adults
1.1 mg/kg
325 mg/kg
The State Environmental Laboratory's reporting limit for cadmium (0.30 mg/kg) is
above the safe concentration calculated using the elevated consumption rate for
children. Because of this, either the meal size or the consumption rate could be
adjusted to determine safe levels of consumption offish based on results at the
6
008498
-------
reporting limit. Calculations of safe consumption levels based on a fish
concentration of 0.30 mg/kg are as follows:
For a meal size of 0.227 kg (8 oz):
CRmw = (RfD X BW X Tap)/(Cm x MS)
= (0.001 x 14.5 x 7)/(0.30 x 0.227)
= 1.5 meals/week
For a consumption rate of 2 meals per week:
MS = (RfD x BW x Tap)/(Cm x CRmw)
= (0.001 x 14.5 x 7)/(0.30 x 2)
= 0.169 kg (6 oz) fish meal
Lead
Safe fish concentration levels for lead were calculated using the IEUBK model
which predicts the distribution of blood lead levels for children age 84 months
and younger. The model generates a protective level at which no more than 5
percent of modeled blood lead levels exceed the EPA Intervention Level10 of 10
ug/dl (micrograms/deciliter). Blood lead concentrations above the Intervention
Level indicate action should be taken to determine the cause of the elevated
concentration. This risk assessment methodology is more conservative than that
used for cadmium and zinc in that total lead exposure is accounted for through
estimates of exposure through soil, house dust, air, water, and diet. EPA default
values were used for all inputs into the IEUBK except for soil and house dust
lead concentrations, and factors related to fish consumption and concentration.
Soil lead concentrations were determined by computing the 95% upper
confidence level(UCL) of the mean of yard soil concentrations11 and high access
area concentrations12. Residential yards and high access areas(HAAs) such as
parks, schools and playgrounds have been sampled for lead concentration as
part of the cleanup activities in the Tar Creek area. If yard or HAA soil
concentrations were found to have soil lead levels greater than 500 mg/kg, the
soil was removed and replaced with low lead concentration borrow fill soil from
outside the area. Yard and HAA replacement activities are nearing completion at
the time this report is being written.
Yard lead data indicate that 3257 of 7977 samples (41%) exceed 500 mg/kg.
These areas were replaced with borrow fill having a mean lead concentration of
18.1 mg/kg13. The mean value of the yards after remediation was calculated
7
008499
-------
after replacing those values greater than 500 mg/kg in the dataset with values of
18.1 mg/kg. The resulting mean of the post-remediation yards is 140.9 mg/kg.
The 95% UCL for the mean is 144.2 mg/kg.
A total of 28 high access areas were sampled in the towns of Picher, Cardin,
Quapaw, Commerce, and North Miami. Ten of the 28 eight sites (36%) averaged
greater than 500 mg/kg soil lead level. The soil at these sites was removed and
replaced with borrow fill having a mean lead value of 18.1 mg/kg. The mean
value of the HAAs after remediation was calculated after replacing the values of
sites that were greater than 500 mg/kg with 18.1 mg/kg. The resulting mean of
the post-remediated HAAs was 134.7 mg/kg. The 95% UCL for the mean was
163.8 mg/kg
Based on this information it was decided to use a soil concentration input of 165
mg/kg. The IEUBK default for soil concentration to house dust concentration is
0.7. Using this, the house dust concentration was calculated to be 115 mg/kg.
Inputs into the IEUBK model are given in Table 2.
Table 2. IEUBK Inputs
Input
Value
Drinking Water
4.00 ug/L (EPA default value)
Soil
165 mg/kg (based on the 95% UCL of the mean
of yard soil levels and high access area soil
levels)
House Dust
115 ug/g (based on soil level)
Paint
0 per day (EPA default)
Maternal Blood Contribution
2.5 ug/dl (default in the infant model)
Outdoor Air Concentration
0.100 ug/rn^ (EPA default)
Indoor Air
30% of outdoor air concentration (EPA default)
Time Outdoors
1 to 4 hours per day (EPA defaults based on
age)
Ventilation Rates
2 to 7 m3/day (EPA defaults based on age
range)
Lung Absorption
32 percent (EPA default)
Diet Uptake
50% (EPA default varies slightly with age)
Water Uptake
0.36 to 1.13 ug/day (EPA default, varies with
age)
Soil and Dust Uptake
5.1 to 5.67 ug/day (EPA default varies with age)
Percentage of Meat Intake
Consisting of Locally Caught
Fish
Standard Consumption Rate: 32 percent
Elevated Consumption Rate: 64 percent
(based on one or two 8-ounce meals per week
as a percentage of median EPA default daily
meat consumption of 101.57 g/day based on
age)
008500
-------
The allowable lead concentration in fish was determined by setting the model
inputs to those described in Table 2 and manipulating the Lead in Fish
concentration to a level that results in just less than 5 percent of the target
population with a blood lead level of 10 ug/dl.
For example, in the case of the Standard Consumption Rate of one 8-ounce
meal per week, the model was initially run with the Percentage of Meat Intake
Consisting of Locally Caught Fish input at 32 percent and the Lead in Fish
concentration set to 0 mg/kg resulting in 0.44 percent of the target population
with a blood lead level greater than 10 ug/dl. The Lead in Fish concentration was
incrementally increased until just below 5 percent of the target population had a
blood lead level of more than 10 mg/dl. That final Lead in Fish concentration was
0.36 mg/kg.
This process was repeated for an Elevated Consumption Rate of two 8-ounce
meals per week of locally caught fish. The resulting allowable lead level was
0.18 mg/kg.
Allowable fish contaminant concentrations based on either one or two 8-ounce
meals per week are as follows:
Contaminant
Children
Standard
Consumption
Rate
Children
Elevated
Consumption
Rate
Adults
Standard
Consumption
Rate
Adults
Elevated
Consumption
Rate
Lead
Cadmium
Zinc
0.36 mg/kg
0.45 mg/kg
135 mg/kg
0.18 mg/kg
0.22 mg/kg
67 mg/kg
0.36 mg/kg
2.2 mg/kg
650 mg/kg
0.18 mg/kg
1.1 mg/kg
325 mg/kg
As in the case of cadmium, the allowable lead in fish concentration at the
Elevated Consumption Rate of two 8-ounce meals per week was less than the
State Environmental Laboratory's reporting limit of 0.25 mg/kg. To determine a
safe consumption level based on the SEL's reporting limit, the Lead in Fish
concentration was set to 0.25 mg/kg and the Percentage of Meat Intake
Consisting of Locally Caught Fish input was initially set at 64 percent (two 8-
ounce meals per week.) This resulted in 7.8 percent of the target population with
a blood level exceeding 10 ug/dl. The Percentage of Meat Intake Consisting of
Locally Caught Fish input was then incrementally reduced until just under 5
percent of the target population had an acceptable blood lead level. That final
level was 47%.
Allowable fish consumption based on the SEL's reporting limit of 0.25 mg/kg was
calculated as follows:
9
008501
-------
CRum = (Mdi X Pf X TapX 0.0353 ounces/gram)/8 ounces/meal where
CRum = Consumption rate in meals/month
Mdi = median daily consumption of meat by children younger than 8
Pf = Proportion of meat intake consisting of locally caught fish
CRLim= (101.57 g/day X 0.51 X 7 days/week X 0.0353 oz/g)/8 oz/meal
= 1.5 meals/week
or for a consumption rate of 2 meals per week:
MS = (CRLim X PF X Tap X 0.0353 oz/g)/2 meals/week
= (101,57g/day X 0.51 X 7 days/week X 0.0353 oz/g) / 2 meals/week
= 5.9 oz. fish meal
Comparison of Collected Fish Concentrations to Allowable Levels
Fish were collected at 3 sites on Spring River, 3 sites on the Neosho River, 2
ponds near chat piles and 2 millponds at former ore processing sites. Sample
analysis was performed on whole-uneviscerated fish, whole-eviscerated fish and
fillets of carp and channel catfish at the 6 river sites, white crappie at 5 of the
river sites, and largemouth bass at the 4 pond sites. In addition, 25 samples of
various other commonly consumed species were performed using the various
preparation methods.
Table 3 lists the percentage of samples (by preparation method and species)
exceeding the allowable fish contaminant concentrations at the Standard
Consumption Rate. Table 4 lists the percentage of samples exceeding the
allowable fish contaminant concentrations at the Elevated Consumption Rates.
Table 3. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable Contaminant
Concentration Levels at Standard Consumption Rates (1 meal perw
Preparation
Number
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Zinc
of
Children
Adults
Children
Children
Adults
Samples
(percent
exceeding
0.45 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
2.2 mg/kg)
and Adults
(percent
exceeding
0.36 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
135 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
650 mg/kg)
All Species
All
80
3
0
27
0
0
FL
25
0
0
0
0
0
WE
25
0
0
24
0
0
WU
30
7
0
50
0
0
Smallmouth
Buffalo
All
4
0
0
100
0
0
FL
0
0
0
0
0
0
WE
0
0
0
0
0
0
WU
4
0
0
100
0
0
10
008502
-------
Preparation
Number
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Zinc
of
Children
Adults
Children
Children
Adults
Samples
(percent
exceeding
0.45 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
2.2 mg/kg)
and Adults
(percent
exceeding
0.36 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
135 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
650 mg/kg)
Carp
All
18
11
0
56
0
0
FL
6
0
0
0
0
0
WE
6
0
0
67
0
0
WU
6
33
0
100
0
0
Channel
Catfish
All
18
0
0
17
0
0
FL
6
0
0
0
0
0
WE
6
0
0
0
0
0
WU
6
0
0
33
0
0
Bluegill
Sunfish
All
5
0
0
40
0
0
FL
1
0
0
0
0
0
WE
1
0
0
0
0
0
WU
3
0
0
66
0
0
Largemouth
Bass
All
13
0
0
15
0
0
FL
4
0
0
0
0
0
WE
4
0
0
25
0
0
WU
5
0
0
20
0
0
Spotted
Bass
All
3
0
0
0
0
0
FL
1
0
0
0
0
0
WE
1
0
0
0
0
0
WU
1
0
0
0
0
0
White Bass
All
2
0
0
0
0
0
FL
0
0
0
0
0
0
WE
0
0
0
0
0
0
WU
2
0
0
0
0
0
White
Crappie
All
15
0
0
0
0
0
FL
5
0
0
0
0
0
WE
5
0
0
0
0
0
WU
5
0
0
0
0
0
Preparation Codes:
ALL-All Sample Preparations
FL-Fillet
WE - Whole-eviscerated
WU - Whole-uneviscerated
008503
11
-------
Table 4. Percentage of Samples Exceeding Allowable Contaminant
Concentration Levels at Elevated Consumption Rates (2 meal per week).
Preparation
Number
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Zinc
of
Children
Adults
Children
Children
Adults
Samples
(percent
exceeding
0.22 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
1.1 mg/kg)
and Adults
(percent
exceeding
0.18 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
67 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
325 mg/kg)
All Species
All
80
6
0
36
1
0
FL
25
0
0
4
0
0
WE
25
0
0
36
0
0
WU
30
20
0
60
3
0
Smallmouth
Buffalo
All
4
0
0
100
0
0
FL
0
0
0
0
0
0
WE
0
0
0
0
0
0
WU
4
0
0
100
0
0
Carp
All
18
28
0
66
6
0
FL
6
0
0
17
0
0
WE
6
0
0
83
0
0
WU
6
83
0
100
17
0
Bluegill
Sunfish
All
5
0
0
40
0
0
FL
1
0
0
0
0
0
WE
1
0
0
0
0
0
WU
3
0
0
66
0
0
Channel
Catfish
All
18
0
0
28
0
0
FL
6
0
0
0
0
0
WE
6
0
0
33
0
0
WU
6
0
0
50
0
0
Largemouth
Bass
All
13
0
0
23
0
0
FL
4
0
0
0
0
0
WE
4
0
0
50
0
0
WU
5
0
0
20
0
0
Spotted
Bass
All
3
0
0
0
0
0
FL
1
0
0
0
0
0
WE
1
0
0
0
0
0
WU
1
0
0
0
0
0
White Bass
All
2
0
0
0
0
0
FL
0
0
0
0
0
0
WE
0
0
0
0
0
0
WU
2
0
0
0
0
0
12
008504
-------
Preparation
Number
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Zinc
of
Children
Adults
Children
Children
Adults
Samples
(percent
exceeding
0.22 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
1.1 mg/kg)
and Adults
(percent
exceeding
0.18 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
67 mg/kg)
(percent
exceeding
325 mg/kg)
White
Crappie
All
15
0
0
13
0
0
FL
5
0
0
0
0
0
WE
5
0
0
0
0
0
WU
5
0
0
40
0
0
Preparation Codes:
ALL-All Sample Preparations
FL-Fillet
WE - Whole-eviscerated
WU - Whole-uneviscerated
From the two tables the following can be discerned:
• A single fillet sample of carp exceeded allowable levels for lead and the
Elevated Consumption Rate. No other fillet portions of any fish exceeded
laboratory reporting limits. No fillet portions exceed allowable levels for
any metal tested at the Standard Consumption Rate.
• Allowable levels for cadmium at the Elevated Consumption Rate for
children were exceeded only in samples of whole-uneviscerated carp.
• The allowable level for Zinc at the Elevated Consumption Rate for
Children was exceeded by a single whole fish sample.
• Allowable levels for lead at the elevated consumption rate were exceeded
in 36 percent of all whole-eviscerated samples and 60 percent of all whole
fish samples.
• Allowable levels of lead at the Standard Consumption Rate of 1 meal per
week were exceeded in 5 species:
¦ 33 percent of whole-uneviscerated channel catfish
¦ 17 percent of whole-eviscerated channel catfish
¦ 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated smallmouth buffalo
¦ 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated carp
¦ 67 percent of whole-eviscerated carp.
¦ 66 percent of whole-uneviscerated bluegill
¦ 20 percent of whole-uneviscerated largemouth bass
¦ 25 percent of whole-eviscerated largemouth bass
• Allowable levels of lead at the Elevated Consumption Rate of 2 meals per
week were exceeded in 5 species:
¦ 50 percent of whole-uneviscerated channel catfish
¦ 33 percent of whole-eviscerated channel catfish
13
008505
-------
¦ 20 percent of whole-uneviscerated largemouth bass
¦ 50 percent of whole-eviscerated largemouth bass
¦ 66 percent of whole-uneviscerated bluegill sunfish
¦ 40 percent of whole-eviscerated white crappie
¦ 17 percent of carp fillets
¦ 83 percent of whole-eviscerated carp
¦ 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated carp
¦ 100 percent of whole-uneviscerated smallmouth buffalo
Based on this information ODEQ recommends children living in the Tar Creek
area consume no more than six 8-ounce fillet meals per month offish caught in
ponds within the Tar Creek Superfund Site and the Spring and Neosho Rivers
above Grand Lake. All adults and children should avoid eating all species of
whole-eviscerated or whole-uneviscerated fish caught in these waters.
Comparison of Preparation Methods
Fish samples were analyzed using 3 different preparation methods: fillets, whole-
eviscerated, and whole-uneviscerated. There are 23 instances in the data set
where analyses were performed using the three preparation methods on the
same species from the same site. These data were pooled and statistical tools
were applied to determine if significant differences exist between the preparation
methods in relation to tissue metals concentration. Figures 3-5 illustrate boxplots
of results from the 3 preparation methods vs. metals concentration. Figure 2 is a
legend defining boxplot construction as used in this report.
Figure 2. Boxplot construction legend.
*-< Outlier
*-
I
-< Highest value within the
limit: Q3+1.5(Q3-Q1)
-------
Figure 3. Boxplots of cadmium concentration by sample preparation (all species
pooled.)
Boxplot of Cadmium by Preparation
(means are indicated by solid circles)
0.9
0.8 -
0.7 -
| —.0.6-
¦ — o>
£
~o o) 0.5 —
TO <=
O vS
0.4 -
0.3
0.2
0.1
Whole
Eviscerated
Whole
Uneviscerated
Figure 4. Boxplots of lead concentration by sample preparation (all species
pooled.)
3.5 -
3.0
2.5 -
' 2.0-
>1.5-
1.0
0.5 -
0.0
Boxplot of Lead by Preparation Method
(means are indicated by solid circles)
Fillet
Whole
Eviscerated
Whole
Uneviscerated
Figure 5. Boxplots of zinc concentration by sample preparation (all species
pooled.)
Boxplot of Zinc by Preparation
(means are indicated by solid circles)
Eviscerated Uneviscerated
15
008507
-------
These plots indicate some differences between the whole-eviscerated and the
whole-uneviscerated preparations while illustrating generally lower
concentrations in fillet samples. To confirm these observations, a Kruskal-Wallis
test14 was applied to the data. The Kruskal-Wallis test uses median values and
average ranks to determine if the observed differences in 2 or more populations
are statistically significant, that is, of a greater magnitude than would be expected
to occur by chance. The Kruskal-Wallis test is an extension of the Wilcoxon
Rank Sum test and does not require the distribution of the data to be normal or
symmetric. For this test all values below the laboratory reporting limit were set to
one-half the reporting limit. The results are as follows:
H0: The medians of the preparation methods are all equal.
Ha. At least one of the medians is larger or smaller than at least one of the other
medians,
a = 0.05
For Cadmium:
Preparation
Number of
Median
Average
Z Statistic
Samples
Rank
Fillet
23
0.15
32.5
-0.73
Whole
23
0.15
32.5
-0.73
Eviscerated
Whole
23
0.15
40.0
1.46
Uneviscerated
Overall
69
35.0
H Statistic = 10.61 Degrees of Freedom = 2 p = 0.005 (adjusted for
ties)
For Lead:
Preparation
Number of
Median
Average
Z Statistic
Samples
Rank
Fillet
21
0.125
22.6
-2.87
Whole
21
0.125
35.0
0.93
Eviscerated
Whole
21
0.250
38.6
1.93
Uneviscerated
Overall
63
32.0
H Statistic = 12.14 Degrees of Freedom = 2 p = 0.002 (adjusted for
ties)
16
008508
-------
For Zinc:
Preparation
Number of
Samples
Median
Average
Rank
13.0
45.9
Z Statistic
Fillet
Whole-
23
23
6.54
21.2
-6.45
3.18
Eviscerated
Whole-
Uneviscerated
Overall
23
69
19.9
46.5
35.0
3.27
H Statistic = 41.65
Degrees of Freedom = 2 p = < 0.001
These results indicate that in each case the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of
the alternative hypothesis: at least one of the preparation methods differs from at
least one of the other preparation methods. The Z statistic indicates how the
mean rank for the group differs from the mean rank for all the observations.
From this information and the boxplots one can conclude that in the case of
cadmium, the whole-uneviscerated portion is significantly higher than both fillets
and whole-eviscerated preparations. For lead, fillet concentrations are
significantly less than concentrations in whole-uneviscerated and whole-
eviscerated portions. For zinc, fillet concentrations are also significantly lower
than both whole-eviscerated and whole-uneviscerated portions.
Relationship of Tissue Concentrations to Sediment and Water
Concentrations.
The relationship of tissue metals concentrations to water and sediment levels
was explored through linear regression analysis. To be consistent and to provide
the most unbiased data, metals concentrations from whole-uneviscerated carp
samples (the response variable) were plotted versus water and sediment
concentrations (predictor variables). The regression equation was computed
along with values for R2 and S. R2 is the percentage of variation in the response
variable due to the predictor variable and S is an estimator of the standard
deviation around the regression line.
Regression analysis was not run for total and dissolved fractions of lead and
cadmium in water because all results were less than the reporting limit. For all
other fractions, values less than the reporting limit were set to one-half of the
reporting limit.
Of the various combinations of tissue concentration vs. media concentration, only
lead in fish vs. lead in sediment yielded a result indicating a solid relationship
between the two. The results are given in Table 3 and shown in Figure 5.
17
008509
-------
Table 5. Regression Results
Test
Regression Equation
S
R2
Cadmium in Fish vs.
Cd(fjsh) = 0.253 + 0.069 Cd(sed)
0.231
31.0 %
Cadmium in Sediment
Lead in Fish vs.
Pb(fish) = 0.132 + 0.063 Pb(sed)
0.497
86.3 %
Lead in Sediment
Zinc in Fish vs.
Zn(fish) = 50.3 + 0.133 Zn^ss)
9.175
20.1 %
Dissolved Zinc in Water
Zinc in Fish vs.
Zn(fish) = 52.1 + 0.056 Zn(jot)
9.170
20.2 %
Total Zinc in Water
Zinc in Fish vs.
Zn(fish) = 53.2 + 0.010 Zn(sed)
9.594
12.6 %
Zinc in Sediment
Figure 6. Regression Plots
18
008510
-------
Comparison to Historic Data
ODEQ intended to compare data collected for this study to data collected from
the region in 1982 by the Oklahoma State Department of Health15 to determine if
tissue values were changing over time. However, an examination of the 1982
data revealed that all samples were fillets analyzed only for lead and all results
were below the reporting limit at the time of 1.0 mg/kg compared to a reporting
limit of 0.25 mg/kg for this study. This makes a comparison of the 2 time periods
unsuitable due to the differing reporting limits and the censoring of all 1982 data.
Comparison to National Data
Whole-uneviscerated fish data from this study was compared to data collected
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Contaminant Biomonitoring
Program16 (NCBP) to determine if tissue metals concentrations in fish collected
from the Tri-State Mining District differed from values offish collected nationwide.
The NCBP data was queried to select concentration values representing the
same species and size ranges within those species as was collected for the Tri-
State Mining District study. Data were labeled as to study and were pooled into
a single database.
One of the difficulties in comparing the 2 data groups was the difference in
reporting limits for lead and cadmium. The NCBP study used varying reporting
limits of 0.001 to 0.05 mg/kg for cadmium and 0.008 to 0.1 mg/kg for lead. The
Tri-State Mining District study used reporting limits of 0.3 mg/kg for cadmium and
0.25 mg/kg for lead. For this comparison, all cadmium values below 0.3 mg/kg
were set to 0.29 mg/kg and all lead values below 0.25 mg/kg were set to 0.24
mg/kg. The Kruskal-Wallis test was run on the pooled data to determine if there
were statistical differences between the 2 study populations.
The results are as follows and boxplots illustrating the data are as follows:
H0: The medians of the 2 study populations are equal.
Ha. One of the medians is larger or smaller than the other median.
a = 0.05
For Cadmium:
Preparation Number of Median Average Z Statistic
NCBP
Tri-State
Overall
Samples
409
29
438
<0.30
<0.30
Rank
217.2
251.6
219.5
-1.41
H Statistic = 1.99 Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = 0.158
H Statistic(adjusted for Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = <0.001
ties) = 27.13
19
008511
-------
Figure 7. Boxplot comparing cadmium results for NCBP and Tri-State studies.
-------
For Zinc:
Preparation Number of Median Average Z Statistic
Samples Rank
NCBP 148 15.96 86.4 -1.52
Tri-State 29 20.00 102.2
Overall 177 219.5
H Statistic = 2.30 Degrees of Freedom = 1 p = 0.129
Figure 9. Boxplot comparing Zinc results for NCBP and Tri-State studies.
o
c
N
100
; 90
, 80
• 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
NCBP
Study
r
Tri-State
These results indicate the median level for lead in fish tissue collected from
waters in the Tri-State Mining District is significantly higher than what would one
would expect to find in fish from other waters. The results for cadmium are
inconclusive due to the high proportion of censored data. While the calculated
median value for zinc is higher in the Tri-State Study, it is not statistically
significant at the 95% confidence level.
008513
21
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
In comparison to fish collected in the National Contaminant Biomonitoring
Program, the fish from Oklahoma waters in the Tri-State Mining Area have lead
concentrations higher than one would expect to find in fish from waters
elsewhere in the United States. The elevated levels of lead in the fish positively
correlate to the concentration of lead in the sediments of these waters. The
consumption of whole-eviscerated or whole-uneviscerated fish from these waters
is discouraged. However, the consumption of fillets from fish in this area is safe
at rates at least as high as six 8-ounce meals per month based on the laboratory
reporting limit.
Further study is needed to validate these findings and to determine the
downstream extent of the metals uptake in fish species. Specifically, fish from
Grand Lake need to be tested for tissue lead concentrations. Additionally, due to
local fish harvesting practices, other bottom dwelling fish such as various species
of suckers should be included in a follow-up study. Laboratory analytical
techniques should be modified to lower reporting limits to levels in the 0.15 mg/kg
range for lead and cadmium.
008514
22
-------
References
1. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Standard Operating
Procedure for the Tri-State Mining Area Fish Collection and Preparation.
Customer Service Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, Oklahoma City, OK.
2. CEM Corporation. 1999. Mars Microwave Accelerated Reaction System
Operation Manual, Microwave Sample Preparation Note: 5BI-8. CEM
Corporation, Mathews, NC.
3. U.S. EPA. 1991. EPA Method 200.7 Revision 3.3, Determination of Metals
and Trace Elements By Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission
Spectroscopy. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
4. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Fish Tissue
Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Customer Service Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, Oklahoma City, OK.
5. U.S. EPA. 2000. Guidance For Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data For
Use in Fish Advisories, Volume II: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption
Limits. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
6. U.S. EPA. 1994. Guidance Manual For The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
7. Washington State Department of Health. 2001. Evaluation of Cadmium,
Lead, and Zinc Contamination of Spokane River Fish. Spokane,
Washington.
8. U.S. EPA. 1994. IRIS: Cadmium. CASRN 7440-43-9. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
9. U.S. EPA. 1992. IRIS: Zinc and Compounds. CASRN 7440-66-6. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
10. U.S. CDC(Centers for Disease Control). 1985. Preventing lead poisoning in
young children: a statement by the Centers for Disease Control. CDC report
no. 99-2230, Atlanta, GA.
11. Morrison Knudson Corporation. 1999. Data from residential yard samples in
the Tar Creek Superfund area. Boise, ID.
12. Ecology & Environment, Inc. 1995. Tar Creek High Access Areas.
Summary of Response Activities. Dallas, TX.
23
008515
-------
13. Cates, David, 2003. Background concentrations of soils in Ottawa County.
Memo to Tar Creek File. ODEQ, Oklahoma City, OK.
14. Kruskal, W.H. 1952. A non-parametric test for the several sample problem.
The Annuls of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 525-540(5.2).
15. Oklahoma State Department of Health. 1982. An Environmental Health
Evaluation of the Tar Creek Area. OSDH. Oklahoma City, OK.
16. Schmitt, C.J. and Brumbaugh, W.G. 1990. National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program: concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
mercury, selenium, and zinc in fresh water fishes of the United States,
1976-1984. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 19:
731-747. (Data online at http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/data/ncbp/fish.htm
008516
24
-------
Appendix A: Data Tables
Site: TC-MPACP Atlas Chat Pile Pond
Dissolved pH Specific Vv&ter Total Total
Gggn Gnlrtams TenpactLie j%Jinily Brctess
(mg/1) (umhos/cm) (deg C) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Sdids, Dissdved Total Dissdved Total Dissdved Total fMrinm, Lead, Zuc,
SigHifed Qdriim Ckhiun kad kad 2nc(igl) 2rc Sbtoat Sainerl Sbdnol
(mgl/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
6.48 7.57
2639
20.6
Spades
Man
Length
(inches)
Man
Weight
(grams)
Sarnie
Reparation
QVGtegry
Ckiriumin
Hsh (mg/kg)
Lead in
Hsh
(mg/kg)
ZicinRsh
(mg/kg)
Bass, large mouth
Bass, lai'ge mouth
Bass, lai'ge moutii
10.25
10.94
11.63
194
269
300
Fillet Sample
Whole Eviscerated Sample
Whole Uneviscerated Sample
< 0.30
< 0.30
< 0.30
< 0.25
0.28
0.70
11
30
32
Site: TC-MPBG
B lue Goose M ill Pond
Dissdved pH Specific Water Total Total Solids,
Cfcygai Conductance Temperature Alkalinity Hardness Suspended
(irg/1) (umhos/cm) (deg Q (mg/1) (rqg/1) (mgl/1)
Dissdved Total Dissdved Total Dissdved Total Cadmium, Lead, Zinc,
Cadmium Cadmium Lead Lead Zinc (ug/1) 2nc Sediment Sediment Sediment
(ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
7.54 7.74
1409
23.6
Species
Mfean
Length
(indies)
Nfean
Weight
(grams)
Sample
Reparation
QA Category
Cadmiumin
Hsh (mg/kg)
Lead in
Hsh
(mg/kg)
ZincinRsh
tog/kg)
Bass, lai'ge moutii
Bass, lai'ge moutii
Bass, lai'ge moutii
11.56
13.19
13.56
329
482
541
Fillet Sample
Whole Eviscerated Sample
Whole Uneviscerated Sample
< 0.30
< 0.30
< 0.30
< 0.25
< 0.25
< 0.25
4.3
17
17
25
008517
-------
Site: TC-MPNWWC
Northwest W estern Chat Pile Pond
Dissolved pH
Specific
Water
Total
Total
Solids,
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total Dissolved
Total Cadmium,
Lead,
Zinc,
Cfcygai
Cbnductance
Temperature
Alkalinity
Hardness
Suspended
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Lead 2nc(ug/l)
Zinc Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
(n«/l)
(umhos/cm)
(degQ
(nsfl)
(ns/1)
(mgJ/l)
(ugfl)
(ugfl)
(ugfl)
(ugfl)
(ugfl) (mg/kg)
(mgftg)
(mg/kg)
11.3 8.48
521
24.2
Species
Nfean
Nfean
Sample
QA Categcry
Cadmium in
Lead in
Zinc in Hsh
Length
Weight
Reparation
Ksh(ngfeg)
Hsh
(mg/kg)
(inches)
(grams)
(mgfcg)
Bass, large mouth
12.58
450
Fillet
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
5.5
Bass, large mouth
13.83
614
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.38
15
Bass, large mouth
15.33
889
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
7.9
Bass, large mouth
15.33
889
Whole Uneviscerated
Lab Duplicate
< 0.30
< 0.25
10
Site:
TC-M PW CP
W estern Chat Pile M ill Pond
Dissolved pH
Specific
Water
Total
Total
Solids,
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total Dissolved
Total Cadmium,
Lead,
Zinc,
Oxygen
Conductance
Temperature
Alkalinity
Hardness
Suspended
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Lead Z5nc(ug/1)
Zinc Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
(mgfl)
(unta/cni)
(dqgQ
(mgfl)
(ns/D
(ngW)
(ugfl)
(ug/D
(ugfl)
(ugfl)
(ugfl) (mg/kg)
(rqg/kg)
(mg/kg)
7.58 7.70
1739
23.4
Species
Mfean
tyfean
Sample
QA Category
Cadmium in
Lead in
Zinc in Hsh
Length
Weight
Reparation
Hsh(ngfkg)
Hsh
(mg/kg)
(indies)
(grams)
(mg/kg)
Bass, large mouth
8.67
140
Fillet
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
5.0
Bass, large mouth
9.50
176
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
16
Bass, large mouth
9.58
190
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
15
Sunfish, Bluegill
7.80
138
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.37
49
26
008518
-------
Site: TC-NRCB Neosho River @ Conners Bridge
Dissolved pH
Qxygai
to®
Specific
Gnductance
(urrhos/cm)
Water
Temperature
(degQ
Total
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
Total
Hairiness
(irg/1)
Solids,
Suspended
«
Dissolved
Cadmium
(ug/1)
Total
Cadmium
(ugfl)
Dissolved
Lead
(ugfl)
Total
Lead
(ug/1)
Dissolved
2nc(ugfl)
Total Cadmium,
Zinc Sediment
(ug/1) (mg/kg)
Lead,
Sediment
(mg/kg)
Zinc,
Sediment
(mgfcg)
10.1 7.48
170.6
16.9
33.2
88.2
52
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 10
< 10
23
24 < 1
16
112
Species
Nfcan
Length
Cinches)
Nfean
Weight
(grams)
Sample
Reparation
QACategcry
Cadmium in
Ksh(rqgfcg)
Lead in
Bsh
Ccqg/kg)
ZncinRsh
(mg/kg)
Carp
19.00
1305
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
7.8
Carp
20.33
1922
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.35
66
Carp
21.25
2016
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.53
60
Catfish, Channel
16.17
550
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
6.4
Catfish, Channel
16.17
550
Fillet
Lab Duplicate
<
0.30
< 0.25
6.5
Catfish, Channel
16.75
673
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
21
Catfish, Channel
17.25
767
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
20
Crappie, White
7.75
94
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
6.2
Crappie, White
8.83
145
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
13
Crappie, White
9.58
215
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
12
008519
27
-------
Site: TC-NRECC Neosho River @ Elm Creek Confluence
Dissolved pH
Oxygai
(rpg/1)
Specific
Qnductanoe
(unhos/cm)
Water
Temperature
(degQ
Total
Alkalinity
(nqg/1)
Total
Hardness
(n$l)
Solids,
Suspended
(ngW)
Dissolved
Cadmium
(ugfl)
Total
Cadmium
(ugfl)
Dissolved
Lead
(ug/0
Total
Lead
(ug/0
Dissolved
Znc(ugfl)
Total Cadmium,
2nc Sediment
(ug/1) (mg/kg)
Lead,
Sediment
(mg/kg)
Zinc,
Sediment
(mg/kg)
9.18 8.10
263.4
13.5
79.0
138
52
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 10
< 10
18
13 < 1
14
43
Species
Nfean
Length
Cinches)
Nfean
Weight
(grams)
Sample
Reparation
QA Categay
Cadmium in
Esh(rqg/kg)
Lead in
Bsh
(ngfeg)
2ncinRsh
(mg/kg)
Buffalo, Smallmouth
18.30
1524
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.51
15
Caip
17.33
1146
FL
Sample
<
0.30
0.28
8.7
Caip
19.08
1297
Wiole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.93
54
Caip
19.76
1484
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
0.30
0.61
43
Catfish, Channel
15.75
442
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
7.5
Catfish, Channel
15.75
442
Fillet
Lab Duplicate
<
0.30
< 0.25
6.7
Catfish, Channel
17.17
616
Wiole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
16
Catfish, Channel
18.17
802
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.35
19
Crappie, White
10.17
236
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
R
6.5
Crappie, Wliite
10.58
259
Wiole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
19
Crappie, Wliite
11.08
317
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.27
16
008520
28
-------
Lead,
Sediment
(ngfljg)
< 10
2ucinF
(mgfe
6.9
38
61
6.1
6.2
23
18
4.7
11
13
11
Neosho River @ Riverview Park
Water
Total
Total
Solids,
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Cadmium,
Tenperature
Alkalinity
Hardness
Suspended
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
T pfyj
Zinc (ug/l)
Znc
Sediment
(degQ
(M©
(nefl)
(rqgl/1)
(ugfl)
(ug/l)
(ugfl)
(ug/l)
(ug^l)
(mg/kg)
17.9
30.7
98.9
72
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 10
< 10
22
15
< 1
Mfean IVfean Sample
Length Weight Reparation
(indies) (grams)
17.81 1254 Fillet
19.56 1470 Whole Eviscerated
20.88 1867 Whole Uneviscerated
14.08 338 Fillet
14.08 338 Fillet
15.17 394 Whole Eviscerated
15.83 475 Whole Uneviscerated
9.92 207 Fillet
10.08 248 Whole Eviscerated
10.92 299 Whole Uneviscerated
10.92 299 Whole Uneviscerated
QACategory Qdniumin Leadin
Rsh(mgftg) Fish
(mg/kg)
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Sample 0.30 0.36
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Lab Duplicate < 0.30 < 0.25
Sample < 0.30 0.28
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Sample < 0.30 < 0.25
Lab Duplicate < 0.30 < 0.25
-------
Site: TC-SRBH Spring River @ Blue Hole
Dissolved
PH
Specific
Water
Total
Total
Solids,
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Cadmium,
Lead,
Zinc,
Oxygai
Conductance
Temperature
Alkaliiiity
Hairiness
Suspended
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Lead
2nc(ugfl)
Znc
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
to®
(urrhosfcm)
(degQ
(mg/1)
(PS©
fatf/D
(ug/0
(ugfl)
(ugfl)
(ug/0
(ug/0
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mgfcg)
8.20
7.74
220
15.4
77.2
106
46
< 5.0
A
O
< 10
< 10
90
186
4
39
754
Species
IVfean
Length
Cinches)
Nfean
Weight
(grams)
Sample
Reparation
QA Category
Cadmium in
Ksh(rqgftg)
Lead in
Ksh
(mg/kg)
Zncifl
fag/
Bass, Spotted
7.17
70
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
<
0.25
8.0
Bass, Spotted
7.58
85
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
<
0.25
33
Bass, Spotted
8.00
105
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
<
0.25
20
Buffalo, Smallmouth
17.40
1180
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
2.5
48
Buffalo, Smallmouth
17.40
1180
Whole Uneviscerated
Lab Duplicate
<
0.30
2.1
42
Carp
18.00
1196
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
<
0.25
16
Carp
19.08
1522
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
1.0
62
Carp
19.92
1762
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
0.84
1.7
70
Catfish, Channel
14.92
407
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
<
0.25
3.5
Catfish, Channel
14.92
407
Fillet
Lab Duplicate
<
0.30
<
0.25
4.1
Catfish, Channel
16.08
503
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
R
20
Catfish, Channel
16.92
650
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.88
38
008522
30
-------
Site: TC-SRMB Spring River @ Mocassin Bend
Dissolved pH
Specific
Water
Total
Total
Solids,
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Total
Cadmium,
Lead,
Zinc,
Oxygen
Cfriductanoe
Temperature
Alkalinity
Hardness
Suspended
Cadmium
Cadmium
Lead
Lead
Zinc(ugfl)
Zinc
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
(rpg/1)
(unhos/oq)
(degQ
(mg/l)
fafl)
(mgl/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ugtt)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(msfeg)
(mgfeg)
(mg/kg)
7.34 7.86
223
14.0
92.3
119
45
< 5.0
A
O
< 10
< 10
73
136
3
53
725
Species
Wean
IVfean
Sample
QA Category
Cadmium in
Lead in
ZncinRsh
Length
Weight
Reparation
Ksh(mgfeg)
Ksh
(mg/kg)
(indies)
(grams)
(mgftg)
Bass, White
14.80
746
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
16
Buffalo, Smallmouth
16.45
1105
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.88
21
Caip
19.33
1584
Fillet
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
4.2
Carp
20.08
1763
Wiole Eviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
1.9
62
Carp
22.33
2070
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
0.56
3.5
53
Catfish, Channel
15.88
501
Fillet
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
6.7
Catfish, Channel
16.88
660
Wiole Eviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.50
16
Catfish, Channel
18.13
868
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.42
30
Crappie, White
10.75
294
Fillet
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
6.0
Crappie, Wiite
10.75
294
Fillet
Lab Duplicate
< 0.30
< 0.25
5.4
Crappie, Wiite
11.50
379
Wiole Eviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
< 0.25
27
Crappie, Wliite
13.31
585
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.26
21
Sunfish, Bluegill
6.05
67
Wiole Uneviscerated
Sample
< 0.30
0.57
32
008523
31
-------
Site: TC-SRTB Spring River @ Twin Bridges SP
Dissolved pH
Oxygen
fa®
Specific
Conductance
(umhos/cm)
Water
Temperature
(degQ
Total
Alkalinity
One®
Total
Hardness
(mg/1)
Solids, Dissolved
Suspended Cadmium
(mgl/1) (ug/1)
Total Dissolved
Cadmium Lead
(ug/1) (ug/1)
Total
Lead
(ug®
Dissolved
Zinc (ug/1)
Total Cadmium,
Znc Sediment
(ug/1) (mg/kg)
Lead,
Sediment
(mg/kg)
7mc,
Sediment
(mgfeg)
6.90 7.85
178.2
16.1
58.0
85.9
54 < 5.0
< 5.0 < 10
< 10
61
115 5
23
507
species
Nfean
Length
Cinches)
IVfean
Weight
(grams)
Sample
Preparation
QA Category
Cadniumin
Ksh (mg/kg)
Leadin
Rsh
(mg/kg)
2ncinHsh
(ti®/kg)
Bass, White
15.15
696
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
23
Bass, large mouth
15.45
1016
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
9.8
Buffalo, Smallmouth
17.45
1349
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.95
19
Carp
18.19
1273
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
10
Carp
18.75
1362
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
1.8
55
Carp
20.00
1568
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
0.30
1.9
53
Catfish, Channel
13.17
272
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
6.7
Catfish, Channel
13.17
272
Fillet
Lab Duplicate
<
0.30
< 0.25
4.8
Catfish, Channel
13.50
308
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
10
Catfish, Channel
16.08
558
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.33
20
Crappie, White
10.45
265
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
5.4
Crappie, White
10.85
317
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
8.1
Crappie, White
11.65
399
Whole Uneviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
14
Sunfish, Bluegill
5.25
42
Fillet
Sample
<
0.30
< 0.25
8.3
Sunfish, Bluegill
5.08
37
Fillet
Field Replicate
<
0.30
< 0.25
7.2
Sunfish, Bluegill
5.08
37
Fillet
Lab Duplicate
<
0.30
< 0.25
7.9
Sunfish, Bluegill
5.50
50
Whole Eviscerated
Field Replicate
<
0.30
< 0.25
23
Sunfish, Bluegill
6.00
65
Whole Eviscerated
Sample
<
0.30
0.25
25
3:
008524
-------
Site: TC-SRTB Spring River @ Twin Bridges SP (cont.)
Swedes Afean Nfean Sample QACategcry CadmLumin Leadin 2ncinHsh
Length Weight Rneparation Ksh(mgfeg) Hsh (mgfeg)
(inches) (grams) (mgftg)
Sunfish, Bluegill 6.75 98 Whole Uneviscerated Sample < 0.30 < 0.25 17
Sunfish, Bluegill 6.25 80 Whole Uneviscerated Field Replicate < 0.30 0.27 19
008525
33
-------
Appendix C
RAGS Part D Tables
008526
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008527
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Current
Surface Soil
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Quant (1)
Resident may contact COPCs in soil.
(Yards)
Resident
Dermal
Quant
Resident may contact COPCs in soil.
Dust
Indoor Dust
(General Public)
Child
Ingestion
Quant (2)
Child resident may contact lead in indoor dust.
Current/Future
Groundwater
Groundwater
Private wells
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Quant (4)
Resident may drink water from shallow well impacted by COPCs.
Current/Future
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Fish
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Qual (5)
This pathway previously evaluated (ODEQ, 2003); will be discussed in the Risk
Characterization Section.
Current/Future
Chat Pile Material and
Tailings
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Adult/Child
Inhalation
Quant
Residents may contact COPCs in ambient air
Future
Chat pile, tailings,
residential soil, smelter
soil, transition zone soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Quant (8)
Future residents may contact COPCs in soil as a results of 30 years of airborne
deposition.
Dermal
Quant (8)
Current
Surface Soil
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Quant
Resident may contact COPCs in soil.
(Yard)
Dermal
Quant
Dust
Indoor Dust
Resident
Child
Ingestion
Quant (2)
Child resident may contact lead in indoor dust.
Current
Surface Soil
Animal Tissue
Small Game
(Bird, Rabbit)
(Subsistence)
Adult
Ingestion
Quant (6, 10)
Subsistence resident may ingest plants grown on, and meat from animals
(residential, smelter,
transition zone)
Large Game
(Deer, Elk)
Qual (9, 12)
grazing on, soil in the area.
Beef (cattle)
Quant (6, 11)
Milk (dairy)
Milk (dairy)
Child
Ingestion
Quant (11)
Current/Future
Chat Pile Material and
Tailings
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Adult/Child
Inhalation
Quant
Residents may contact COPCs in ambient air
Current/Future
Groundwater
Groundwater
Private wells
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Quant (4)
Residents may drink water from shallow well impacted by COPCs; includes
potential impact from sweat lodge.
Current/Future
Aquatic Biota
Fish Tissue
Fish
Adult
Ingestion
Quant (6,7,10)
Aquatic Food
(Mussels etc.)
Aquatic Tissue
Unwashed
Asparagus
(above ground plant & root)
Residents may ingest fish & aquatic organisms caught in the Tar Creek area, as
well as plants grown in the vicinity of chat piles.
Current
Transition Zone Soil
Plant
Willow
(above ground plant & root)
(Leaf & Root)
Cattail
(above ground plant & root)
Washed
Asparagus
(above ground plant & root)
Current
Transition Zone Soil
Plant
Willow
(above ground plant & root)
Adult
Ingestion
Qual
Exposures to unwashed plants are addressed in the HHRA; washed plants wiii
be addressed in the uncertainty section of the HHRA.
(Leaf & Root)
Cattail
(above ground plant & root)
Future
Chat Pile and Tailings
Surface Soil (Yards,
Smelter-Affected
Soil, Transition
Zone Soil)
Surface Soil (0-1 inch)
Adult/Child
Ingestion
Quant (8)
Future residents may contact COPCs in soil as a results of 30 years of airborne
deposition.
Dermal
Quant (8)
Current/Future
Chat and Tailings
Surface Material
Chat & Tailings Ponds
surface (0-6 inch)
Recreator
Adolescent
Ingestion
Quant
Recreators may drive recreational vehicles atop chat piles, chat bases, and miii
ponds
Material
Dermal
Quant
* Noncarcinogenic hazard evaluated separately for adult and child receptors, combined lifetime carcinogenic risk evaluated on an age-adjusted basis for residential scenario.
(1) Surface soil is evaluated for each individual home for lead; the maximum concentrations of all yards in Tar Creek are used for evaluation of cadmium and zinc.
(2) Risk associated with dust is evaluated for lead using the default soil/dust ratio in the IEUBK model.
(3) Risk associated with inhalation of ambient air (particulate emission) is evaluated for lead using the IEUBK model.
(4) Groundwater is evaluated for each shallow well at an individual home for lead; the maximum concentrations of groundwater for all shallow wells sampled are used for evaluation of cadmium and zinc.
(5) Risk associated with ingestion offish by general public have been evaluated by ODEQ (2003) and is not re-evaluated.
(6) Two adult subsistence scenarios (1 -high fish diet and 2-high beef diet) are evaluated based on the exposure assumptions presented in the Spokane Tribe study (Harper et. al., 2002).
(7) Fish concentrations presented in the ODEQ study are used (ODEQ, 2003).
(8) The range of future soil concentrations are evaluated via air deposition modeling.
(9) The difference in bioconcentration between beef and large game animals, and the affect on risk estimates, are presented in the Risk Characterization section.
(10) Bioconcentration factors for aquatic food were obtained from the Tar Creek Ecological Risk Assessment.
(11) Bioconcentration factors were obtained from EPA Combustion Guidance.
(12) Bioconcentration factors were obtained from the open literature.
008528
1 of 1
-------
Table 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Chat and Tailings Material
Exposure Medium: Surface Material
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds
7429-90-5
ALUMINUM
102
11500 J,B
mg/kg
FT2331-1-7S
94/94
1.1 -27.5
11500
9183
7.62E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
Surface (0-6 inch)
7440-36-0
ANTIMONY
0.2 J,-
3.1 L,J
mg/kg
TC4-SO-01E
60/94
0.2-8.3
3.1
0.25
3.13E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-38-2
ARSENIC
2.4
26.4 J,B
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
90/94
0.17-5
26.4
6.3
3.90E-01 C
NA
No
BKG
7440-39-3
BARIUM
2.6 L,J
58.9
mg/kg
TC4-SO-31D01
79/94
0.021 - 27.5
58.9
97.6
5.47E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-41-7
BERYLLIUM
0.0065 L,J
1 J
mg/kg
FT2331-1-7S
67/94
0.017-4
1
0.54
1.54E+02 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-43-9
CADMIUM
10.4
197
mg/kg
TC4-SO-01P
97/97
0.029 - 0.69
197
0.73
3.90E+01 N
NA
Yes
ASL
7440-70-2
CALCIUM
7400
99900
mg/kg
FT2322-7-7S
94/94
2-689
99900
1715
NA
NA
No
NUT
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
2.5 J,v
50 J,+
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
86/94
0.099-10
50
18
2.11E+02 C
NA
No
BSL
7440-48-4
COBALT
0.68 L,J
23.3
mg/kg
TC4-SO-161
76/94
0.092-20
23.3
6.5
9.03E+02 C
NA
No
BSL
7440-50-8
COPPER
28.5 J,v
824 J,v
mg/kg
TC4-SO-01N01
94/94
0.1 -3.4
824
4.88
2.91 E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7439-89-6
IRON
2690
22700 J,B
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
94/94
1.4- 13.8
22700
14011
2.25E+04 N
NA
No
NUT
7439-92-1
LEAD
175
39600
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
97/97
0.14-2.7
39600
31.25
4.00E+02 AL
NA
Yes
ASL
7439-95-4
MAGNESIUM
1980
24800
mg/kg
TC4-SO-45F
94/94
1.3 - 689
24800
688
NA
NA
No
NUT
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
53.1
413
mg/kg
TC4-SO-16I
94/94
0.02-2.1
413
515
3.24E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7487-94-7
MERCURY
0.01 L,J,v
1.4
mg/kg
TC4-SO-14H
90/94
0.01 -0.14
1.4
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
7487-94-7
NICKEL
5.1 J,v
50 J
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
90/94
0.051 -10
50
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
-
No
NS
7440-09-7
POTASSIUM
174 L,J,v
3340 J,+
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
34/94
0.6-689
3340
625
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7782-49-2
SELENIUM
0.34 L,J
19
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
50/94
0.27-10
19
0.34
3.91 E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-22-4
SILVER
0.18 L,J
3.4
mg/kg
TC4-SO-01P
20/94
0.17-20
3.4
1
3.91 E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-23-5
SODIUM
50 J
90900 J,v
mg/kg
TC4-SO-14H
59/94
33.7 - 689
90900
21.88
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7440-28-0
THALLIUM
0.05 J
30.7 J
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
25/94
0.36 - 3.4
30.7
0.15
6.26E+00 N
NA
-
No
SD
7440-62-2
VANADIUM
2.3 L,J,v
40 J,+
mg/kg
FT2322-13-7S
81/94
0.096-6.9
40
32.45
7.82E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-66-6
ZINC
2200 J,v
42200 J,v
mg/kg
TC4-SO-14H
97/97
0.044 - 30.2
42200
83.25
2.35E+04 N
NA
Yes
ASL
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
Maximum concentration is used for screening.
Mean background values obtained from the Preliminary Site Characterization Summary prepared by AATA International Inc. (2005).
EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) 2004-2005 for Residential Soil (December, 2004).
Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Not Significantly Above Typical Background (BKG)
Not Significantly Above Screening Level and Not Widespread (NS)
Single Detection Above Screening Level (SD)
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
Page 1 of 1
008529
-------
Table 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
(Supplemental Table for residential and transition zone soil only)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soil (residential, rural areas, and transition zone)
Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Small Game (Bird, Rabbit),
7440-99-9
ALUMINUM
723
18500 J
mg/kg
TZ2321-11N-4A
40/40
1.1-1.2
18500
9183
7.62E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy)
7440-99-9
ANTIMONY
0.2
0.9
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
18/40
0.38 - 0.4
0.9
0.25
3.13E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
2.6
37.9
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
40/40
0.17-0.18
37.9
6.3
3.90E-01 C
NA
-
No
SW
744-03- 9
BARIUM
8.9
878
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
40/40
0.021 - 0.022
878
97.6
5.47E+03 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.15 L,J
2.4
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
39/40
0.017-0.018
2.4
0.54
1.54E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
0.5 J
248
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-3A
249 / 261
0.029-0.031
248
0.73
3.90E+01 N
NA
-
Yes
ASL
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
570
33800
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
40/40
2-2.1
33800
1715
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
4.4 J,v
40
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
40/40
0.099-0.11
40
18
2.11E+02 C
NA
-
No
BSL
744-04- 8
COBALT
1.2 L,J
370
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
39/40
0.092-0.1
370
6.5
9.03E+02 C
NA
-
No
BSL
744-05- 0
COPPER
4 J
202
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
40/40
0.1 -0.11
202
4.88
2.91 E+03 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7439-89-6
IRON
5760
104000
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
40/40
1.4 - 1.5
104000
14011
2.25E+04 N
NA
-
No
NUT
743-99- 2
LEAD
10.5
4450
mg/kg
TZ2321-11N-7A
316/317
0.14-0.20
4450
31.25
4.00E+02 AL
NA
-
Yes
ASL
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
478 L,J
16600
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
40/40
1.3-4.5
16600
688
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
110
69000
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
40/40
0.02-0.021
69000
515
3.24E+03 N
NA
-
No
SD
7440-99-9
MERCURY
0.015 L,J
1.75 J
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
14/40
0.01 -0.011
1.75
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-00- 2
NICKEL
3 J
1430
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
40/40
0.051 - 0.054
1430
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
-
No
TD
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
370
3000
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
33/40
0.6 - 0.64
3000
625
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.44 L,J
6.2 J,B,+
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
19/40
0.27-0.29
6.2
0.34
3.91 E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-99-9
SILVER
20 J
20 J
mg/kg
TZ2223-1S-4A
1 /40
0.17-0.18
20
1
3.91 E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-02- 3
SODIUM
30 J
25300
mg/kg
TC4-SO-45Y
20/40
33.7-35.9
25300
21.88
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
744-02- 8
THALLIUM
0.06 J
0.7
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-3A*
32/40
0.36-0.38
0.7
0.15
6.26E+00 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
4.1 L,J
40.9
mg/kg
BS2318-1
40/40
0.096-0.1
40.9
32.45
7.82E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-06- 6
ZINC
38 J,B
39200
mg/kg
TZ2321-11S-4A, TZ2430-1N-1A
260 / 261
0.044 - 0.047
39200
83.25
2.35E+04 N
NA
-
Yes
ASL
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
Maximum concentration is used for screening.
Mean background values obtained from the Preliminary Site Characterization Summary prepared by AATA International Inc. (2005).
EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) 2004-2005 for Residential Soil (December, 2004).
Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Smelter Waste (SW)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Single Detection Above Screening Level (SD)
Two Detections Above Screening Level (TD)
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
AL = Action Level
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
Revised 02/09/2006
008530
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.2A
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
(Supplemental Table for smelter affected soil only)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soil (smelter affected soil)
Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Small Game (Bird, Rabbit),
7440-99-9
ALUMINUM
3670
10200
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
10200
9183
7.62E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy)
7440-99-9
ANTIMONY
1.4 J,-
4600
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
20/21
4600
0.25
3.13E+01 N
NA
-
No
SW
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
2.3
285
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
285
6.3
3.90E-01 C
NA
-
No
SW
744-03- 9
BARIUM
47.5
1040
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
1040
97.6
5.47 E+03 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.53
1.7
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
4/6
1.7
0.54
1.54E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
0.35 L,J
139
mg/kg
SS2324-1N-1
21 / 21
139
0.73
3.90E+01 N
NA
-
Yes
ASL
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
549
25400
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
25400
1715
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
4.9
20.5
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
20.5
18
2.11E+02 C
NA
-
No
BSL
744-04- 8
COBALT
2.2 L,J
11.6
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46K01
6/6
11.6
6.5
9.03E+02 C
NA
-
No
BSL
744-05- 0
COPPER
4.5 J,v
307 J,v
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
307
4.88
2.91 E+03 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7439-89-6
IRON
4460
44800
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
44800
14011
2.25E+04 N
NA
-
No
NUT
743-99- 2
LEAD
31.4
70800
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46K01
21 / 21
70800
31.25
4.00E+02 AL
NA
-
Yes
ASL
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
261 L,J,v
3100 J,v
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46L
6/6
3100
688
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
119
470
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46K01
6/6
470
515
3.24E+03 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-99-9
MERCURY
0.02 L,J
0.23
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46L
4/6
0.23
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
744-00- 2
NICKEL
7.7
41.2
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
5/6
41.2
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
-
No
TD
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
595
1250
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
3/6
1250
625
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.3 L,J
7
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46K01
6/6
7
0.34
3.91 E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-99-9
SILVER
0.41 L,J
1.2
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
3/6
1.2
1
3.91 E+02 N
NA
No
BSL
744-02- 3
SODIUM
183 L,J
24700
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
24700
21.88
NA
NA
No
NUT
744-02- 8
THALLIUM
0.46 L,J
1.4 L,J
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
3/6
1.4
0.15
6.26 E+00 N
NA
No
BSL
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
12.2
30.3
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
6/6
30.3
32.45
7.82E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
744-06- 6
ZINC
46.1
7980
mg/kg
TC4-SO-46M
21 / 21
7980
83.25
2.35 E+04 N
NA
Yes
AOC
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Definition of the Qualifier codes used forthe "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
Maximum concentration is used for screening.
Mean background values obtained from the Preliminary Site Characterization Summary prepared by AATA International Inc. (2005).
EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) 2004-2005 for Residential Soil (December, 2004).
Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Within Background Range (BKG)
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
AL = Action Level
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
Revised 02/09/2006
008531
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.3
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Surface Soil
7440-99-9
ALUMINUM
6800 J
12600 J
mg/kg
RS2417-30BS
16/16
12600
9183
7.62E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
(General Public)
7440-99-9
ANTIMONY
0.2
0.9
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
5/16
0.9
0.25
3.13E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
(0-1 inch)
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
2.6
9.1
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
16/16
9.1
6.3
3.90 E-01 C
NA
No
BKG
744-03- 9
BARIUM
52.9
177
mg/kg
RS2429-27SS
16/16
177
97.6
5.47 E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.4 J
0.9 J
mg/kg
RS2406-40NS, RS2417-30BS
16/16
0.9
0.54
1.54E+02 N
NA
No
BSL
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
0.5 J
47.5
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
164/172
47.5
0.73
3.90E+01 N
NA
Yes
ASL
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
1850
11800
mg/kg
RS2419-45NS
16/16
11800
1715
NA
NA
No
NUT
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
8
21
mg/kg
RS2406-40NS, RS2417-30BS
16/16
21
18
2.11E+02 C
NA
No
BSL
744-04- 8
COBALT
3 J
8
mg/kg
RS2420-35NS
16/16
8
6.5
9.03 E+02 C
NA
No
BSL
744-05- 0
COPPER
4 J
61
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
16/16
61
4.88
2.91 E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7439-89-6
IRON
6580
17800
mg/kg
RS2431-22SS
16/16
17800
14011
2.25 E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
743-99- 2
LEAD
10.9 J
822
mg/kg
RS2318-16BS
171 /172
822
31.25
4.00E+02 AL
NA
Yes
ASL
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
610
2840
mg/kg
RS2419-45NS
16/16
2840
688
NA
NA
No
NUT
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
184
706
mg/kg
RS2420-35NS
16/16
706
515
3.24 E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-99-9
MERCURY
0.08
0.38
mg/kg
RS2236-9BS
4/16
0.38
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
744-00- 2
NICKEL
3 J
15
mg/kg
RS2431-22SS
16/16
15
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
530
1710
mg/kg
RS2301-17NS
16/16
1710
625
NA
NA
No
NUT
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.6 J
1.3
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
3/16
1.3
0.34
3.91 E+02 N
NA
No
BSL
744-02- 3
SODIUM
30
130
mg/kg
RS2226-5NS
6/16
130
21.88
NA
NA
No
NUT
744-02- 8
THALLIUM
0.06 J
0.21 J
mg/kg
RS2417-30BS
16/16
0.21
0.15
6.26 E+00 N
NA
No
BSL
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
15.7
24
mg/kg
RS2417-30BS
16/16
24
32.45
7.82E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
744-06- 6
ZINC
38 J,B
7700
mg/kg
RS2332-14FS
171 /172
7700
83.25
2.35 E+04 N
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) Maximumcon centrati onisusedforscreening.
(3) Mean background values obtained from the Preliminary Site Characterization Summary prepared by AATA International Inc. (2005).
(4) EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) 2004-2005 for Residential Soil (December, 2004).
(5) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Within Background Range (BKG)
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
AL = Action Level
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
Revised 02/09/2006
008532
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.4
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Surface Soil
7429-90-5
ALUMINUM
14600 J
14600 J
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1/1
14600
9183
7.62E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
(Subsistence)
7440-36-0
ANTIMONY
0.3
0.3
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1/1
0.3
0.25
3.13E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
(0-1 inch)
7440-38-2
ARSENIC
8.1
8.1
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1/1
8.1
6.3
3.90E-01 C
NA
-
No
BKG
7440-39-3
BARIUM
142
142
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1/1
142
97.6
5.47E+03 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-41-7
BERYLLIUM
0.8 J
0.8 J
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1/1
0.8
0.54
1.54E+02 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7440-43-9
CADMIUM
0.6 J
9.6
mg/kg
RS2431-44FS
6/9
0.5-0.5
9.6
0.73
3.90E+01 N
NA
-
Yes
AOC
7440-70-2
CALCIUM
1520
1520
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1/1
1520
1715
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
27
27
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
27
18
2.11E+02 C
NA
No
BSL
7440-48-4
COBALT
11
11
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
11
6.5
9.03 E+02 C
NA
No
BSL
7440-50-8
COPPER
7
7
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
7
4.88
2.91 E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7439-89-6
IRON
16900
16900
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
16900
14011
2.25E+04 N
NA
No
BSL
7439-92-1
LEAD
26.6 J
135
mg/kg
RS2431-44FS
9/9
135
31.25
4.00 E+02 AL
NA
Yes
AOC
7439-95-4
MAGNESIUM
1080
1080
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
1080
688
NA
NA
No
NUT
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
621
621
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
621
515
3.24E+03 N
NA
No
BSL
7487-94-7
NICKEL
11
11
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
11
0.045
2.35E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-09-7
POTASSIUM
1460
1460
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
1460
625
NA
NA
No
NUT
7782-49-2
SELENIUM
0.5
0.5
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
0.5
0.34
3.91 E+02 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-28-0
THALLIUM
0.17 J
0.17 J
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
0.17
0.15
6.26E+00 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-62-2
VANADIUM
34.3
34.3
mg/kg
RS2406-20BS
1 /1
34.3
32.45
7.82E+01 N
NA
No
BSL
7440-66-6
ZINC
47 J,B
1940
mg/kg
RS2431-44FS
9/9
1940
83.25
2.35 E+04 N
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) Maximumcon centrati onisusedforscreening.
(3) Mean background values obtained from the Preliminary Site Characterization Summary prepared by AATA International Inc. (2005).
(4) EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL) 2004-2005 for Residential Soil (December, 2004).
(5) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Within Background Range (BKG)
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
008533
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.5
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Private Wells
7440-43-9
CADMIUM
0.0001 J
0.003
mg/L
GW 2429-4A
16/25
0.0001 - 0.0006
0.003
NA
5.00E-03 MCL
5.00E-03
MCL
Yes
AOC
(General Public)
7440-70-2
CALCIUM
9.2
87
mg/L
GW 2406-7 B
21 / 25
0.2-0.2
87
NA
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7439-89-6
IRON
0.3 J,B
0.85
mg/L
GW 2420-2A
3/25
0.02-0.2
0.85
NA
1.10E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7439-92-1
LEAD
0.0002 J
0.028
mg/L
GW 2429-4A
20/25
0.0001 - 0.0001
0.028
NA
1.50E-02 MCL
1.50E-02
MCL
Yes
ASL
7439-95-4
MAGNESIUM
1.5
11.5
mg/L
GW 2307-10B
20/25
0.2-0.2
11.5
NA
NA
NA
-
No
NUT
7440-66-6
ZINC
0.02 J,+
1.11
mg/L
GW 2429-4 B
22/25
0.01 - 0.01
1.11
NA
1.10E+01 N
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) Maximum concentration is used for screening.
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Federal Maximum Contaminants Level (MCL). When MCL is not available, EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL)
2004-2005 for Tap Water (December, 2004) are used.
(5) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason:
Deletion Reason:
Above Screening Level (ASL)
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Below Screening Level (BSL)
NUT (Essential Nutrient)
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
008534
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.6
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Private Wells
7440-70-2
CALCIUM
134
140
mg/L
GW 2431-12A
2/3
0.2-0.2
140
NA
NA
NA
No
NUT
(Subsistence)
7439-89-6
IRON
1.22
1.25
mg/L
GW 2431-12A
2/3
0.02-0.02
1.25
NA
1.10E+01 N
NA
-
No
BSL
7439-92-1
LEAD
0.0004 J
0.0008 J
mg/L
GW 2431-12A
2/3
0.0001 - 0.0001
0.0008
NA
1.50E-02 MCL
1.50E-02
MCL
Yes
AOC
7439-95-4
MAGNESIUM
7.6
7.9
mg/L
GW 2431-12A
2/3
0.2-0.2
7.9
NA
NA
NA
No
NUT
7440-66-6
ZINC
0.19
0.22
mg/L
GW 2431-12A
2/3
0.01 - 0.01
0.22
NA
1.10E+01 N
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) Maximum concentration is used for screening.
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Federal Maximum Contaminants Level (MCL). When MCL is not available, EPA Region 6 Medium-Specific Screening Levels (MSSL)
2004-2005 for Tap Water (December, 2004) are used.
(5) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
NUT (Essential Nutrient)
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
C = Carcinogenic
N = Noncarcinogenic
NA = Not available
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
008535
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.7
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
Asparagus
7440-99-9
Aluminum
7.2712 J,v
1287
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
19/19
3.09-8.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
(Above Ground)
7440-99-9
Antimony
0.14473 L,J
0.24779 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-25A
5/19
0.927-2.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
0.05488 L,J
2.223
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
14/19
0.1545-0.435
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
744-03- 9
BARIUM
0.30711 L,J
8.8046
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-40A
14/19
3.09-8.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.0030282 L,J
0.2769
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
3/19
0.07725-0.2175
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
0.6707 J
21.333
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
19/19
0.07725-0.2175
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
1638
6468
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-10A
19/19
77.25-217.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
0.06258 L,J
2.262
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
10/19
0.1545-0.435
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 8
COBALT
0.025338 L,J
2.106
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
6/19
0.7725-2.175
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-05- 0
COPPER
1.6752 J
3.741
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-04A
19/19
0.4017-1.0875
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-89-6
IRON
19.966
4095 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
19/19
1.545 - 4.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
743-99- 2
LEAD
0.447 J
62.01 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
19/19
0.1545-0.435
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
289.107
987.45
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-04A
19/19
77.25-217.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
1.5885 J
124.41
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
19/19
0.23175-0.6525
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 2
NICKEL
0.11649 L,J
3.666
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
4/19
0.618-1.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
608.4 J,v
7024.7 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-03A
19/19
98 - 309
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.26885 L,J
0.5364 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-37A
16/19
0.5562 - 1.5225
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Silver
0.05355 L,J
0.663
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
5/19
0.1545-0.435
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 3
SODIUM
73.071 L,J,v
1283.1
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
15/19
77.25-217.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
0.02548 L,J
6.201
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
12/19
0.7725-2.175
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 6
ZINC
23.3758 J
409.5 J,A
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-56A
19/19
0.927-2.61
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason:
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
NA = Not available
008536
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.8
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
Asparagus
7440-99-9
Aluminum
15.9828
1222.47 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
3.41 -8.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
(Root)
7440-99-9
Antimony
0.16027 L,J
0.3905 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-40C
2/19
1.023-2.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
0.09962 L,J
1.6497
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
0.1705-0.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-03- 9
BARIUM
0.2964 L,J
23.9418
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
15/19
3.41 -8.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.007514 L,J
0.16497 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
11 /19
0.08525-0.215
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
4.4243
25.915
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-40C
19/19
0.08525-0.215
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
454.15
6354.3
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-32C
19/19
85.25-215
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
0.2508
2.2419
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
0.1705-0.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 8
COBALT
0.07911 L,J
2.1573
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
16/19
0.8525-2.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-05- 0
COPPER
1.3478
38.8737
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
0.4433-1.075
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-89-6
IRON
113.088
3028.68
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
1.705-4.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
743-99- 2
LEAD
19.5048 J
1387.44 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
0.1705-0.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
152.076
1357.02
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-32C
16/19
85.25-215
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
4.7538
83.331
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
0.25575 - 0.645
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Mercury
0.0028 L,J,v
0.040185 L,J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
6/17
0.0228-0.043
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 2
NICKEL
0.25198 L,J
6.9795
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
11 /19
0.682 - 1.72
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
1340.91 J,v
3475 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-48C
19/19
85.25-215
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.20002 L,J
0.4816 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-37C
16/19
0.6138 - 1.505
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Silver
0.04332 L,J
0.30789 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-53C
4/19
0.1705-0.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 3
SODIUM
647.36
9432.9
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
15/19
85.25-215
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
0.10716 L,J
3.9339
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
17/19
0.8525-2.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 6
ZINC
234.107 J,A
3578.58 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-43C
19/19
1.023-2.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason:
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
NA = Not available
008537
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.9
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
Willow
7440-99-9
Aluminum
0.884 L,J
179.52 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42A
18/19
5.74-10.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
(Above Ground)
7440-99-9
Antimony
0.27789 L,J
0.27789 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-27A
1 /19
1.722 - 3.258
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
0.0987 L,J
0.2688 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42A
9/19
0.287-0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
744-03- 9
BARIUM
0.29202 L,J
3.6292 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-17A
9/19
5.74-10.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.00574 L,J
0.01104 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42A
2/19
0.1435-0.2715
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
1.1515
32.2588
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-08A
19/19
0.1435-0.2715
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
2041.68
9408
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42A
19/19
143.5-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
0.0397 L,J
0.816
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42A
9/19
0.287 - 0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 8
COBALT
0.08949 L,J
1.0005 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-49A
12/19
1.435-2.715
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-05- 0
COPPER
1.608
5.616
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-15A
17/19
0.7462 - 1.3575
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-89-6
IRON
17.964 J
556.8
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42A
19/19
2.87 - 5.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
743-99- 2
LEAD
0.5226 J,A
20.213
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45A
17/19
0.287 - 0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
280.308
1200.6
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-49A
19/19
143.5-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
2.556
287.79
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-05A
19/19
0.4305-0.8145
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 2
NICKEL
0.28187 L,J
1.0815 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51A
5/19
1.148-2.172
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
1953.86 J,v
5253 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51A
19/19
143.5-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.23632 L,J
0.6188 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-35A
16/19
1.0332 - 1.9005
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Silver
0.072 L,J
0.15965 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51A
6/19
0.287 - 0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 3
SODIUM
174.041
1506.54
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-17A
12/19
143.5-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
0.05004 L,J
0.1545 L,J,A
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51A
5/19
1.435-2.715
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 6
ZINC
67.445
705.55
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51A
19/19
1.722-3.258
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason:
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
NA = Not available
008538
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.10
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
Willow
7440-99-9
Aluminum
17.7804
571.29 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42C
19/19
4.45-10.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
(Root)
7440-99-9
Antimony
0.19894 L,J
0.35776 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-02C
3/19
1.335-3.258
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
0.1624 L,J
2.8461
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45C
19/19
0.2225 - 0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-03- 9
BARIUM
0.99 L,J
26.6928
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-50C
12/19
4.45-10.86
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.007725 L,J
0.05784 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51C
8/19
0.11125-0.2715
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
4.8909
132.818 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-27C
19/19
0.11125-0.2715
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
1223.75
17935.8
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45C
19/19
111.25-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
0.39668 L,J
3.222
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45C
16/19
0.2225-0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 8
COBALT
0.12586 L,J
2.583
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-23C
18/19
1.1125-2.715
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-05- 0
COPPER
3.8582
58.032
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-19C
19/19
0.5785 - 1.3575
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-89-6
IRON
127.588
4510
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-23C
19/19
2.225-5.43
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
743-99- 2
LEAD
15.8912
1922.46
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45C
19/19
0.2225-0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
228.73
3307.92
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45C
19/19
111.25-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
6.076
181.251
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-42C
19/19
0.33375-0.8145
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Mercury
0.00515 L,J,v
0.24128
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-02C
10/16
0.0382 - 0.0543
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 2
NICKEL
2.5296
16.422
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-29C
19/19
0.89-2.172
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
228.578 J,v
2491.16 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-15C
18/19
111.25-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.12172 L,J
1.827
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-46C
16/19
0.801 -1.9005
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Silver
0.20904 L,J
0.7518
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-45C
5/19
0.2225-0.543
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 3
SODIUM
1152.55 J,v
29578
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-29C
13/19
111.25-271.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
0.17052 L,J
3.374 J,A
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-51C
14/19
1.1125-2.715
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 6
ZINC
466.04
13202 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-29C
19/19
1.335-13.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason:
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
NA = Not available
008539
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.11
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Stalk)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
Cattail
7440-99-9
Aluminum
3.3912 L,J
83.385
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
19/19
3.11 - 6.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
(Above Ground)
7440-99-9
Antimony
0.14079 L,J
1.887 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
5/19
0.933-2.022
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
0.03421 L,J
0.714
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
12/19
0.1555-0.337
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
No
-
744-03- 9
BARIUM
0.11362 L,J
2.1905 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-12A
9/19
3.11-6.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.00969 L,J
0.00969 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
1 /19
0.07775-0.1685
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
0.02755 L,J
34.17
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
14/19
0.07775-0.1685
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
1154.16
3575
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-41A
19/19
77.75- 168.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
0.05838 L,J
0.612
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
11 /19
0.1555-0.337
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 8
COBALT
0.023014 L,J
1.9635
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
8/19
0.7775-1.685
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-05- 0
COPPER
0.6402 L,J
10.3785
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
17/19
0.4043 - 0.8425
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-89-6
IRON
6.0696 J,A
1932.9 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
19/19
1.555 - 3.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
743-99- 2
LEAD
0.29 L,J
1366.8 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
17/19
0.1555-0.337
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
117.135 L,J
374.88
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-44A
19/19
77.75-168.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
4.3924
357.5
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-41A
19/19
0.23325-0.5055
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 2
NICKEL
0.1746 L,J
2.601
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
7/19
0.622 - 1.348
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
571.2 J,v
4799.6 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-44A
19/19
77.75-168.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.1925 L,J
0.3614 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-24A
17/19
0.5598-1.1795
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Silver
0.03421 L,J
0.3825
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
4/19
0.1555-0.337
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 3
SODIUM
183.179 J,v
2184.84
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-57A
18/19
77.75-168.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 2
VANADIUM
0.035 L,J
0.408 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
6/19
0.7775 - 1.685
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06- 6
ZINC
13.9518
4411.5 J,A
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-55A
19/19
0.933-6.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples
(3) Background values not available.
(4) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason:
CO PC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
NA = Not available
008540
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2.12
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)
Exposure
CAS
Chemical
Minimum
Maximum
Units
Location
Detection
Range of
Concentration
Background
Screening
Potential
Potential
COPC
Rationale for
Point
Number
Concentration
Concentration
of Maximum
Frequency
Detection
Used for
Value
Toxicity Value
ARAR/TBC
ARAR/TBC
Flag
Selection or
Qualifier
Qualifier
Concentration
Limits
Screening
(N/C)
Value
Source
Deletion
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(4)
Cattail
7440-99-9
Aluminum
7.7409
1570.8 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-B10-41C
18/19
2.4 - 9.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
(Root)
7440-99-9
Antimony
0.14193 L,J
0.4697 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-01C
5/19
0.72 - 2.772
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
ARSENIC
0.11882 L,J
2.9853 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-21C
17/19
0.12-0.462
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-03- 9
BARIUM
0.4752 L,J
19.3116
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-41C
12/19
2.4-9.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 1
BERYLLIUM
0.012201 L,J
0.17934 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-01C
6/19
0.06-0.231
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 3
CADMIUM
0.04185 L,J
249.426
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-21C
19/19
0.06-0.231
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
744-07- 0
CALCIUM
709.9
7295.7
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-39C
19/19
60 - 231
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
0.264
8.2236
MG/KG
TC4-B10-41C
17/19
0.12-0.462
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-04- 8
COBALT
0.06634 L,J
2.8182
MG/KG
TC4-B10-41C
15/19
0.6-2.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-05- 0
COPPER
0.341 L,J
65.182
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-09C
19/19
0.3- 1.155
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-89-6
IRON
10.292 J
6447.6 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-18C
19/19
1.2-4.62
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
743-99- 2
LEAD
0.8601 J
2759.77 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-09C
19/19
0.12-0.598
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
743-99- 5
MAGNESIUM
165.85
2091.37
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-47C
19/19
60 - 231
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
7.8752 J
225.811
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-14C
19/19
0.18-0.693
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Mercury
0.00395 L,J
0.3289
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-09C
11 /15
0.0155-0.0457
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 2
NICKEL
0.06045 L,J
18.603
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-34C
15/19
0.48 - 1.848
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-00- 9
POTASSIUM
382.23 J,v
3309.9 J,v
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-24C
19/19
60 - 231
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
778-24- 9
SELENIUM
0.132 L,J
0.7392 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-41C
15/19
0.42-1.617
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
7440-99-9
Silver
0.027807 L,J
0.7488
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-34C
6/19
0.12-0.462
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 3
SODIUM
410.75
48267 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-21C
19/19
60-697.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-02- 8
THALLIUM
0.21528 L,J
0.21528 L,J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-34C
1/19
0.3-1.155
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06-2
VANADIUM
0.17366 L,J
9.8868
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-41C
13/19
0.6-2.31
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
744-06-6
ZINC
17.825 J,A
18414 J
MG/KG
TC4-BIO-21C
19/19
0.93 - 16.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
AOC
(1) Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Minimum Concentration" and "Maximum Concentration" is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
(2) No Screening is performed for plant samples
(3) Bac kg roundvaluesnot available.
(4) Rationale Codes
Selection Reason: Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
Deletion Reason:
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/
To Be Considered
NA = Not available
008541
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 2 Supplement
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Qualifier Code
Qualifer Definition
=
Analyte detected at the reported concentration. No QC problems were encountered.
B
Result is between the MDL and the PQL.
J
Result is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters.
J-
Result is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration
may be higher than the concentration reported.
JA
Result is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration
may be lower than the concentration reported.
J+
Result is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration
may be lower than the concentration reported.
JB
Result is between the MDL and the PQL and is estimated because of outlying quality control parameters
JB+
Result is between the MDL and the PQL and is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality
control parameters. Actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported.
Jv
Result is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration
may be higher than the concentration reported.
JvW
Result is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality control parameters. Actual concentration
may be higher than the concentration reported. The result was reported on a dry-weight basis although
the sample did not conform to the EPA office of Water definition of a soil sample because of its high
water content (>70% moisture).
LJ
Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated because of outlying quality control
parameters
LJA
Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated with a high bias because of outlying quality
control parameters. Actual concentration may be lower than the concentration reported.
LJv
Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality
control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported.
LJvW
Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated with a low bias because of outlying quality
control parameters. Actual concentration may be higher than the concentration reported. The result was
reported on a dry-weight basis although the sample did not conform to the EPA office of Water definition
of a soil sample because of its high water content (>70% moisture).
LJW
Result is between the MDL and the CRQL and is estimated because of outlying quality control
parameters. The result was reported on a dry-weight basis although the sample did not conform to the
EPA office of Water definition of a soil sample because of its high water content (>70% moisture).
008542
-------
Table 3.1 .RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Chat and Tailings Material
Exposure Medium: Surface Material
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds
CADMIUM
mg/kg
7.62E+01
9.35E+01 NP
1.97E+02
9.35E+01
mg/kg
95% Cheb-m
(5)
Surface (0-6 inch)
ZINC
mg/kg
1.64E+04
1.79E+04 N
4.22E+04 Jv
1.79E+04
mg/kg
95% Stud-t
(2)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP= Non-Parametric distribution.
008543
Page 1 of 1
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
Recr All
-------
Table 3.2.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soil (residential, rural areas, and transition zone)
Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Small Game (Bird, Rabbit),
CADMIUM
mg/kg
1.36E+01
2.74E+01 NP
2.48E+02
2.74E+01
mg/kg
97.5% Cheb-m
(5)
Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy)
ZINC
mg/kg
2.67E+03
5.39E+03 NP
3.92E+04
5.39E+03
mg/kg
97.5% Cheb-m
(5)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution.
TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixO_3-2.3-2a.3-3_RAGS-D.xls
Revised 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 1 BUM_AII
008544
-------
Table 3.2A.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soil (smelter affected soil)
Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Small Game (Bird, Rabbit),
CADMIUM
mg/kg
3.66E+01
6.22E+01 G
1.39E+02
6.22E+01
mg/kg
Appo. Gamma
(4)
Beef (Cattle), and Milk (Dairy)
ZINC
mg/kg
1.75E+03
2.95E+03 G
7.98E+03
2.95E+03
mg/kg
Appo. Gamma
(4)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution.
TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixO_3-2.3-2a.3-3_RAGS-D.xls
Revised 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 1 SASO
008545
-------
Table 3.3.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Surface Soil
CADMIUM
mg/kg
4.05E+00
7.52E+00 NP
4.75E+01
4.75E+01
mg/kg
Max
(7)
(General Public) (0-1 inch)
ZINC
mg/kg
6.46E+02
8.26E+02 T
7.70E+03
7.70E+03
mg/kg
Max
(7)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
(7) Maximum detected concentration was used as EPC (see text).
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution.
TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixO_3-2.3-2a.3-3_RAGS-D.xls
Revised 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 1 Res_SO_GP
008546
-------
Table 3.3.RME Supplement A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Summary of Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Chat Pile Material and Tailings
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Ambient Air
CADMIUM
ug/m3
2.64E-05
8.08E-05 NP
2.00E-04
8.08E-05
ug/m3
99% Cheb-m
(5)
ZINC
ug/m3
5.70E-03
1.75E-02 NP
4.33E-02
1.75E-02
ug/m3
99% Cheb-m
(5)
ProllCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProllCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProllCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
(7) Mean value to be used for lead modeling.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution.
008547
-------
Table 3.4.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Surface Soil
CADMIUM
mg/kg
2.85E+00
6.89E+00 G
9.60E+00
9.60E+00
mg/kg
Max
(7)
(Subsistence)(0-1 inch)
ZINC
mg/kg
5.28E+02
1.34E+03 G
1.94E+03
1.94E+03
mg/kg
Max
(7)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted for skewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
(7) Maximum detected concentration was used as EPC (see text).
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. Page 1 of 1
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
Res SO NA
008548
-------
Table 3.5.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Private Wells
CADMIUM
mg/L
8.08E-04
2.83E-03 NP
3.00E-03
3.00E-03
mg/L
Max
(7)
(General Public)
ZINC
mg/L
2.07E-01
6.11E-01 T
1.11E+00
1.11E+00
mg/L
Max
(7)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
(7) Maximum detected concentration was used as EPC (see text).
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
T = Log-normal distribution. Page ^ of ^ Res_GW_GP
NP = Non-Parametric distribution.
008549
-------
Table 3.6.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(N/T/NP/G)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Private Wells
(Subsistence)
ZINC
mg/L
1.38E-01
NA
2.20E-01
2.20E-01
mg/L
Max
(7)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
(7) Maximum detected concentration was used as EPC (see text).
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
Page 1 of 1
NP = Non-Parametric distribution.
008550
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
Res_GW_NA
-------
Table 3.7.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Asparagus
CADMIUM
mg/kg
3.65E+00
5.48E+00 T
2.13E+01
5.48E+00
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(1)
(Above Ground)
ZINC
mg/kg
1.06E+02
1.42E+02 G
4.10E+02 JA
1.42E+02
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. Page 1 of 1 ASP AG
008551
-------
Table 3.8.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Asparagus
CADMIUM
mg/kg
1.02E+01
1.25E+01 G
2.59E+01
1.25E+01
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
(Root)
ZINC
mg/kg
1.02E+03
1.40E+03 G
3.58E+03 J
1.40E+03
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. Page 1 of 1 ASP RT
008552
-------
Table 3.9.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Wllow
CADMIUM
mg/kg
1.20E+01
1.78E+01 G
3.23E+01
1.78E+01
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
(Above Ground)
ZINC
mg/kg
4.01 E+02
4.67E+02 N
7.06E+02
4.67E+02
mg/kg
95% Stud-t
(2)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. page -| 0f-|
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
WLW AG
008553
-------
Table 3.10.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Wllow
CADMIUM
mg/kg
3.45E+01
4.97E+01 G
1.33E+02 J
4.97E+01
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
(Root)
ZINC
mg/kg
3.02E+03
4.62E+03 G
1.32E+04 J
4.62E+03
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. Page 1 of 1 WLW RT
008554
-------
Table 3.11.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Stalk)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Cattail
CADMIUM
mg/kg
1.93E+00
1.98E+01 NP
3.42E+01
1.98E+01
mg/kg
99% Cheb-m
(5)
(Above Ground)
ZINC
mg/kg
2.70E+02
2.56E+03 NP
4.41 E+03 JA
2.56E+03
mg/kg
99% Cheb-m
(5)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. page -| 0f-|
008555
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
CT AG
-------
Table 3.12.RME
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Tar Creek, Miami, Oklahoma
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Root)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(N/T/NP/G)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Cattail
CADMIUM
mg/kg
2.79E+01
6.11E+01 T
2.49E+02
6.11E+01
mg/kg
Adj. Gamma
(3,4)
(Root)
ZINC
mg/kg
2.45E+03
4.36E+03 G
1.84E+04 J
4.36E+03
mg/kg
App. Gamma
(3,4)
For non-detects, 1/2 sample quantitation limit (if available; otherwise RL) was used as a proxy concentration.
ProUCL, Version 3.00.02 used to determine distribution of data using the Shapiro-Wilk WTest. ProUCL used to calculate RME EPC, following recommendations
based on distribution and standard deviation in users guide (USEPA. April 2004. ProUCL, Version 3.0. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data, H-Statistic (95% UCL-T); 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (95% Cheb);
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL (99% Cheb); 95% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (95% Cheb-m); 97.5% Chebyshev (mean.std) UCL (97.5% Cheb-m);
99% Chebyshev (mean,std) UCL (99% Cheb-m); 95% modified-t UCL adjusted forskewness (95% Mod-t); 95% Student's-T test UCL (95% Stud-t);
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL (95% Hall); 95% Approximate Gamma (App. Gamma); 95% Adjusted Gamma (Adj. Gamma);
Mean of Log-transformed Data using the Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimate (MVUE) method (Mean-T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wlk WTest indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) Anderson-Darling Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicates data are gamma distributed.
(5) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(6) The maximum detected concentration was used as the UCL because the value recommended by ProUCL 3.0 was higher than the Max.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Definition of the Qualifier codes used for the "Maximum Concentration"
G = Gamma distribution. is presented in Table 2 Supplement.
N = Normal distribution.
T = Log-normal distribution.
NP = Non-Parametric distribution. page -| 0f-|
008556
3.1-3.12_Table 3 draft final.xls
CT RT
-------
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.3.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(General Public)
(0-1 inch)
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Soil
100
mg/day
EPA, 1991
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
24
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
8,760
days
EPA, 1989
Child
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Soil
200
mg/day
EPA, 1991
CSx IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
IR-S-A
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult
100
mg/day
EPA, 1991
CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT
IR-S-C
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child
200
mg/day
EPA, 1991
IR-S-Adj
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted
114.29
mg-year/kg-day
Calculated
IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
(ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-Ax IR-S-A / BW-A)
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
24
years
EPA, 1991
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
008557
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Dermal
Resident
Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(General Public)
(0-1 inch)
SA
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
5,700
cm2
EPA, 2004
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
SSAF
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
0.07
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2000
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
24
years
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
8,760
days
EPA, 1989
Child
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
SA
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
2,800
cm2
EPA, 2004
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
SSAF
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
0.2
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2004
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
SA-A
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult
5,700
cm2
EPA, 2004
CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF1 x EF x 1/AT
SA-C
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child
2,800
cm2
EPA, 2004
SSAF-A
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Adult
0.07
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
DA-Adj (mg-year/kg-day) =
SSAF-C
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Child
0.2
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
(ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) +
DA-Adj
Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted
361
mg-year/kg-day
Calculated
(ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2000
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
24
years
EPA, 1991
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors
EPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment)
EPA Region 4, 2000: Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins - Supplement to RAGS, Interim.
Page 2 of 2
. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
. Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
008558
-------
TABLE 4.2.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Private Wells
CW
Chemical Concentration in Water
See Table 3.5.RME
Mgi
See Table 3.5.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(General Public)
IR-W
Ingestion Rate of Water
2
liters/day
EPA, 1997
CWx IR-Wx EF x ED x CF2 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
24
years
EPA, 1991
CF2
Conversion Factor 2
0.001
mg/|jg
--
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
8,760
days
EPA, 1989
Child
Private Wells
CW
Chemical Concentration in Water
See Table 3.5.RME
Mgi
See Table 3.5.RME
CD I (mg/kg-day) =
IR-W
Ingestion Rate of Water
1
liters/day
EPA, 1997
CWx IR-Wx EF x ED x CF2 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF2
Conversion Factor 2
0.001
mg/|jg
--
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Private Wells
CW
Chemical Concentration in Water
See Table 3.5.RME
Mgi
See Table 3.5.RME
CD I (mg/kg-day) =
IR-WA
Ingestion Rate of Water, Adult
2
liters/day
EPA, 1997
CW x I R-W-Adj x EF x CF2 x 1/AT
IR-WC
Ingestion Rate of Water, Child
1
liters/day
EPA, 1997
IR-WAdj
Ingestion Rate of Water, Age-adjusted
1.1
Iiter-year/kg-day
calculated
IR-WAdj (liter-year/kd-day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
(ED-Cx IR-WC/BWC) +
EDA
Exposure Duration, Adult
24
years
EPA, 1991
(ED-Ax IR-WA/BWA)
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF2
Conversion Factor 2
0.001
mg/|jg
--
BWA
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BWC
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Sup erfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
Page 1 of 1
008559
-------
TABLE 4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Chat Pile Material and Tailings
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Inhalation
Resident
Adult
Ambient Air
CA
Chemical Concentration in Air
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/m3
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(General Public)
IN
Inhalation Rate
20
m3/day
EPA, 1991
CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
24
years
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
8,760
days
EPA, 1989
Child
Ambient Air
CA
Chemical Concentration in Air
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/m3
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IN
Inhalation Rate
10
m3/day
EPA R6 (1)
CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Ambient Air
CA
Chemical Concentration in Air
See Table 3.3.RME
mg/m3
See Table 3.3.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IN-A
Inhalation Rate, Adult
20
m3/day
EPA, 1991
CA x I N-Adj x EF x 1/AT
IN-C
Inhalation Rate, Child
10
m3/day
EPA R6 (1)
I N-Adj
Inhalation Rate, Age-adjusted
10.9
m3/hour
calculated
I N-Adj (m3-year/kg-day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
350
days/year
EPA, 1991
(ED-C x IN-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IN-A / BW-A)
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
24
years
EPA, 1991
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
(1) EPA Region 6, Undated: Memorandum, Central Tendency and RME Exposure Parameters.
008560
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4.4.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.4.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.4.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
(0-1 inch)
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Soil
400
mg/day
Harper et al., 2002
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Child
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.4.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.4.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Soil
400
mg/day
Harper et al., 2002
CS x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.4.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.4.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
IR-S-A
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Adult
400
mg/day
Harper et al., 2002
CS x IR-S-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT
IR-S-C
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Child
400
mg/day
Harper et al., 2002
IR-S-Adj
Ingestion Rate of Soil, Age-adjusted
526
mg-year/kg-day
Calculated
IR-S-Adj (mg-year/kd-day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
(ED-C x IR-S-C / BW-C) + (ED-A x IR-S-A / BW-A)
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
64
years
Harper et al., 2002
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
008561
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 4.4.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (Yards)
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Dermal
Resident
Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.4.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.4.RME
CD I (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
(0-1 inch)
SA
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
5,700
cm2
EPA, 2004
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS x CF1 x EF x
SSAF
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
0.07
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
ED x 1/BWx 1/AT
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2000
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Child
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.4.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.4.RME
CD I (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
SA
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
2,800
cm2
EPA, 2004
CS x SA x SSAF x DABS xCF1 x EF x EDx 1/BWx 1/AT
SSAF
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
0.2
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2004
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Surface Soil
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.4.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.4.RME
CD I (mg/kg-day) =
(0-1 inch)
SA-A
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Adult
5,700
cm2
EPA, 2004
CS x DA-Adj x DABS x CF1 x EF x 1/AT
SA-C
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, Child
2,800
cm2
EPA, 2004
SSAF-A
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Adult
0.07
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
DA-Adj (mg-year/kg-day) =
SSAF-C
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor, Child
0.2
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004
(ED-C x SA-C x SSAF-C / BW-C) +
DA-Adj
Dermal Absorption, Age-adjusted
589
mg-year/kg-day
Calculated
(ED-A x SA-A x SSAF-A / BW-A)
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2000
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
64
years
Harper et al., 2002
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superlund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superlund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
EPA Region 4, 2000: Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins — Supplement to RAGS, Interim.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
008562
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 4.5.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone)
Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Small Game (Bird, Rabbit)
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.2.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.2.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
BAF-SMG
Bio-accumulation Factor-Small Game
chemical specific
kg/kg
(1)
(C3-game x IR-SMG + Cbeef x IR-BEEF) x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
* high fish diet
IR-SMG
Ingestion Rate-Small Game
0.05
kg/day
Harper et al., 2002
Small Game Tissue Concentration (Cs.game) (mg/kg) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
Cs x BAF-SMG (metals)
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
Beef Tissue Concentration (Cbeef) (mg/kg) will be estimated
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
based on concentration in soil in accordance with EPA, 2005.
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Beef
Cbeef
Chemical Concentration in Beef
(2)
mg/kg
(2)
(Cattle)
IR-BEEF
Ingestion Rate - Beef
0.10
kg/day
Harper et al., 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Small Game (Bird, Rabbit)
CS
Chemical Concentration in Soil
See Table 3.2.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.2.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
BAF-SMG
Bio-accumulation Factor-Small Game
chemical specific
kg/kg
(1)
(C3-game x IR-SMG + Cbeef x IR-BEEF) x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
* high beef diet
IR-SMG
Ingestion Rate-Small Game
0.05
kg/day
Harper et al., 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
Small Game Tissue Concentration (Cs.game) (mg/kg) =
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
Cs x BAF-SMG (metals)
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Beef Tissue Concentration (Cbeef) (mg/kg) will be estimated
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
based on concentration in soil in accordance with EPA, 2005.
Beef
Cbeef
Chemical Concentration in Beef
(2)
mg/kg
(2)
(Cattle)
IR-BEEF
Ingestion Rate - Beef
0.885
kg/day
Harper et al., 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
(1) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Small Game is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement A
(2) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Beef is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement B
008563
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4.6.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone)
Exposure Medium: Milk (Dairy)
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Child
Milk (Dairy)
C-DM
Chemical Concentration in Milk (Dairy)
(1)
Mg/i
(1)
CD I (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
IR-DM
Ingestion Rate of Milk (Dairy)
0.5
liters/day
Harper et al., 2002
C-DM x IR-DM x EFx ED xCF1 x1/BWx1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
Concentration in milk (C^k) (mg/kg) will be estimated
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.001
mg/|jg
based on concentration in soil in accordance with EPA, 2005.
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superlund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
(1) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Beef is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement B
008564
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4.7.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Chat Pile material and Tailings
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Inhalation
Resident
Adult
Ambient Air
CA
Chemical Concentration in Air
See Table 3.7.RME
mg/m3
See Table 3.7.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
IN
Inhalation Rate
30
m3/day
Harper et al., 2002
CA x IN x EF x ED x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Child
Ambient Air
CA
Chemical Concentration in Air
See Table 3.7.RME
mg/m3
See Table 3.7.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IN
Inhalation Rate
10
m3/day
EPA R6 (1)
CAxINx EFxEDx 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Ambient Air
CA
Chemical Concentration in Air
See Table 3.7.RME
mg/m3
See Table 3.7.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IN-A
Inhalation Rate, Adult
30
m3/day
Harper et al., 2002
CA x I N-Adj xEFx 1/AT
IN-C
Inhalation Rate, Child
10
m3/day
EPA R6 (1)
I N-Adj
Inhalation Rate, Age-adjusted
31.4
m3/hour
calculated
I N-Adj (m3-year/kg-day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
(ED-C x IN-C / BWC) + (ED-A x IN-A / BWA)
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
64
years
Harper et al., 2002
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Sup erfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOI. 22. No. 3.
(1) EPA Region 6, Undated: Memorandum, Central Tendency and RME Exposure Parameters.
008565
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4.8.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Private Wells
CW
Chemical Concentration in Water
See Table 3.6.RME
Mg/i
See Table 3.6.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
IR-W
Ingestion Rate of Water
4
liters/day
Harper et al., 2002
CWx IR-Wx EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.001
mg/pg
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Child
Private Wells
CW
Chemical Concentration in Water
See Table 3.6.RME
Mg/i
See Table 3.6.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IR-W
Ingestion Rate of Water
1
liters/day
EPA, 1997
CWx IR-Wx EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BWx 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.001
mg/pg
BW
Body Weight
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
2,190
days
EPA, 1989
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Child/Adult
Private Wells
CW
Chemical Concentration in Water
See Table 3.6.RME
Mg/i
See Table 3.6.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IR-W-A
Ingestion Rate of Water, Adult
4
Mg/i
Harper et al., 2002
CWx IR-W-Adj x EF x CF1 x 1/AT
IR-W-C
Ingestion Rate of Water, Child
1
liters/day
EPA, 1997
IR-W-Adj
Ingestion Rate of Water, Age-adjusted
4.1
liter-year/kg-day
calculated
IR-W-Adj (liter-year/kd-day) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
(ED-C x IR-W-C/BW-C) +
ED-A
Exposure Duration, Adult
64
years
Harper et al., 2002
(ED-Ax IR-W-A/ BW-A)
ED-C
Exposure Duration, Child
6
years
EPA, 1991
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.001
mg/pg
BW-A
Body Weight, Adult
70
kg
EPA, 1991
BW-C
Body Weight, Child
15
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
Page 1 of 1
008566
-------
TABLE 4.9.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Aquatic Biota
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue/Aquatic Food
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Fish Tissue
Cflsh
Chemical Concentration in Fish Tissue
(1)
mg/kg-fish
ODEQ, 2003
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
IR-F
Fish Ingestion Rate
0.885
kg-fish/day
Harper et al., 2002
Cfi3h x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
* high fish diet
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Aquatic Food Tissue
CSed
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
(2)
mg/kg-sed
ODEQ, 2003
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Mussels etc.)
BAF-AI
Bio-accumulation Factor (Aquatic Invertebrates)
chemical specific
kg/kg-tissue
(2)
CaquaticfGGd x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
IR-AF
Aquatic Food (Mussels, Crayfish) Ingestion Rate
0.175
kg-food/day
Harper et al., 2002
Aquatic Food Concentration (Caquaticfcicid) (mg/kg) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
Csed x BCF-AI (metals)
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Fish Tissue
Cflsh
Chemical Concentration in Fish Tissue
(1)
mg/kg-fish
ODEQ, 2003
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
IR-F
Fish Ingestion Rate
0.075
kg-fish/day
Harper et al., 2002
Cfi3h x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
* high beef diet
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Aquatic Food Tissue
CSed
Chemical Concentration in Sediment
(2)
mg/kg-sed
ODEQ, 2003
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Mussels etc.)
BAF-AI
Bio-accumulation Factor (Aquatic Invertebrates)
chemical specific
kg/kg-tissue
(2)
CaquaticfGGd x IR-F x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
IR-AF
Aquatic Food (Mussels, Crayfish) Ingestion Rate
0.175
kg-food/day
Harper et al., 2002
Aquatic Food Concentration (Caquaticfood) (m£)/kg) =
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
Csed x BCF-AI (metals)
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
ODEQ. 2003. Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in theTri-State Mining Area. FY 2003. Final Report.
(1) Concentrations used for intake calculation are presented in Table 7.4 Supplement E.
(2) Methodology used to estimate chemical concentrations in Aquatic Invertebrates is presented in Table 7.4 Supplement D
008567
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4.10.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Transition Zone Soil
Exposure Medium: Unwashed Plant (Leaf & Root)
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Resident
Adult
Asparagus
Cpiantl
Chemical Concentration in Asparagus (above ground)
See Table 3.7.RME
mg/kg
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
(Subsistence)
Cpiant1-root
Chemical Concentration in Asparagus (root).
See Table 3.8.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.8.RME
IR-P1
Ingestion Rate -Asparagus (above ground)
0.27
kg/day
Harper etal., 2002(1)
Z (Cpiant x IR-P) x ED x EF x 1/BWx 1/AT
IR"P1root
Ingestion Rate -Asparagus (root)
0.27
kg/day
Harper etal., 2002(1)
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Willow
Cpiant2
Chemical Concentration in Willow (above ground)
See Table 3.9.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.9.RME
Cpiant2-root
Chemical Concentration in Willow (root).
See Table 3.10.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.10.RME
IR-P2
Ingestion Rate -Willow (above ground)
0.27
kg/day
Harper etal., 2002(1)
IR-P2root
Ingestion Rate -Willow (root)
0.27
kg/day
Harper etal., 2002(1)
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Cattail
Cpiant3
Chemical Concentration in Cattail (above ground)
See Table 3.11.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.11.RME
Cpiant3-root
Chemical Concentration in Cattail (root).
See Table 3.12.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.12.RME
IR-P3
Ingestion Rate -Cattail (above ground)
0.27
kg/day
Harper etal., 2002(1)
IR-P3root
Ingestion Rate -Cattail (root)
0.27
kg/day
Harper etal., 2002(1)
EF
Exposure Frequency
365
days/year
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
70
years
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
70
kg
EPA, 1991
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA,1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
25,550
days
Harper et al., 2002
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Sup erfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
(1) Composition of Total Plant Intake of 1,600 g/day was equally divided as follows:
Asparagus (above ground) -16.7%, (root) -16.7%
Willow (above ground) -16.7%, (root) -16.7%
Cattail (above ground) -16.7%, (root) -16.7%
008568
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 4.11.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Chat and Tailings Material
Exposure Medium: Surface Material
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Exposure Point
Parameter
Parameter Definition
Value
Units
Rationale/
Intake Equation/
Code
Reference
Model Name
Ingestion
Re creator
Adolescent
Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds
CM
Chemical Concentration in Material
See Table 3.1.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.1.RME
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
Surface (0-6 inch)
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Material
100
mg/day
EPA, 1991
CM x IR-S x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
EF
Exposure Frequency
184
days/year
(1)
ED
Exposure Duration
11
years
(2)
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
BW
Body Weight
47
kg
(3)
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
4,015
days
EPA, 1989
Dermal
Re creator
Adolescent
Chat Pile & Tailings Ponds
CM
Chemical Concentration in Material
See Table 3.1.RME
mg/kg
See Table 3.1.RME
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
Surface (0-6 inch)
SA
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
5,300
cm2
EPA, 2004 (4)
CM x SA x SSAF x DABS xCF1 x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
SSAF
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
0.07
mg/cm2-day
EPA, 2004 (5)
DABS
Dermal Absorption Factor Solids
Chemical specific
EPA, 2000
CF1
Conversion Factor 1
0.000001
kg/mg
EF
Exposure Frequency
184
days/year
(1)
ED
Exposure Duration
11
years
(2)
BW
Body Weight
47
kg
(3)
AT-C
Averaging Time (Cancer)
25,550
days
EPA, 1989
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
4,015
days
EPA, 1989
Sources:
EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA, 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
EPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol.1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final. EPA/540/R/99/005.
EPA Region 4, 2000: Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins — Supplement to RAGS, Interim.
(1) Professional Judgment: the average total number of days without rain and above freezing for the years between 1999 and 2003.
(2) Professional Judgment assuming adolescents from 7 to 18 years of age.
(3) Body weight is average value for the 7 year old and 18 year old male and female body weight.
(4) SA includes head, hands, forearms, lower legs, and feet.
(5) SSAF for children (1-6 year old).
008569
Page
-------
TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Chronic/
Subchronic
Oral RfD
Oral Absorption
Efficiency for Dermal
(1)
Absorbed RfD for Dermal (2)
Primary
T arget
Organ (s)
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
RfDTarget Organ(s)
Value
Units
Value
Units
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
Cadmium (water)
Chronic
5.0E-04
mg/kg-day
0.05
2.5E-05
mg/kg-day
Kidney
10/1
IRIS
10/10/2005
Cadmium (food)
Chronic
1.0E-03
mg/kg-day
0.025
2.5E-05
mg/kg-day
Kidney
10/1
IRIS
10/10/2005
Zinc
Chronic
3.0E-01
mg/kg-day
highly variable
3.0E-01
mg/kg-day
Circulatory
3/1
IRIS
10/10/2005
Footnote Instructions:
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available
Evalution Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment (Final). IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. USEPA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to
estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%.
Constituents that do not have oral absorption efficiencies reported on this table
were assumed to have an oral absorption efficiency of 100%.
(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal"
008570
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA-- INHALATION
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Chemical
Chronic/
Inhalation RfC
Extrapolated RfD (1)
Primary
Combined
RfC : Target Organ(s)
of Potential
Subchronic
Target
Uncertainty/Modifying
Concern
Value
Units
Value
Units
Organ(s)
Factors
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
Cadmium
Chronic
2.0E-04
mg/m3
5.7E-05
mg/kg-day
Kidney
10
NCEA
06/14/1998
Zinc
Chronic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IRIS
10/10/2005
(1) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Extrapolated RfD" Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
008571
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA-- ORAL/DERMAL
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Chemical
Oral Cancer Slope Factor
Oral Absorption
Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor
Weight of Evidence/
Oral CSF
of Potential
Efficiency for Dermal
for Dermal
Cancer Guideline
Concern
Value
Units
(1)
Value
Units
Description
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
B1
IRIS
10/10/2005
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
D
IRIS
10/10/2005
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available
Evalution Manual (Part E, Supplemetnal Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment Final). IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. USE PA recommends that the oral RfD should not be adjusted to
estimate the absorbed dose for compounds when the absorption efficiency is greater than 50%.
Constituents that do not have oral absorption efficiencies reported on this table
were assumed to have an oral absorption efficiency of 100%.
(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal"
Weight of Evidence definitions:
Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence to support the causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and cancer.
Group B1 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of possible carcinogenicity in humans.
Group B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate or a lack of evidence in humans.
Group C chemicals (possible human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or a lack of human data.
Group D chemicals (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) are agents with inadequate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.
Group E chemicals (evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans) are agents for which there is no evidence of carcinogenicity from human or animal studies, or both.
008572
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Chemical
Unit Risk
Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
Weight of Evidence/
Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF
of Potential
Cancer Guideline
Concern
Value
Units
Value
Units
Description
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DDATYY)
Cadmium
1.8E-03
ftjg/m3)"1
6.3E+00
(mg/kg-day)"1
B1
IRIS
10/10/2005
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
D
IRIS
10/10/2005
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
Weight of Evidence definitions:
Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence to support the causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and cancer.
Group B1 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of possible carcinogenicity in humans.
Group B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens) are agents for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals but inadequate or a lack of evidence in humans.
Group C chemicals (possible human carcinogens) are agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or a lack of human data.
Group D chemicals (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) are agents with inadequate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for which no data are available.
Group E chemicals (evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans) are agents for which there is no evidence of carcinogenicity from human or animal studies, or both.
008573
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
Cadmium
Exp. Route Total
Cadmium
Exposure Point Total
4.8E+01
7.7E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
6.5E-05
1.1E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.8E+01
7.7E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.6E-07
4.2E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
6.5E-02
3.5E-02
1.0E-02
1.4E-04
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil Total
Chat
and Tailings
Material
Inhalation ICadmium
Exposure Point Total
8.1E-08
1.7E-05
MG/M3
MG/M4
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.2E-08
4.8E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
:hat and Tailings Total
Groundwater
Groundwater
Cadmium
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
3.00E+00
1.11E+03
UG/L
UG/L
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
8.2E-05
3.0E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
5.0E-04
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.6E-01
1.0E-01
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
008574
-------
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Child
008575
-------
TABLE 7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
008576
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 7.4.R ME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
9.6E+00
1.9E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
7.2E-05
1.5E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
5.5E-05
1.1E-02
mg/ kg/day
mat kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
5.5E-02
3.7E-02
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil Total
Exposure Point Total
9.6E+00
1.9E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
5.2E-06
1.0E-03
mg/kgMay
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
5.5E-08
1.1E-05
mg/kg/day
mat kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.2E-03
3.7E-05
Chat Pile material
and Tailings
8.1E-08
1.7E-05
MG/M3
MG/M3
3.6E-08
7.9E-06
mg/kgMay
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
3.5E-08
7.5E-06
mgl kg/day
mat kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Medium Total
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Surface Soil (residential,
smelter, I
Animal Tissue
Exposure Point Total
Small Game
(Bird, Rabbit)
Exposure Point Total
Beef (Cattle)
* high fish diet
Exposure Point Total
Beef (Cattle)
* high beef diet
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
6.1E+02
2.8E+04
1.3E-02
1.4E+00
1.3E-02
1.4E+00
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
4.0E-01
1.8E+01
1.7E-05
1.8E-03
1.5E-04
1.6E-02
mg/kgMay
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
4.4E-07
2.0E-05
1.6E-10
1.7E-08
mgl kg/day
mat kg/day
mgl kg/day
mat kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kgMay
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
4.4E-04
6.7E-05
1.8E-08
6.5E-09
1.6E-07
5.8E-08
Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet)
zxposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet)
Surface Soil (residential, smelter,
jne) Total (High Fish Diet)
Surface Soil (residential, smelter,
jne) Total (High Beef Diet)
Revised 02/09/2006
008577
Page 1 of 3
-------
TABLE 7.4.R ME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Transition Zone
Asparagus (above ground)
Asparagus (root)
Ingestion
Ingestion
5.5E+00
1.4E+02
1.2E+01
1.4E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
1.9E-02
5.0E-01
4.4E-02
4.9E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.1E-02
5.5E-01
4.8E-02
5.4E+00
mg/ kg/day
mat kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.1E+01
1.8E+00
4.8E+01
1.8E+01
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Willow (above ground)
Willow (root)
Ingestion
Ingestion
1.8E+01
4.7E+02
5.0E+01
4.6E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
6.3E-02
1.6E+00
1.8E-01
1.6E+01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
6.9E-02
1.8E+00
1.9E-01
1.8E+01
mg/kg/day
mg! kg/day
mg! kg/day
mg! kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mgfkgfday I 6.9E+01
mgfkgfday I 6.0E+00
mgfkgfday I 1.9E+02
mg/kg/day | 5.9E+01
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Cattail (above ground)
Cattail (root)
Ingestion
Ingestion
2.0E+01
2.6E+03
6.1E+01
4.4E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
7.0E-02
9.0E+00
2.2E-01
1.5E+01
mg/kgMay
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
7.6E-02
9.9E+00
2.4E-01
1.7E+01
mgl kg/day
mat kg/day
mat kg/day
mat kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
7.6E+01
3.3E+01
2.4E+02
5.6E+01
| Exp. Route Total
Transition Zone Total
Exposure Medium Total
Fish Tissue/Aquatic Food
Exposure Point Total
Aquatic Food Tissue
(Mussels etc.)
Exposure Point Total
Fish Tissue
* high fish diet
Exposure Point Total
Fish Tissue
* high beef diet
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet)
Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet)
|| Exp. Route Total
1.6E+00
7.8E+01
1.7E-01
2.1E+01
1.7E-01
2.1E+01
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
3.7E-03
1.8E-01
2.0E-03
2.5E-01
1.7E-04
2.1E-02
mg/kgMay
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
4.0E-03
2.0E-01
2.2E-03
2.7E-01
1.8E-04
2.3E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
4.0E+00
6.5E-01
2.2E+00
9.0E-01
1.8E-01
7.6E-02
Aquatic Biota (High Fish Diet)
Aquatic Biota (High Beef Diet)
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Receptor Total (High Fish Diet)
REceptor Total (High Beef Diet)
Exp. Route Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008578
Page 2 of 3
-------
TABLE 7.4.R ME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Revised 02/09/2006
008579
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement A
Estimation of Chemical Concentrations in Small Game (Bird and Rabbit)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Small Mammal
Chemical
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)1
Soil-Small Mammal
Accumulation Factor
(BAF)
Measure
Measure/Reference
Concentration in
Small Mammal
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
3.6E+01
7.0E+01
Insectivorous & generalist mammal
Sample et al. 1998b
2.49E+03
Lead
3.1E+03
2.7E+00
Insectivorous & generalist mammal
Sample et al. 1998b
8.23E+03
Zinc
5.3E+03
1.6E+01
Herbivorous & generalist mammal
Sample et al. 1998b
8.68E+04
Notes:
1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Equation:
Concentration in Small Mammal = Soil Concentration x BAF
References:
Sample, B. E., J. J. Beauchamp, R. A. Efroymson and G. W. Suter. 1998b. Development and validation of bioaccumulation models for small mammals.
Oak Ridge, TN: Lockheed Martin Corp.
DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only
008580
1 of 1
(A Supplements_lntake_Suppl draft final.xls (SmallGame)
10/31/2005 10:17AM
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement B
Estimation of Chemical Concentrations in Beef and Milk (dairy)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Beef and Milk
Soil Exposure
Point
BTF for
Concentration
Concentration in
Concentration in
Concentration
Forage
in Forage
BTF for Beef
BTF for Milk
Beef
Milk
Chemical
(Cs)1
(Brforaqe)
(Pr)
(Babeef)
(Bami|k)
(Abeef)
(Amilk)
Cadmium
3.6E+01
3.64E-01
1.3E+01
1.2E-04
6.5E-06
1.7E-02
9.0E-04
Lead
3.1E+03
4.50E-02
1.4E+02
3.0E-04
2.5E-04
8.5E-01
7.1E-01
Zinc
5.3E+03
2.50E-01
1.3E+03
9.0E-05
3.3E-05
1.3E+00
4.9E-01
Notes:
1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).
Equations:
Abeef = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Babeef x MF
Amilk = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Bamilk x MF
Pr= Csx Br
where:
Abeef Concentration in beef (mg/kg FW tissue)
Amiik Concentration in milk (mg/kg milk)
Pr Concentration in forage due to root uptake (mg/kg)
Fj Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (cattle) (unitless)
Qpi Quantity of forage eaten by the animal (cattle) per day (kg DW plant/day)
Pi Concentration in each plant type I eaten by the animal (cattle) (mg/kg DW)
Qs Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (cattle) each day (kg/day)
Cs Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg/kg)
Bs Soil bioavailability factor (unitless)
Babeef Biotransfer factor for beef (day/kg FW tissue)
Bami|k Biotransfer factor for milk (day/kg WW tissue)
MF Metabolism factor (unitless)
Borage Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for forage (unitless)
Equations and input parameters are obtained from EPA, 2005.
References:
EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.
Calculated
Calculated
1
9.27
Calculated
0.5
EPC (Table 3.2)
1
(see above)
(see above)
1
(see above)
DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only
008581
1 of 1
7.4 Supplements_lntake_Suppl draft final.xls (Beef-Milk)
10/31/2005 10:17AM
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement C
Concentrations Used to Estimate Chemical Intake Through Ingestion of Locally Caught Fish
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Fish (All sample preparations)1
Chemical
Data Set Used
for the
Analysis
Number of
Detection
Number of
Analysis
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)2
Cadmium
All
5
77
0.30
0.84
0.17
Lead
All
28
75
0.25
3.50
0.43
Zinc
All
77
77
3.50
70.0
21.3
Notes:
1 All Sample Preparations (Fillet, Whole-eviscerated, Whole-uneviscerated)
2 The Average Concentrations were used as exposure point concentrations,
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Reference:
Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).
008582
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement D
Estimation of Chemical Concentrations in Aquatic Food using Log-linear Regression Models for Bioaccumulation Factors
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Aquatic Biota (Invertebrate)
Chemical
Data Set Used for
the Analysis
Sediment
Concentration
(mg/kg)1'2
B0
B1
Concentration in
Aquatic biota
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
All
4.0E+00
0.0395
0.692
2.72E+00
Lead
All
2.9E+01
-0.776
0.801
6.83E+00
Zinc
All
3.6E+02
1.80
0.208
2.06E+01
Notes:
1 Sediment Concentrations were obtained from ODEQ, 2003.
2 The Average Detected Concentrations were used.
All values are reported as dry weight.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Equation:
Log (Concentration in aquatic biota) = B1*(ln[Site Specific Sediment Concentration]) + BO
where:
BO = Slope.
B1 = Intercept.
References:
Bechtel Jacobs, 1998b. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge
Reservation. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-112. August, 1998.
Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).
DRAFT - Discussion Purposes Only
008583
1 of 1
7.4 Supplements_lntake_Suppl draft final.xls (Aqualnvert.)
10/31/2005 10:20 AM
-------
TABLE 7.5.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
Cadmium
9.6E+00
1.9E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
2.2E-05
4.4E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.6E-04
5.2E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Dermal ICadmium
9.6E+00
1.9E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
3.1E-08
6.2E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
3.6E-07
7.2E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Surface Soil Total
Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Chat Pile material
and Tailings
Cadmium
8.1E-08
1.7E-05
MG/M
MG/M3
4.7E-09
1.0E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
5.4E-08
1.2E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Surface Soil (residential,
smelter, transition zone)
Cadmium
6.90E-04
4.94E-01
UG/L
UG/L
2.0E-06
1.4E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.3E-05
1.6E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
5.0E-04
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total
|| Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
Groundwater
Ingestion IZinc
Groundwater Total
Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008584
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 7.6.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
: ce na rio Ti m e fram e: C urrent/F uture
!eceptor Population: Recreator
;eceptorAge: Adolescent
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
e Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
n-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
Chat and Tailings
Material
Surface Material
Chat & Tailings Ponds
Surface (0-6 inch)
9.3E+01
1.8E+04
MG/KG
MG/KG
1.6E-05
3.0E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1.0E-04
1.9E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
Exp. Route Total
9.3E+01
1.8E+04
MG/KG
MG/KG
5.8E-08
1.1E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
3.7E-07
7.1E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-01
6.4E-02
1.5E-02
2.4E-04
e Medium Total
:hat Pile Material and Tailings Total
008585
-------
TABLE 7.7.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Medium
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
e Concentration
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
admium
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
6.3E-06
1.2E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.5E-08
4.6E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
6.3E-03
3.9E-03
1.0E-03
1.5E-05
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil Total
Chat Pile Material
and Tailings
Inhalation ICadmium
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
4.3E-06
9.5E-04
MG/M
MG/M4
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1.2E-06
2.6E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
;hat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008586
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 7.8.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
R ece pto r Popul ati on: Residential (GeneralPublic)
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
Cadmium
Dermal ICadmium
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
5.9E-05
1.1E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
5.9E-02
3.6E-02
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1.7E-07
3.0E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day I 6.6E-03
mg/kg/day I 1.0E-04
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil Total
Chat Pile Material
and Tailings
Inhalation ICadmium
Exp. Route Total ||
Exposure Point Total
4.3E-06
9.5E-04
MG/M
MG/M4
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.7E-06
6.1E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
;hat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008587
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 7.9.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
Cadmium
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
7.2E-06
1.3E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Dermal ICadmium
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
5.5E-07
1.0E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Surface Soil Total
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Chat Pile Material
and Tailings
Inhalation ICadmium
4.3E-06
9.5E-04
MG/M
MG/M4
6.4E-07
1.4E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exp. Route Total ||
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008588
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 7.10.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Medium
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
e Concentration
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
admium
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.5E-05
4.6E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.5E-08
4.6E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.0E-03
1.5E-05
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil Total
Chat Pile Material
and Tailings
Inhalation ICadmium
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
4.3E-06
9.5E-04
MG/M
MG/M4
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1.8E-06
3.9E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
;hat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008589
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 7.11.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Child
Exposure Medium
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
e Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
Dermal I Cadmium
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1.2E-04
2.2E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.2E-01
7.2E-02
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1.7E-07
3.0E-05
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.5E-05
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day I 6.6E-03
mg/kg/day I 1.0E-04
Exposure Medium Total
Surface Soil Total
Chat Pile Material
and Tailings
Inhalation ICadmium
Exp. Route Total ||
Exposure Point Total
4.3E-06
9.5E-04
MG/M
MG/M4
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.7E-06
6.1E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
;hat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008590
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 7.12.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
(0-1 inch)
Cadmium
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
3.3E-05
6.1E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Dermal ICadmium
4.6E+00
8.5E+02
MG/KG
MG/KG
8.9E-07
1.6E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Surface Soil Total
Exp. Route Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Chat Pile Material
and Tailings
Inhalation ICadmium
4.3E-06
9.5E-04
MG/M
MG/M4
1.9E-06
4.1E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exp. Route Total ||
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
Revised 02/09/2006
008591
Page 1 of
-------
TABLE 9.1. RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
6.5E-02
NA
1.0E-02
7.5E-02
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.5E-02
NA
1.4E-04
3.5E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
NA
1.1E-02
1.1E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
NA
1.1E-02
1.1E-01
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
NA
1.1E-02
1.1E-01
Chat
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
3.9E-04
NA
3.9E-04
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
Chemical Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
3.9E-04
NA
3.9E-04
Exposure Medium Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
3.9E-04
NA
3.9E-04
Chat and Tailings Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
3.9E-04
NA
3.9E-04
Groundwater
Groundwater
Private Wells
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.6E-01
NA
NA
1.6E-01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.0E-01
NA
NA
1.0E-01
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.7E-01
NA
0.0E+00
2.7E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.7E-01
NA
0.0E+00
2.7E-01
Groundwater Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.7E-01
NA
0.0E+00
2.7E-01
Receptor T otal
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.7E-01
3.9E-04
1.1E-02
3.8E-01
Page 1 of 1
008592
Total Circulatory HI Across Media
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
-------
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Child
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
Surfiace Soil
Surfiace Soil (Yards)
Surfiace Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
6.1 E-01
NA
6.8E-02
6.8 E-01
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.3E-01
NA
9.2 E-04
3.3 E-01
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
0.0E+00
9.4 E-01
NA
6.9E-02
1.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
0.0E+00
9.4 E-01
NA
6.9E-02
1.0E+00
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
0.0E+00
9.4 E-01
NA
6.9E-02
1.0E+00
Chat
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
9.1 E-04
NA
9.1 E-04
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
Chemical Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
NA
9.1 E-04
NA
9.1 E-04
Exposure Medium Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
NA
9.1 E-04
NA
9.1 E-04
Chat and Tailings Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
NA
9.1 E-04
NA
9.1 E-04
Groundwater
Groundwater
Private Wells
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
3.8 E-01
NA
NA
3.8 E-01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
2.4 E-01
NA
NA
2.4 E-01
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
O.OE-tOO
6.2 E-01
NA
O.OE-tOO
6.2 E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
O.OE-tOO
6.2 E-01
NA
O.OE-tOO
6.2 E-01
Groundwater Total
0.0E+00
NA
O.OE-tOO
O.OE-tOO
6.2 E-01
NA
O.OE-tOO
6.2 E-01
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
O.OE-tOO
O.OE-tOO
1.6E-tOO
9.1 E-04
6.9E-02
1.6E+00
Total Circulatory HI Across Media
Total Kidney HI Across Media
6E-01
1E-fOO
008593
Page
-------
TABLE 9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Chat
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
7.6E-08
NA
7.6E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Material
Chemical Total
NA
7.6E-08
NA
7.6E-08
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
NA
7.6E-08
NA
7.6E-08
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Chat and Tailings Total
NA
7.6E-08
NA
7.6E-08
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Groundwater
Groundwater
Private Wells
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exposure Point Total
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Groundwater Total
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
7.6E-08
0.0E+00
7.6E-08
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
008594
Page 1 of1
-------
TABLE 9.4.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
5.5E-02
NA
2.2E-03
5.7E-02
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.7E-02
NA
3.7E-05
3.7E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.2E-02
NA
2.2E-03
9.4E-02
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.2E-02
NA
2.2E-03
9.4E-02
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.2E-02
NA
2.2E-03
9.4E-02
Chat Pile material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
2.3E-07
NA
2.3E-07
Kidney
NA
6.1 E-04
NA
6.1 E-04
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
2.3E-07
NA
2.3E-07
NA
6.1 E-04
NA
6.1 E-04
Exposure Medium Total
NA
2.3E-07
NA
2.3E-07
NA
6.1 E-04
NA
6.1 E-04
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
2.3E-07
NA
2.3E-07
NA
6.1 E-04
NA
6.1 E-04
Surface Soil (residential,
Animal Tissue
Small Game
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
4.4E-04
NA
NA
4.4E-04
smelter, transition zone)
(Bird, Rabbit)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.7E-05
NA
NA
6.7E-05
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
NA
NA
5.0 E-04
Beef (Cattle)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.8E-08
NA
NA
1.8E-08
* high fish diet
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.5E-09
NA
NA
6.5E-09
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
2.5E-08
NA
NA
2.5E-08
Beef (Cattle)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.6E-07
NA
NA
1.6E-07
* high Beef diet
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
5.8E-08
NA
NA
5.8E-08
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
2.2E-07
NA
NA
2.2E-07
Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
NA
NA
5.0 E-04
Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
NA
NA
5.0 E-04
Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
NA
NA
5.0 E-04
Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
NA
NA
5.0 E-04
Revised 02/09/2006 Page 1 of 3
008595
-------
TABLE 9.4.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Plant Tissue
Asparagus (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.1E+01
NA
NA
2.1E+01
Transition Zone
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.8E+00
NA
NA
1.8E+00
Asparagus (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
4.8E+01
NA
NA
4.8E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.8E+01
NA
NA
1.8E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
8.9E+01
NA
NA
8.9E+01
Willow (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
6.9E+01
NA
NA
6.9E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.0E+00
NA
NA
6.0E+00
Willow (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.9E+02
NA
NA
1.9E+02
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
5.9E+01
NA
NA
5.9E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
3.3E+02
NA
NA
3.3E+02
Cattail (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
7.6E+01
NA
NA
7.6E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.3E+01
NA
NA
3.3E+01
Cattail (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.4E+02
NA
NA
2.4E+02
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
5.6E+01
NA
NA
5.6E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.0E+02
NA
NA
4.0E+02
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
8.2E+02
NA
NA
8.2E+02
Transition Zone Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
8.2E+02
NA
NA
8.2E+02
Aquatic Biota
Fish Tissue/
Aquatic Food Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
4.0E+00
NA
NA
4.0E+00
Aquatic Food
(Mussels etc.)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.5E-01
NA
NA
6.5E-01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.7E+00
NA
NA
4.7E+00
Fish Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.2E+00
NA
NA
2.2E+00
* high fish diet
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
9.0E-01
NA
NA
9.0E-01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
3.0E+00
NA
NA
3.0E+00
Fish Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.8E-01
NA
NA
1.8E-01
* high Beef diet
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
7.6E-02
NA
NA
7.6E-02
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
2.6E-01
NA
NA
2.6E-01
Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
7.7E+00
NA
NA
7.7E+00
Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E+00
NA
NA
5.0E+00
Revised 02/09/2006 Page 2 of 3
008596
-------
TABLE 9.4.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ (s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Aquatic Biota (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
7.7E+00
NA
NA
7.7E+00
Aquatic Biota (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E+00
NA
NA
5.0E+00
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
4.2E-05
NA
NA
4.2E-05
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.2E-05
NA
NA
4.2E-05
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.2E-05
NA
NA
4.2E-05
Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.2E-05
NA
NA
4.2E-05
Receptor Total (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
8.2E+02
6.1 E-04
2.2E-03
8.2E+02
Receptor Total (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
8.2E+02
6.1 E-04
2.2E-03
8.2E+02
Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) =
Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) =
Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) =
Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) =
6E+Q2
2E+Q2
Revised 02/09/2006
008597
Page 3 of 3
-------
TABLE 9.5.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Child
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.6E-01
NA
1.4E-02
2.7E-01
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.7E-01
NA
2.4E-04
1.7E-01
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.3E-01
NA
1.5E-02
4.4E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.3E-01
NA
1.5E-02
4.4E-01
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.3E-01
NA
1.5E-02
4.4E-01
Chat Pile material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
2.9E-08
NA
2.9E-08
Kidney
NA
9.5E-04
NA
9.5E-04
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
2.9E-08
NA
2.9E-08
NA
9.5E-04
NA
9.5E-04
Exposure Medium Total
NA
2.9E-08
NA
2.9E-08
NA
9.5E-04
NA
9.5E-04
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
2.9E-08
NA
2.9E-08
NA
9.5E-04
NA
9.5E-04
Surface Soil (residential,
Milk (Dairy)
Milk (Dairy)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
4.6E-02
NA
NA
4.6E-02
smelter, transition zone)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
5.5E-02
NA
NA
5.5E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
NA
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
NA
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
NA
0.0E+00
1.0E-01
Groundwater
Groundwater
Private Wells
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
4.9E-05
NA
NA
4.9E-05
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.9E-05
NA
0.0E+00
4.9E-05
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.9E-05
NA
0.0E+00
4.9E-05
Groundwater Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.9E-05
NA
0.0E+00
4.9E-05
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
2.9E-08
0.0E+00
2.9E-08
5.3E-01
9.5E-04
1.5E-02
5.4E-01
Revised 02/09/2006
Total Circulatory HI Across Media =
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
Page 1 of 1
008598
-------
TABLE 9.6.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreator
Receptor Age: Adolescent
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
T arget Organ(s)
Routes Total
Chat and Tailings
Surface Material
Chat & Tailings Ponds
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.0E-01
NA
1.5E-02
1.2E-01
Material
Surface (0-6 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.4E-02
NA
2.4E-04
6.4E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.6E-01
NA
1.5E-02
1.8E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.6E-01
NA
1.5E-02
1.8E-01
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.6E-01
NA
1.5E-02
1.8E-01
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.6E-01
NA
1.5E-02
1.8E-01
Page 1 of 1
008599
Total Circulatory HI Across Media =
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
-------
TABLE 9.7.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
6.3E-03
NA
1.0E-03
7.3E-03
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.9E-03
NA
1.5E-05
3.9E-03
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-02
NA
1.0E-03
1.1 E-02
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-02
NA
1.0E-03
1.1 E-02
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-02
NA
1.0E-03
1.1 E-02
Chat Pile Material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
2.1 E-02
NA
2.1 E-02
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
2.1 E-02
NA
2.1 E-02
Exposure Medium Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
2.1 E-02
NA
2.1 E-02
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
2.1 E-02
NA
2.1 E-02
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E-02
2.1 E-02
1.0E-03
3.2E-02
Total Circulatory HI Across Media =
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
4E-03
3E-02
Revised 02/09/2006
008600
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9.8.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Child
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
5.9E-02
NA
6.6E-03
6.6E-02
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.6E-02
NA
1.0E-04
3.6E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.5E-02
NA
6.7E-03
1.0E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.5E-02
NA
6.7E-03
1.0E-01
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.5E-02
NA
6.7E-03
1.0E-01
Chat Pile Material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
Exposure Medium Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.5E-02
4.8E-02
6.7E-03
1.5E-01
Total Circulatory HI Across Media =
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
4E-02
1E-01
Revised 02/09/2006
008601
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9.9.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (General Public)
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Chat Pile Material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
4.0E-06
NA
4.0E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
4.0E-06
NA
4.0E-06
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
NA
4.0E-06
NA
4.0E-06
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
4.0E-06
NA
4.0E-06
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
4.0E-06
0.0E+00
4.0E-06
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Revised 02/09/2006
008602
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9.10.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.5E-02
NA
1.0E-03
2.6E-02
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.5E-02
NA
1.5E-05
1.5E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.1 E-02
NA
1.0E-03
4.2E-02
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.1 E-02
NA
1.0E-03
4.2E-02
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.1 E-02
NA
1.0E-03
4.2E-02
Chat Pile Material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
3.1 E-02
NA
3.1 E-02
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
3.1 E-02
NA
3.1 E-02
Exposure Medium Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
3.1 E-02
NA
3.1 E-02
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
3.1 E-02
NA
3.1 E-02
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.1 E-02
3.1 E-02
1.0E-03
7.3E-02
Total Circulatory HI Across Media =
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
2E-02
6E-02
Revised 02/09/2006
008603
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9.11.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Child
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.2E-01
NA
6.6E-03
1.2E-01
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
7.2E-02
NA
1.0E-04
7.2E-02
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.9E-01
NA
6.7E-03
2.0E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.9E-01
NA
6.7E-03
2.0E-01
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.9E-01
NA
6.7E-03
2.0E-01
Chat Pile Material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
Exposure Medium Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
NA
4.8E-02
NA
4.8E-02
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.9E-01
4.8E-02
6.7E-03
2.4E-01
Total Circulatory HI Across Media =
Total Kidney HI Across Media =
7E-02
2E-01
Revised 02/09/2006
008604
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9.12.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult/Child
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
Surface Soil
Surface Soil (Yards)
Surface Soil
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(0-1 inch)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Exposure Point Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Surface Soil Total
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Chat Pile Material
Ambient Air
Ambient Air
Cadmium
NA
1.2E-05
NA
1.2E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
and Tailings
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical Total
NA
1.2E-05
NA
1.2E-05
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
NA
1.2E-05
NA
1.2E-05
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Chat Pile Material and Tailings Total
NA
1.2E-05
NA
1.2E-05
NA
0.0E+00
NA
0.0E+00
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
1.2E-05
0.0E+00
1.2E-05
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Revised 02/09/2006
008605
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.1. RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Plant Tissue
Asparagus (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.1E+01
NA
NA
2.1E+01
Transition Zones
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.8E+00
NA
NA
1.8E+00
Asparagus (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
4.8E+01
NA
NA
4.8E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.8E+01
NA
NA
1.8E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
8.9E+01
NA
NA
8.9E+01
Willow (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
6.9E+01
NA
NA
6.9E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.0E+00
NA
NA
6.0E+00
Willow (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.9E+02
NA
NA
1.9E+02
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
5.9E+01
NA
NA
5.9E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
3.3E+02
NA
NA
3.3E+02
Cattail (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
7.6E+01
NA
NA
7.6E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
3.3E+01
NA
NA
3.3E+01
Cattail (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.4E+02
NA
NA
2.4E+02
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
5.6E+01
NA
NA
5.6E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.0E+02
NA
NA
4.0E+02
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
8.2E+02
NA
NA
8.2E+02
Transition Zone Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
8.2E+02
NA
NA
8.2E+02
Revised 02/09/2006
008606
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 10.1. RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Aquatic Biota
Fish Tissue/
Aquatic Food Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
4.0E+00
NA
NA
4.0E+00
Aquatic Food
(Mussels etc.)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
6.5E-01
NA
NA
6.5E-01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.7E+00
NA
NA
4.7E+00
Fish Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.2E+00
NA
NA
2.2E+00
* high fish diet
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
9.0E-01
NA
NA
9.0E-01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
3.0E+00
NA
NA
3.0E+00
Fish Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.8E-01
NA
NA
1.8E-01
* high Beef diet
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
7.6E-02
NA
NA
7.6E-02
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
2.6E-01
NA
NA
2.6E-01
Exposure Medium Total (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
7.7E+00
NA
NA
7.7E+00
Exposure Medium Total (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E+00
NA
NA
5.0E+00
Aquatic Biota (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
7.7E+00
NA
NA
7.7E+00
Aquatic Biota (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
5.0E+00
NA
NA
5.0E+00
Receptor Total (High Fish Diet)
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
8.2E+02
6.1 E-04
2.2E-03
8.2E+02
Receptor Total (High Beef Diet)
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
0.0E+00
2.3E-07
8.2E+02
6.1 E-04
2.2E-03
8.2E+02
Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) =
Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) =
Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) =
Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Beef Diet) =
6E+Q2
2E+Q2
Revised 02/09/2006
008607
Page 2 of 2
-------
Appendix D
Air Emissions
008608
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008609
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
CH2MHILL
Appendix D
Technical Memorandum
Air Emissions
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
PREPARED FOR: Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL, Inc.
prepared under: EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,
Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW
DATE: October 19, 2005
DCN NUMBER:: 05-8225
1.0 Background
This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the emissions estimates completed by
CH2M HILL as part of the activities being completed by EPA under Operable Unit 4
(OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This work
was completed under Contract No. 68-W6-0025, and the approved project work plan and
subsequent work plan revisions under Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW.
The Respondents are responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) of OU4 under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that was
executed on December 9, 2003 (EPA, 2003). As part of this agreement, EPA is
responsible for completing the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and the
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). CH2M HILL is working for EPA and is responsible
for the HHRA. Air modeling is an important component of the HHRA for this site
because of potential air concentrations and deposition into soils. Emissions from sources
at the Tar Creek site were used as inputs to the air dispersion modeling analysis for input
to the HHRA.
The HHRA examines impacts from lead, cadmium, and zinc. Emissions of particulate
matter were estimated and site specific data was used to determine the emissions of the
individual compounds.
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table D-l provides a summary of the emissions estimates by individual source, source
category, and pollutant. Figure D-l shows the source locations.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 1 OCTOBER 2005
APPENDIXD\TC HHRA DRAFTRA APPENDIXD.DOC
008610
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
3.0 Methodology
Air emissions were determined for a total of 21 major chat piles, five of which are
actively used, and 10 flotation tailings ponds (ponds). These sources were selected for
estimating air emissions because they were sampled in the summer of 2005.
Particulate emissions were first estimated for each of the source categories. Emissions of
individual compounds were estimated as a percentage of the total particulate emissions
based on concentrations of these compounds found in the sources.
In the summer of 2005, the respondents, in cooperation with EPA, collected information
on soils in the area as reported in Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary
(AATA, 2005). Samples were collected of the bulk chat and surface chat of the existing
chat piles. The fine tailings ponds contain two types of fines - flotation tailings and
washed fines. Typically the flotation tailings are covered by several feet of washed fines.
Samples were collected of both flotation tailings and washed fines. If a fine tailings pond
was found to contain mixed fine tailings (i.e. multiple layers of washed fines and flotation
tailings) at a sampling site, the material near the surface was sampled and called surface
fine tailings. Table D-2 provides a list of source categories and the sampling information
used to estimate emissions.
4.0 Emission Calculations by Source Category
A description of the emissions calculation methodology and example emission
calculations are provided in this section for the following source categories considered:
1. Loading and handling of chat
2. Wind erosion from chat piles and flotation ponds
3. Unpaved and paved roads
4.1 Loading and Handling of Chat
Dust emissions from chat piles result from unloading of material onto piles, equipment
and recreational traffic in the area, and loading material from the piles for reprocessing
were considered. Emissions were estimated using emission factors from AP-42 Section
13.2.4 Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles. These emissions were assumed to only
apply to active piles. The five active piles are Admiralty, Atlas, Fisher, Ottawa, and
Sooner.
The emission factors in AP-42 Section 13.2.4 include emissions from loading and
unloading material at the piles and equipment traffic in the area. Loading/unloading
includes truck dumping or conveyor dumping. The emission factor is for total particulate
matter (PM), given in units of lb/ton of material in the pile, and has an emission factor
rating of "A". The emission factor is based on aerodynamic particle size, mean wind
speed, and material moisture content. Aerodynamic particle size is assumed to be <30
micrometers (pm), the largest particle size range specified. The mean wind speed was
estimated using the same meteorological data used for the air dispersion modeling.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008611
2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
Material moisture content was estimated to be 4 percent, based on information in the
Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005). This report indicated
moisture content of bulk chat in the piles to be 4-11 percent. Since the emissions occur
from the surface of the piles and the surface of the piles is drier than the interior, the
lower end of the range was chosen. Cadmium, lead, and zinc emissions were estimated
assuming that the emissions contained the same amount of cadmium, lead, and zinc as the
bulk chat piles. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the piles were based on
individual average bulk chat chemistry information obtained from thq Draft Preliminary
Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005).
For material handling of chat piles, the following equations were used:
EF = k x 0.0032 x ((U/5)L3/(M/2)L4)
E= EF x Usage x EFF x CC x (lxlO"6)
Variable Name
Units
Description
E
lb/year
Air emissions of speciated pollutant
Usage
tons/year
Annual quantity of chat handled
EF
lb/ton
Emission factor, pound of pollutant per tons of
material handled
k
Particle size multiplier
U
mph
Wind speed, miles per hour (mph)
EFF
0/
/O
Percent recovery efficiency of cadmium, lead or zinc
M
0/
/o
Material moisture content
CC
mg/kg
Chemical concentration of pollutant in chat material
Reference: AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, 5th Edition, Chapter 13 (Jan 1995)
Shown below is a sample calculation for material handling of chat located at the Sooner
pile for lead:
Input Data:
k =0.74 (<30 |im, AP-42, Chapter 13.2.4-3)
U =7.77 mph (Based on average of five years of meteorological data)
M = 4%
Usage = 80,000 tons/year
CC = 1,610 mg/kg (The Sooner Pile Bulk Chat Average Lead Concentration)
EFF = 88 %/100% = 0.88 (Based on Exponent report, page 4A-4)
EF = k x 0.0032 x ((U/5)L3/(M/2)L4)
= 0.74 x 0.0032 x ((7.77/5)L3/(4/2)L4)
EF = 0.00159 lb. PM/tons of material
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008612
3
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: AIR EMISSIONSTM
E = EF x Usage x EFF x CC x (lxlO"6)
= 0.00159 lb/ton x 80,000 tons/ year x 0.88 x 1,610 mg/kg x lxlO"6 kg/mg
= 0.180 lbs, lead/year
4.2 Wind Erosion
Wind erosion of the chat piles and tailings ponds were considered for air emissions.
Emissions were estimated using the equation from Control of Open Fugitive Dust
Sources (EPA, 1988). The maximum pile heights were provided by the Respondent's.
The volume and area (assumed to be the chat pile base area) from the Draft Preliminary
Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005), was used to determine the base radius
which was used to calculate the exposed surface area of the pile assuming the pile mimics
a cone shape.
Cadmium, lead and zinc emissions were estimated assuming that the emissions contained
the same amount of cadmium, lead and zinc as the chat pile surface and tailings pond
surface. Concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the piles and ponds were based on
surface chemistry information obtained from the Draft Preliminary Site Characterization
Summary (AATA, 2005). Specific surface chemistry for each tailings pond was available
and used; however, only seven of the 21 chat piles had surface chemistry data available.
Therefore, the average surface chemistry for the combined seven chat pile surfaces was
used for the 21 chat piles.
For wind erosion of chat piles and tailings ponds, the following equations were used:
EF = 1.7 x (s/1.5) x (365-p/235) x (f/15)
E = EF x SA x CC x (365) x (lxlO"6)
Variable Name
Units
Description
E
lb/year
Air emissions of speciated pollutant
EF
lb/acre-day
Emission factor, pound of pollutant per acre-day
s
0/
/O
Silt content
f
0/
/o
Percent of time that the unobstructed wind speed
exceeds 12 mph at the mean pile height0-1
P
days
Number of days with > 0.01 inches of precipitation
per year
SA
acres
Total exposed surface area of piles or tailings ponds
CC
mg/kg
Chemical concentration of pollutant in surface
material
Reference: Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA, 1988.
(1) The unobstructed wind speed is correlated to the mean pile height using available meteorological data.
The mean pile height is half of the maximum pile height where the maximum pile height is provided by the
Respondent's.
P:\U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICI ES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008613
4
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
Shown below is a sample calculation for wind erosion of the Sooner chat pile for lead:
Input Data:
s = 10 (Table 13.2.2-1 of AP-42 Section 13.2.2)
p = 100 (Figure 13.2.2-1 of AP-42 Section 13.2.2)
f =24.5%/100% = 0.245
SA =90.92 acres
CC = 829 mg/kg
EF = 1.7 x (s/1.5) x (365-p/235) x (f/15)
= 1.7 x (10/1.5) x (365-100/235) x (0.245/15)
EF = 0.2087 lb/acre-day
E = EF x SA x CC x (365) x (lxlO"6)
= 0.2087 lb/acre day x 90.92 acres x 829 mg/kg x 365 days/yr x lxlO"6 kg/mg
= 5.74 lb of lead/year
4.3 Unpaved and Paved Roads
This source category includes emissions caused by vehicles on unpaved and paved roads
transporting raw material from chat piles to some off-site area for processing. Emission
factors from AP-42 Section 13.2.2 Unpaved Roads were used to estimate dust emissions
from unpaved roads while emission factors from AP-42 Section 13.2.1 Paved Roads were
used to estimate dust emissions from paved roads. The emissions are dependent upon
volume of traffic, silt and moisture content of road material, and vehicle weight.
Emission factors for PM-30 (Total Suspended Particulate [TSP] Matter) are given. These
emission factors were adjusted to account for annual precipitation as discussed below.
Different equations were used for vehicles traveling on unpaved and paved surfaces. The
equation for unpaved roads was used to estimate emissions from when the vehicle loaded
the chat from the chat pile to when a paved road was encountered while the equation for
paved roads estimated emissions from when the paved road was encountered to when the
vehicle passed the site boundary. It was assumed that vehicles traveling these roads are
hauling chat (i.e. the vehicle weight is based upon a hauling vehicle weight) and that the
road is a public road. Assuming the road is a public road used more conservative and
higher factors, thereby calculating higher emissions.
The emission factors for publicly accessible roads are dependent on silt content, mean
vehicle weight, and mean vehicle speed. Table 13.2.2-1 in AP-42 identifies typical silt
content values of surface material on unpaved sites. Since lead mining and processing is
not among the industries listed in the table, the silt content value given for stone
quarrying and processing plant road was used. Mean vehicle weight and speed were
estimated. Mean vehicle weight was estimated at 11 tons, typical for a hauling vehicle,
and mean vehicle speed was estimated at 45 mph for unpaved and paved roads.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008614
5
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: AIR EMISSIONSTM
The emission factors were adjusted to account for rainfall and other precipitation based
on Figure 13.2.2-1 of AP-42 Section 13.2.2(100 days per year with 0.01 inches or more
of precipitation).
The resulting emission factors are in units of lbs/vehicle mile traveled (VMT). Average
VMT on unpaved roads was estimated based on the distance from the chat pile to the
paved road while the average VMT on paved roads was estimated based on the distance
from the paved road to the nearest site boundary. Distances were obtained through review
of aerial photographs.
Cadmium, lead, and zinc emissions were estimated by assuming that PM emissions had
the same cadmium, lead, and zinc content as the road material. All unpaved roads were
assumed to be made of chat and the surface of the paved roads was covered by chat. The
lead, zinc, and cadmium content of the chat was estimated based on average
concentrations of bulk chat, surface chat, washed fines, flotation tailings, and surface
tailings chemistry data as shown in Table D-3, and was obtained from the Draft
Preliminary Site Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005).
The following equations were used for unpaved public roads:
EF = k(s/12)a(S/30))d - C
(M/0.5)c
VMT = (Chat processed/10 tons per load) * miles/trip * 2 trips/load
EFext = EF [(365 - p)/365]
E = EFext * VMT *wt%
Variable Name
Units
Description
E
lb/year
Air emissions of speciated pollutant
EF
lb/VMT
Emission factor
EFext
lb/VMT
Emission factor corrected for natural mitigation
VMT
miles
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
k
6.0 lb/VMT
Particle Size Multiplier, pounds per vehicle mile
travel (VMT)(1)
s
%
Surface material silt content
S
mph
Mean vehicle speed in miles per hour (mph)
P
days
Number of days with >0.01 inches of precipitation
per year
wt%
%
Weight % of pollutant in soil
a
1.0
Unitless Empirical Constant0-1
c
0.3
Unitless Empirical Constant0-1
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008615
6
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: AIR EMISSIONSTM
Variable Name
Units
Description
d
0.3
Unitless Empirical Constant0-1
C
lb/VMT
Emission factor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust,
brake wear and tire wear
Reference: AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, 5th Edition, Chapter 13.2.2 (Dec
2003).
(1) Uses the highest provided values from the reference (Table 13.2.2-2) for conservatively estimating
emissions of Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP) which assumes vehicles are traveling on publicly
accessible roads.
The following equations were used for paved roads:
EF = k(sL/2)°'65(W/3)L5 -C
VMT = (Ore Processed/10 tons per load)* miles/trip * 2 trips/load
EFext = EF [(N-p)/(N)]
E = EFext * VMT *wt%
Variable Name
Units
Description
E
lb/year
Air emissions of speciated pollutant
EF
lb/VMT
Emission factor
EFext
lb/VMT
Emission factor corrected for natural mitigation
VMT
miles
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
k
0.082 lb/VMT
Particle Size Multiplier, pounds per vehicle mile
travel (VMT)(1)
sL
g/m2
Road surface silt loading
W
tons
Mean vehicle weight
P
days
Number of days with >0.01 inches of precipitation
per year
N
days
Number of days in the averaging period (e.g., 365
for annual)
wt%
%
Weight % of pollutant in soil
C
lb/VMT
Emission factor for 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust,
brake wear and tire wear
Reference: AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA, 5th Edition, Chapter 13.2.1 (Dec
2003).
(1) Uses value provided by reference (Table 13.2.1-1) for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP).
Shown below is a sample calculation for an unpaved public road from the Sooner chat
pile:
Input Data:
k = 6.0 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly
accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008616
7
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
s = 10% (based on plant roads for stone quarrying and processing, Table 13.2.2.-
1)
W = 11 tons
a = 1 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly
accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)
c = 0.3 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly
accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)
d = 0.3 (based on constant for PM-30 assuming vehicles are traveling on publicly
accessible roads, Table 13.2.2-2)
S= 45 mph
M = 4%
C = 0.00047 lb/VMT (based on constant for PM-30, Table 13.2.2-4)
wt% = 0.0038 lead
EF = k(s/12)a(S/30))d-C
(M/0.5)c
= 6.0 (10/12)1(45/30)0'3 - 0.00047 lbs/VMT
(4/0.5)03
EF =3.026 lbs/VMT
VMT = (80,000 tons/10)*0.5 miles/trip*2 trips
= 8,000 miles
E = EF x [(365 - p)/365] x VMT x wt%
= 3.026 lbs/VMT * [(365-100)/365] x 8,000 miles * 0.0038
E = 66.58 lbs. of lead/year
Shown below is a sample calculation for a paved public road from the Sooner chat pile:
Input Data:
k = 0.082 (based on constant for PM-30, Table 13.2.1-1)
W = 11 tons
sL= 0.015 g/m2 (based on constant for limited access roadways, Table 13.2.1-3)
C = 0.00047 lb/VMT (based on constant for PM-30, Table 13.2.1-2)
wt% = 0.0038 lead
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008617
8
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
EF = k(sL/2)°'65(W/3)L5 -C
= 0.082 (0.015/2)0.65(11/3)1.5-0.00047
= 0.023 lb/VMT
VMT = (80,000 tons/10)*0.375 miles/trip*2 trips
= 6,000 miles
E = EF x [1 - p/ (4N)] x VMT x wt%
= 0.0231b/VMT*(l-(100/(4*365)))*6,000 miles*0.0038
= 0.497 lbs, of lead/year
5.0 References
AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization
Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RIFS Program. September 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988. Control Of Open Fugitive Dust
Sources. EPA-450/3-88-008,C. Prepared by Cowherd, et al. September 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent
for RIFS for OU4. December 2003.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008618
9
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008619
10
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Tables
008620
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008621
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table D-1
Summary of Emissions Estimates
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Emissions Estimates
Cadmium Lead Zinc
Source Category (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
Loading and Handling of Chat 0.05 0.91 12.51
Wind Erosion from Chat Piles 2.61 29.00 612.76
Wind Erosion from Flotation Tailings Ponds 2.10 310.28 380.01
Unpaved Roads 7.97 332.90 1,752.19
Paved Roads 0.23 9.61 50.56
Estimated Emissions, Loading and
Handling of Chat
Cadmium Lead Zinc
Source Name (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
Flotation Tailing Ponds
Ottawa
Bird Dog
Pioneer
Lawyers
Semple
John Beaver
Skelton
Atlas
Blue Goose
Central Mill
Chat Piles
Atlas 0.008 0.08 1.70
Bird Dog
Adams-Mudd (Barret)
Pioneer
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICI ES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-1.DOC
008622
1
Estimated Emissions, Wind Erosion
Estimated Emissions, Roads
Cadmium Lead Zinc Cadmium Lead Zinc
(Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
0.10
8.72
19.48
1.10
255.58
205.86
0.08
4.06
13.21
0.02
8.08
6.09
0.19
0.86
11.83
0.04
1.25
7.08
0.03
1.39
5.82
0.05
2.90
10.14
0.07
5.08
18.95
0.42
22.35
81.53
0.07
0.01
0.04
0.16
0.83
0.13
0.42
1.80
17.57
2.78
8.85
38.09
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table D-1
Summary of Emissions Estimates
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Source Category
Loading and Handling of Chat
Wind Erosion from Chat Piles
Wind Erosion from Flotation Tailings Ponds
Unpaved Roads
Paved Roads
Emissions Estimates
Cadmium
(Ib/yr)
0.05
2.61
2.10
7.97
0.23
Lead
(Ib/yr)
0.91
29.00
310.28
332.90
9.61
Zinc
(Ib/yr)
12.51
612.76
380.01
1,752.19
50.56
Estimated Emissions, Loading and
Handling of Chat
Source Name
Semple
Sooner
Howe
Ottawa
Gordon
Western (Anna Beaver)
Western (John Beaver)
OKO
Kenoyer
St. Joe
Fisher (Mahutska)
Royal (Thompson)
Lawyers
Admiralty
Skelton
Blue Goose
Cadmium Lead
(Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.16
0.40
0.10
Zinc
(Ib/yr)
2.38
2.87
3.61
1.95
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICI ES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-1.DOC
008623
Estimated Emissions, Wind Erosion
Estimated Emissions, Roads
Cadmium
(Ib/yr)
Lead
(Ib/yr)
Zinc
(Ib/yr)
Cadmium Lead Zinc
(Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
0.06
0.64
13.55
-
0.52
5.74
121.32
-
0.05
0.53
11.13
-
0.10
1.16
24.51
-
0.03
0.34
7.09
-
0.27
2.96
62.64
-
0.03
0.31
6.65
-
0.03
0.36
7.68
-
0.12
1.31
27.67
-
0.14
1.56
33.03
-
0.17
1.93
40.74
-
0.02
0.18
3.80
-
0.19
2.09
44.21
-
0.27
3.00
63.45
-
0.17
1.85
39.01
-
0.14
1.57
33.06
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table D-1
Summary of Emissions Estimates
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Emissions Estimates
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Source Category
(Ib/yr)
(Ib/yr)
(Ib/yr)
Loading and Handling of Chat
0.05
0.91
12.51
Wind Erosion from Chat Piles
2.61
29.00
612.76
Wind Erosion from Flotation Tailings Ponds
2.10
310.28
380.01
Unpaved Roads
7.97
332.90
1,752.19
Paved Roads
0.23
9.61
50.56
Estimated Emissions, Loading and
Handling of Chat
Cadmium Lead Zinc
Source Name (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
Pearl (Bill Baily)
Unpaved Road From Chat Pile
Atlas
Sooner
Ottawa
Fisher (Mahutska)
Admiralty
Paved Road From Chat Pile
Atlas
Sooner
Ottawa
Fisher (Mahutska)
Admiralty
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\ 3
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-1.DOC
008624
Estimated Emissions, Wind Erosion Estimated Emissions, Roads
Cadmium Lead Zinc Cadmium Lead Zinc
(Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr) (Ib/yr)
0.03 0.28 5.93
3.19
133.16
700.87
1.59
66.58
350.44
1.20
49.94
262.83
1.20
49.94
262.83
0.80
33.29
175.22
0.06
2.48
13.08
0.01
0.50
2.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
1.32
6.97
0.13
5.30
27.90
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT_2005-1028\APPEND ICI ES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-1.DOC
008625
4
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table D-2
Sampling Information Used to Estimate Lead, Cadmium, and Zinc Emissions
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Source Category
Sampling Data Used to Estimate Emissions
Loading and Handling of Chat
Average Bulk Chat Concentrations for Each
Individual Chat Pile
Wind Erosion from Chat Piles
Combined Average Surface Chat Concentrations for
the Seven Chat Piles Sampled
Wind Erosion from Flotation Ponds
Average Surface Fine Tailings Concentrations for
Each Individual Flotation Pond
Unpaved Roads
Combined Average Concentrations of Bulk Chat,
Surface Chat, Washed Fines, Flotation Tailings, and
Surface Tailings
Paved Roads
Combined Average Concentrations of Bulk Chat,
Surface Chat, Washed Fines, Flotation Tailings, and
Surface Tailings
Reference: Draft: Preliminary Site Characterization Summary, Tar Creek OU4 Ri/FS Program, Sept 2005.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-2.DOC
008626
1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: AIR EMISSIONS TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-2.DOC
008627
2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Table D-3
Pollutant Content (weight fraction, wt%) of Unpaved Roads and Surface of Paved Roads
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
0.0001
0.0038
0.0199
Reference: Draft: Preliminary Site Characterization Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS Program, Sept 2005.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXD\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-3.DOC
008628
1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMSSIONSTM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD_TABLED-3.DOC
008629
2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Figures
008630
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008631
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Sooner
118,2, A
Ottawi
46.9, >
Vv*- ¦¦
Bird Dog
156,. a
. Howe
55
Fisher (Mahutska)
102.5, A
(Anna Be£^&r)
127.6%#
Western
's mudd
p43?
Pearl (Billy Baily)
.awyers
Pioneer 'k
98.8
Skelton
102.5
imira!
Central Mill
#
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Bird_Dog.mxd 10\6\05 S Daigle
008632
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Chat Pile
Tailings Pond
N
A
Chat Pile Name: Lawyers
Pile Height, Ft: 157.1, A(Active Chat Pile)
¦ Miles
0.4
0.8
1.6
FIGURE D-1
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Emission Sources
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTER NATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIXD: AIR EMISSIONSTM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX D\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXD.DOC
008633
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Appendix E
Air Modeling
008634
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008635
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
CH2MHILL
Appendix E
Technical Memorandum
Air Modeling
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM
CH2M HILL, Inc.
EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,
Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW
February 3, 2005
05-8225
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED UNDER:
DATE:
DCN NUMBER::
1.0 Background
This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the air modeling activities completed by
CH2M HILL as part of the activities being completed by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Operable Unit 4 (OU4) at the Tar Creek Superfund Site located in
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. This work was completed under Contract No. 68-W6-0025,
and the approved project work plan and subsequent work plan revisions under Work
Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW.
The Respondents are responsible for completing a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) of OU4 under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that was
executed on December 9, 2003 (EPA, 2003). As part of this agreement, EPA is
responsible for completing the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and the
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). CH2M HILL is working for EPA and is responsible
for the HHRA. Air modeling is an important component of the HHRA for this site
because of potential air concentrations and deposition to soils.
In Risk Assessment Work Plan Revision Request No. 1 (WPRR01), CH2M HILL defined
the approach and scope for the air modeling to support the HHRA. Task 6.3 of WPRR01
defined the steps in completing the air modeling. This approach included the following
activities:
• Estimation of emissions
• Identification of receptor information
• Development of source treatment method
• Development of soil depletion method
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 1 FEBRUARY 2006
APPENDIX E\TC_FIFIRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008636
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
• Execution of dispersion model
• Result evaluation
The approach used in the air modeling analysis was defined in an October 10, 2005
memorandum from Don Caniparoli (CH2M HILL) to Dr. Ghassan Khoury (EPA). This
memorandum is included as Attachment A of this TM.
The dispersion modeling analysis generated information to be used in the HHRA. Air
concentrations from current sources were determined at the receptors of interest.
Deposition was estimated throughout the receptor grid 30 years from the present. This
30-year deposition rate was estimated by determining the deposition rate through
modeling, adding a background concentration, and depleting this concentration over the
30-year period by using the Raman Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous
Waste Combustion Facilities (EPA, 2005) as described below.
Three source categories were included in the modeling: (1) loading and handling of chat,
(2) wind erosion from chat piles and flotation ponds, and (3) unpaved and paved roads.
Emissions of lead, cadmium, and zinc were included in the air quality analysis.
2.0 Estimation of Emissions
Emissions were estimated as described in the Air Emissions Estimates Technical
Memorandum, Appendix D. Based on information in the Draft Preliminary Site
Characterization Summary (AATA, 2005), emissions from 21 chat piles and 10 flotation
ponds were modeled. Five of these chat piles were also modeled as active chat piles.
These sources were considered to be representative of current and future emissions.
3.0 Identification of Receptors
For the air concentration analysis, a discrete receptor grid of the 46 houses analyzed in
the draft HHRA was established with 12 receptors corresponding to ground water
monitoring locations. Note that three of the ground water monitoring location receptors
are coincident with the house locations, so a total of 55 receptors were modeled in the
concentration analysis. Locations for these receptors are shown in Figure E-l.
For the deposition analysis, a 500-meter spaced grid was established for the entire OU4
area. In addition, a fine grid of receptors was placed around each source. Some of the fine
receptor grids overlapped due to the proximity of multiple sources. A total of 1,585
receptors were established for the deposition analysis.
The terrain in the Tar Creek area is relatively flat. Because of the low-level sources used
in the analysis and the relatively flat terrain, the model was run in the flat terrain mode
with all receptor elevations set to zero.
4.0 Development of Source Treatment Method
The emissions for the sources included in the modeling were estimated by utilizing a
variety of emission factors as defined in the Air Emissions TM. Each of the chat pile and
tailings pond sources was treated as an individual area source in the model. The height of
the piles was set at the average pile height provided by the Respondents. The tailings
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008637
2
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
ponds and unpaved and paved roads were modeled as a series of ground level area
sources. Because the emissions were estimated to be representative of emissions over a
one year time period and were not based on episodic wind conditions, emissions were
modeled as if occurring every hour of the year.
5.0 Soil Depletion
Soil depletion was included in the deposition analysis. Depletion of lead, cadmium, and
zinc over time in the deposited chemicals was calculated using EPA methods as defined
below.
5.1 Soil Depletion Method
Chemicals deposited on the soil become depleted through various physical processes
such as runoff and erosion. Equations in Chapter 5 of the Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (EPA, 2005) were used to develop
a method for soil depletion. Equation 5-IE of the protocol calculates soil concentration
over exposure duration.
CstD = Ps»[l-Qxp(-ks»tP]
ks
where:
Soil concentration at time tD (mg/kg)
Deposition term (mg COPC/kg soil/yr)
COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr"1)
Time period over which deposition occurs (yr)
CStD -
Ds =
ks =
tD =
5.2 Deposition Term
Results from the deposition modeling, deposition term (mg COPC/kg soil/yr), were used
as the starting point from which to calculate the depletion term.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 3
APPENDIX E\TC HHRA DRAFTFINALRA APPENDIXE REVISED.DOC
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
5.3 Chemical of Potential Concern Soil Loss Constant
To calculate the Chemical of Potential Concern (COPC) soil loss constant, ks, the COPC-
specific loss resulting from leaching, runoff, erosion, biotic and abiotic degradation, and
volatilization were estimated as shown in Equation 5-2A of the protocol, and presented
below.
ks = ksg + kse + ksr + ksl + ksv
where:
Ks = COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr"1)
Ksg = COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr"1)
Kse = COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr"1)
Ksr = COPC loss constant due to surface runoff (yr"1)
Ksl = COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr"1)
Ksv = COPC loss constant due to volatilization (yr"1)
Equations for each COPC loss constant are provided in Appendix B of the EPA
document. Ksg and Ksv are 0 since the chemicals are metals. Values used for each
parameter are described in Table E-l.
The soil loss constant (ks) is then used to calculate the final deposition with other
physical factors.
6.0 Dispersion Modeling Analysis
Concentration and deposition were analyzed using the same model and similar methods,
as described below.
6.1 Model Selection
The air modeling analysis was conducted using the EPA Industrial Source Complex Short
Term Model (ISC3). The latest version of ISC3 (02035, available from EPA) was used in
the analysis. The ISC3 model is listed as a Preferred/Recommended model in 40 CFR
Part 51 Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Models. ISC3 is a steady-state Gaussian
plume model which is used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of
sources associated with an industrial complex. It is the standard model used to assess air
quality impacts from a number of industrial sources including the area sources present at
the Tar Creek site. The model was run to calculate current air concentrations at the 46
homes of interest plus the ground water well locations, and 30-year dry and wet
deposition. Standard regulatory default modeling options were used, consistent with EPA
policy. A full description of the ISC3 model can be found in the User's Guide.
The model was run to calculate deposition and concentration. The ISC3 model calculates
deposition and concentration and has a depletion option which subtracts the amount
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 4
APPENDIX E\TC HHRA DRAFTFINALRA APPENDIXE REVISED.DOC
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
deposited from the concentration. However, this option is a very computer-intensive
option. Therefore, because of the size of the runs and the resources required to make such
runs, the model was run without use of this depletion option. This approach will slightly
over estimate the modeling results.
6.2 Terrain
The terrain in the Tar Creek area is relatively flat. Because of the low-level sources used
in the analysis and the relatively flat terrain, the model was run in the flat terrain with all
receptor elevations set at zero.
6.3 Land Use
The land use in the Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4 area is mostly rural. Consequently the
model was run using rural dispersion coefficients.
6.4 Meteorology
The modeling analysis was performed using a standard five years of meteorological data
for each time period. The surface meteorological data was obtained from the University
of Oklahoma MESONET network for the Miami, Oklahoma site (www.mesonet.org).
Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and precipitation values were obtained from
this station. Miami is located approximately 10 kilometers to the southwest of the site.
Cloud cover data were derived from surface observations data obtained from the National
Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for the National Weather Service site in Joplin, Missouri.
These data were used to calculate stability. Joplin is located approximately 15 km to the
northeast of the site. Mixing Height data was obtained from NCDC for the Norman,
Oklahoma, station. Missing data, where possible, were interpolated; otherwise Holzworth
average seasonal mixing heights for Oklahoma City were used as a substitute. Five years
of data from 1999 through 2003 were used in the analysis. Each time-period analysis
used the same five-year set of meteorological data. Regulatory modeling requires the use
of five years of data as it is considered statistically representative of longer-term
meteorological periods. Therefore, it was employed as representative of time periods
throughout the next 30 years in Tar Creek. Wind roses for each of the years and a
composite wind rose are shown in Attachment B to this TM.
6.5 Particle Size Distribution
Deposition modeling is dependent upon the particle size distribution (PSD). Data
collected as part of and reported in Draft: Preliminary Site Characterization Summary,
Tar Creek OU4 RIFS Program, September 2005, was used to determine the PSD. Data
from sources with particle size data was averaged to determine a representative PSD for
all sources at the site.
There were six samples for chat piles and two samples for fine tailings. The particles in
these samples were partitioned into particle size categories ranging from 75,000 microns
(|im) or less to 1.4 |im or less and were represented as percent by dry weight. For the
purposes of this analysis, only those particles which could reasonably become airborne as
a result of wind erosion or disturbance of soils were needed. A particle size of 75 |im was
chosen as the maximum that would become airborne to remain consistent with previous
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008640
5
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
studies (Shields, December, 2002). This report maintained that only particles less than
106 |im would become airborne. The sample data was averaged for the chat piles and for
the fine tailings and then was re-weighted to partition the fraction of particles 75 |im and
less to equal 100 percent of the total particulate emissions. The particle size distribution
used in the modeling is shown in Table E-2.
6.6 Existing Soil Concentrations
For the deposition analysis, existing soil concentrations were obtained from data
collected for the RI from residential areas, transition zones, the smelter-affected area,
rural areas, and background. Data were collected from both 0 to 1-inch and 0 to 6-inch
layers. In some cases, multiple samples were taken at a location. These results were
averaged together, regardless of depth, to produce one unique value for each location.
Table 1 presents the number of each type of sample and the number of averaged sample
points used in the analysis.
TABLE 1
Description of Sampling Data Used to Determine Existing Soil Concentrations
Description
Depth of Samples
Number of individual
sample points
Number of sampling
locations
Residential
0-1" and 0-6"
389
46
Transition Zone
0-6"
22
8
Smelter-Affected
0-6"
5
5
Rural Area
0-1"
56
56
Background
0-6"
8
7
Concentrations were interpolated to estimate the existing soil concentrations at locations
spanning the entire modeling domain. A grid with 100-meter resolution was produced to
coincide with results from the deposition model. All points that were interpolated to a
value less than the lowest detected concentration were replaced by the lowest detected
concentration.
The resulting soil concentrations at 100-meter spacing were added to modeled deposition
results to calculate the soil concentration of each COPC. For the model results that
considered depletion, the existing soil concentrations were depleted as well to represent
the soil concentration remaining after 30 years.
6.7 Particle Density
Particle density is a variable required for the deposition analysis. A particle density of
1.35 g/cm3 was used in the analysis for all three COPCs. This is the lower range of
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008641
6
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
particle densities for soil. Although the metals would have a higher density, they are only
a fraction of the material which could be emitted into the air along with other background
soils. A higher density would tend to fall out more quickly in the vicinity of the source,
while a lower density would travel a greater distance before becoming deposited to the
soils. The value of 1.35 g/cm3 is considered appropriate for this analysis.
7.0 Presentation of Results
The deposition results (future soil concentrations) are presented in Figures E-2 and E-3
for lead with and without deposition respectively, E-4 and E-5 for zinc with and without
depletion respectively, and E-6 and E-7 for cadmium with and without depletion,
respectively. The ambient air concentrations are presented in Figures E-8, E-9, and E-
10, for lead, zinc, and cadmium, respectively.
8.0 References
AATA International, Inc. (AATA), 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization
Summary, Tar Creek OU4 RI/FSProgram. September 2005.
Oklahoma Mesonet. www.mesonet.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Administrative Order on Consent
for Tar Creek RI/FSfor OU4. December 2003.
U. S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Raman Health Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. EPA530-R-05-006.
September 2005.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008642
7
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008643
8
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Tables
008644
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINALHUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED.DOC
008645
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table E-1
Soil Loss Constant Variables as Calculated by EPA and CH2M HILL
Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
COPC
Loss
Constant
Variable
Value Used
Basis for CH2M HILL Value
Ksg
Kse
Ksr, Ksl
Ksl
Ksl
Ksl
Kse
Kse
Kse
Kse
Kse
Kse
Kse
RO, Average annual
surface runoff, cm/yr
Ksr, Ksl Theta, Soil volumetric water
content (ml water/cm3 soil)
Ksr, Ksl Zs, Soil mixing zone, cm
Ksr, Ksl Kds, Soil-water partition
coefficient (ml water/gram
soil)
Ksr, Ksl BD, Soil bulk density, gram
soil/cm soil
P, Annual annual
precipitation, cm/yr
I, Average annual irrigation,
cm/yr
Ev, Average annual
evapotranspiration, cm/yr
RF, USLE rainfall factor yr"
K, USLE erodibility factor,
ton/acre
LS, USLE length-slope
factor
C, USLE cover
management factor
(unitless)
PF, USLE supporting
practice factor (unitless)
a, empirical intercept
coefficient (unitless)
AL, Total watershed area
receiving deposition, m2
0 Because the COPCs are metals, no biodegradation
was assumed.
0 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 0.
12.5 EPA guidance recommends using the map value
from Geraghty et al, 1973.
0.2 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 0.2.
2.5 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 2.
Metal specific Appendix A of the protocol gives recommended
values.
1.7 EPA guidance recommends a default value of 1.5.
100 EPA guidance recommends using site-specific data.
Plate 2 of Geraghty et al, 1973 lists 40 inches per
year in the northeastern corner of Oklahoma.
0 or 33 EPA guidance recommends using site-specific data.
CH2M HILL is not aware of any on-site irrigation.
78 EPA guidance recommends using site-specific data.
Plate 13 of Geraghty et al, 1973 lists 33 inches per
year in the northeastern corner of Oklahoma.
250 Protocol recommends a value in the range of 50 -
300. Site specific value selected based on
Wischmeier and Smith (1978)
0.39 Protocol recommends a default value of 0.39.
1.5 Protocol recommends a default value of 1.5.
0.3 This factor is site-specific. Protocol recommends
values up to 0.1 for dense vegetation, values
between 0.1 to 0.7 for agricultural row crops and
values up to 1 for bare soil.
1 Protocol recommends a default value of 1 for sites
that have no runoff or erosion control.
1.2 The final version of the protocol recommends using
1.2 for total watershed areas between 10 and 100
square miles.
1.036 E8 This variable is site specific. The value used is
equivalent to 40 square miles, the area of the site.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 1
APPENDIX E\TC HHRA DRAFTFINALRA APPENDIXE REVISED TABLEE-1.DOC
FEBRUARY 2006
008646
-------
Table E-1
Soil Loss Constant Variables as Calculated by EPA and CH2M HILL
Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
COPC
Loss
Constant
Variable
Value Used
Basis for CH2M HILL Value
Kse
b, Empirical slope
0.125
Protocol recommends a default value of 0.125.
coefficient (unitless)
Kse
ER, Soil enrichment ratio
1
Protocol recommends a default value of 1 for
(unitless)
inorganics in the absence of site-specific data.
Notes:
Ksg COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr"1)
Kse COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr1)
Ksr COPC loss constant due to surface runoff (yr1)
Ksl COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr1)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT-FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 2
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXE_REVISED_TABLEE-1.DOC
008647
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table E-2
Particle Size Distribution
Tar Creek Superfund Site OU4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Particle Size (|jm)
Chat Piles
Fine Tailings
75
0.39
0.21
35
0.17
0.17
22
0.13
0.16
13.1
0.10
0.14
9.5
0.08
0.11
6.5
0.06
0.09
3.3
0.04
0.06
1.4
0.02
0.04
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_TABLEE-2.DOC
008648
1
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_TABLEE-2.DOC
008649
2
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Figures
008650
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE.DOC
008651
OCTOBER 2005
-------
•.&?-•*• '•'¦* Eli 125 itcSk rai
arawHlf i»Ji»
¦y &»s$ ¦ \ *••.
t" ' "l I
* |§P|jj . t ,v °|J,
' . 1-: p'
Ifcj: Jr^
A-^L't ¦ '
£,T
o
oo
o
¦W
-
¦:<* - it - s
~- v ¦ '
•'I ^
O o
" o
m
¦ ¦ v%;-i
¦
IsilM
.srr '¦ *¦ as?:-.- ,¦ *•¦ .... y ^ p< ¦ m
* u,*4 • i. to | .v
i . _ ^: >-^1 " 4c...." isr FSB
• -r iffife.Jiri :•*'• ",'¦ . . %'i
¦mm
|l»:
B 1EPB
ySr^::;®
} ° oOO
o0°o .
iffcr ' ," ' >'*¦- ,1 S$R_£^^HL
:
l. .for1'®- ?>~1w»*iV
1
I* s' !- rs
^ j i ¦ Ht
* • • ''/jii»
n * ¦--". "r *
1 -
: '
•*:*."' V.'r
V> ' •
- WM kj -¦»• •.¦ «;.;**•
%:: ° " '
0 0
* 0 0
w naa^ .
¦MMIH
#
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Rural_Residence_Sampling.mxd 1 D\23\D5 S Daigle
008652
Legend
Site Boundary
O Air Modeling Recepter Sites
N
A
0.5
I Miles
FIGURE E-1
Tar Creek OU4
Air Concentration Modeling Receptors
•AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
A ATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins. Colorado. USA
-------
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\leadwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\06 S Daigle
008653
LEGEND
Contour (100 ppm Intervals)
Site Boundary
Modeled Chat Pile Emission Source
Modeled Tailings Pond Emission Source
R! Residential Samples
R! Background Samples
Rural Sampling Sites
N
A
I Miles
0.5
Figure E-2
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Lead Soil Concentrations After 30 Years
Includes Depletion (in ppm)
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
LEGEND
CH2IWHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\leadwithout_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\06 S Daigle
008654
Contour (100 ppm Intervals)
Site Boundary
Modeled Chat Pile Emission Source
Modeled Tailings Pond Emission Source
~ Rl Residential Samples
Rl Background Samples
Rural Sampling Sites
N
A
I Miles
0.5
Figure E-3
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Lead Soil Concentrations After 30 Years
Without Depletion (in ppm)
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
*
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Zincwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle
008655
LEGEND
Contour (50 ppm Intervals)
Site Boundary
Modeled Chat Pile Emission Source
Modeled Tailings Pond Emission Source
Rl Residential Samples
Rl Background Samples
Rural Sampling Sites
0.5
N
A
I Miles
Figure E-4
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Zinc Soil Concentrations After 30 Years
Includes Depletion (in ppm)
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
LEGEND
CH2IV1HILL
Wchuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\TarCreek\MXD\Zincwithout_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle
008656
Contour (1000 ppm Intervals)
Site Boundary
Modeled Chat Pile Emission Source
Modeled Tailings Pond Emission Source
Rl Residential Samples
Rl Background Samples
Rural Sampling Sites
N
A
I Miles
0.5
Figure E-5
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Zinc Soil Concentrations After 30 Years
Without Depletion (in ppm)
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\TarCreek\MXD\Cadwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle
008657
LEGEND
Contour (0.5 ppm Intervals)
Site Boundary
Modeled Chat Pile Emission Source
Modeled Tailings Pond Emission Source
Rl Residential Samples
Rl Background Samples
Rural Sampling Sites
N
A
I Miles
0.5
Figure E-6
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Cadmium Soil Concentrations After 30 Years
Includes Depletion (in ppm)
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATAINTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creel4MXD\Zincwith_Dep_1_31_06.mxd 1\31\05 S Daigle
008658
LEGEND
Contour (5.0 ppm Intervals)
Site Boundary
Modeled Chat Pile Emission Source
Modeled Tailings Pond Emission Source
Rl Residential Samples
Rl Background Samples
Rural Sampling Sites
N
A
I Miles
0.5
Figure E-7
Tar Creek OU4
Cadmium Soil Concentrations After 30 Years
Without Depletion (in ppm)
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATAINTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
flHMpRM
:r'S5H
:;-v \ *
, .» 1 . '3
Tl:~'V W£i-:- H '
gsL'-SS * . tf """ ¦¦ '¦¦ IV *
-w " •
LEGEND
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\TarCreel4MXD\Bird_Dog.mxd 10\6\05 S Daigle
008659
Contour
Site Boundary
Chat Pile
Tailings Pond
N
A
I Miles
0.4
0.8
1.6
FIGURE E-8
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations for Lead
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTER NATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
9
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\TarCreel4MXD\Bird_Dog.mxd 10\6\05 S Daigle
008660
LEGEND
Contour
Site Boundary
Chat Pile
Tailings Pond
N
A
I Miles
0.4
0.8
1.6
FIGURE E-9
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations for Zinc
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATA INTER NATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
0.002
lti£3 0.0015 |
£0.001 gj?
10.0005
0.0005
0.003
0.001
0.0025
0.0015
0.0005
0.002
L_ssS^B
10.004
fi) 0.003
0.0035
0.0025
<'9 i
0.002 f X
0.0005
0.001
0.003
0.0005
0.0015
|m 0.0025
ft 0.002 ¦
0.001
0.0015
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
CH2MHILL
\\chuckwagon\GIS\NWOFiles\Tar Creek\MXD\Bird_Dog.mxd 10\6\05 SDaigle
008661
LEGEND
Contour
Site Boundary
Chat Pile
Tailings Pond
N
A
¦ Miles
0.4
0.8
1.6
FIGURE E-10
Tar Creek OU4
Modeled Ambient Air Concentrations for Cadmium
*AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY:
AATAINTERNATIONAL INC.
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
-------
Attachment A
Air Modeling Approach
008662
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE.DOC
008663
OCTOBER 2005
-------
MEMORANDUM
CH2MHILL
Air Modeling Approach for Tar Creek Human Health
Risk Assessment
TO: Ghassan Khoury
copies: Scott Irving
Barrie Selcoe
FROM: Don Caniparoli
DATE: October 13, 2005
The following summarizes the approach and key assumptions for the Air Modeling analysis
for the Tar Creek Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA).
General Approach
Air modeling will rely as much as possible on the approach used for the litigation modeling.
Major differences with the modeling include the time period to be modeled, the receptor
area, and the type of modeling. The litigation modeling looked at past emissions while the
HHRA looks at the present (i.e. 1999 - 2003) and future (i.e. 30-year). The litigation
modeling focused on receptors in the populated area corresponding to OU2 while the
HHRA modeling will focus on the rural areas corresponding to OU4. The litigation
modeling included deposition only while the HHRA modeling will include deposition and
concentration. Information from the Draft preliminary Site Characterization Summary Tar
Creek OU4 FJ/FS Program, September 2005, will be used as the basis for much of the data
used in this analysis.
• Air concentration will be modeled for lead, cadmium, and zinc for the current
conditions which will be assumed to remain at that concentration for 30 years.
• Deposition will be modeled (for soil concentration) for the future scenario for lead,
cadmium, and zinc for the 30 year period.
• Presentation information from the litigation modeling, such as the background maps,
will be used to display modeling results for use in the HHRA.
Emissions Sources
• Modeling will include the 20 chat piles and 10 tailings ponds that were the focus of the
Operable Unit 4 Remedial Investigation conducted by the Respondents. In addition the
Atlas pile will be modeled which is an active area with chat and tailings. Only these
piles and tailings ponds will be modeled and shall be considered representative of OU4.
All other sources will be considered insignificant in comparison to these.
• Currently active chat piles will be included in the modeling. We believe this to be the
Sooner, Admiralty No. 4 and Atlas piles.
• Emission from chat piles will include wind erosion sources and active pile sources.
Emissions from the tailings ponds will include only wind erosion sources. Other
sources will include hauling on unpaved roads associated with active pile sources.
TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTA.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2005 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
008664
1
-------
AIR MODELING APPROACH FOR TAR CREEK HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• Data from all five years of meteorological data will be used to support the emissions
estimates as needed. Wind speed above 12 mph at mean pile height will be averaged
over the 5 year period. Number of days with rainfall greater than 0.01 inches will be
averaged over the 5 year period.
• Pile heights will be estimated as current mean pile height and will remain constant over
the 30 year evaluation period. Mean pile height will be estimated by taking the base
area and the volume of material from the site characterization report, and assuming a
cone shape.
• Volume of material processed from active piles on an annual basis will be estimated
from current volumes being removed on a daily basis.
• The mean sample concentration from samples collected at a source will be used to
estimate emissions.
• Emissions sources and source configurations will remain constant over the 30 year
period.
• Emissions will be estimated using the methods developed in the litigation modeling. It
will not be possible to develop a factor based on wind speeds greater than 12 mph.
Instead, emissions will be assumed to occur all hours of the year.
• Particle density of the soil for emissions estimation purposes will be assumed to be 1.35
mg/l
• For each of the active chat piles, the distance to the nearest paved road will be calculated
and only the unpaved road portion will be modeled. It is assumed these conditions will
remain constant over the 30 year period.
Modeling Approach
• As with the litigation modeling, all modeling will use the ISC3 model with the same five
year meteorological data set
• Physical characteristics of sources will not change over time (e.g. pile heights and source
dimensions) and active piles will be assumed to be constant over the time period.
• Particle density will be assumed to be 1.35 milligrams per liter (mg/l) unless
information from the current sampling will lead to a more refined understanding
specific to this area.
• Particle size will be derived from soil samples presented in the site characterization
report. Information on a particular type of source (i.e. chat base, chat pile), will be
averaged and assumed to be representative of all similar source types
• Unless a more detailed understanding of loading and unloading activities can be
obtained, CH2M HILL will assume emissions from the hauling activities will occur from
the active chat pile to the closest off-site boundary. CH2M HILL assumes that the
activity of each active chat pile is the same.
• Receptors will be established on a 500 meter grid throughout the site with a 100 meter
grid placed around the sources. No receptors will be placed on the sources.
• Deposition will be based on constant emissions over the time period but a depletion
factor will be developed based on the EPA hazardous waste combustion facilities
guidance.
TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTA.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2005 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
008665
2
-------
Attachment B
Wind Roses
008666
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E: AIR MODELING TM
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE.DOC
008667
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
WIND ROSE PLOT
1999 Wind Rose using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
| DATE
11/13/2004
COMPANY NAME
> 11-°6 I DISPLAY
8.49- 11.06 Wind Speed
UNIT
m/s
5.40-8.49 AVG. WIND SPEED
3.64 m/s
CALM WINDS
7.46%
1.80 - 3.34 I ORIENTATION
Direction
0.51 -1.80 (blowing from)
| PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
1999
| Jan 1 - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
PROJECT/PLOT NO.
WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-enuironmental.com
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_1999WINDROSE.DOC
008668
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_1999WINDROSE.DOC
008669
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
WIND ROSE PLOT
2000 Wind Rose Using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
| DATE
11/13/2004
COMPANY NAME
> 11-°6 I DISPLAY
8.49- 11.06 Wind Speed
UNIT
m/s
5.40-8.49 AVG. WIND SPEED
3.67 m/s
CALM WINDS
5.79%
1.80 - 3.34 I ORIENTATION
Direction
0.51 -1.80 (blowing from)
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
2000
| Jan 1 - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
PROJECT/PLOT NO.
WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-enuironmental.com
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2000WINDROSE.DOC
008670
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2000WINDROSE.DOC
008671
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
WIND ROSE PLOT
2001 Wind Rose Using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
| DATE
11/13/2004
COMPANY NAME
> 11-°6 I DISPLAY
8.49- 11.06 Wind Speed
UNIT
m/s
5.40-8.49 AVG. WIND SPEED
3.53 m/s
CALM WINDS
7.23%
1.80 - 3.34 I ORIENTATION
Direction
0.51 -1.80 (blowing from)
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
2001
| Jan 1 - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
PROJECT/PLOT NO.
WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-enuironmental.com
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2001WINDROSE.DOC
008672
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2001WINDROSE.DOC
008673
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
WIND ROSE PLOT
2002 Wind Rose Using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
| DATE
11/13/2004
COMPANY NAME
> 11-°6 I DISPLAY
8.49- 11.06 Wind Speed
UNIT
m/s
5.40-8.49 AVG. WIND SPEED
3.57 m/s
| CALM WINDS
3.83%
1.80 - 3.34 I ORIENTATION
Direction
0.51 -1.80 (blowing from)
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
2002
| Jan 1 - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
PROJECT/PLOT NO.
WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-enuironmental.com
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2002WINDROSE.DOC
008674
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2002WINDROSE.DOC
008675
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
WIND ROSE PLOT
2003 Wind Rose Using Miami, OK Hourly Mesonet Data
Wind Speed (m/s)
| DATE
11/13/2004
COMPANY NAME
> 11-°6 I DISPLAY
8.49- 11.06 Wind Speed
UNIT
m/s
5.40-8.49 AVG. WIND SPEED
3.68 m/s
CALM WINDS
7.12%
1.80 - 3.34 I ORIENTATION
Direction
0.51 -1.80 (blowing from)
PLOT YEAR-DATE-TIME
2003
| Jan 1 - Dec 31
Midnight - 11 PM
PROJECT/PLOT NO.
WRPLOT View 3.5 by Lakes Environmental Software - www.lakes-enuironmental.com
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2003WINDROSE.DOC
008676
OCTOBER 2005
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E ATTACHMENT B
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT_2005-1028\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIX E\TC_HHRA_DRAFTRA_APPENDIXE_ATTACHMENTB_2003WINDROSE.DOC
008677
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Appendix F
Modeled Biota Concentrations Using BCFs
008678
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008679
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement A
Estimation of Chemical Concentrations in Small Game (Bird and Rabbit)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Small Mammal
Chemical
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)1
Soil-Small Mammal
Accumulation Factor
(BAF)2
Measure
Concentration in
Small Mammal dty
(mg/kg)
Concentration in
Small Mammal wet
(mg/kg)3
Cadmium
2.74E+01
6.96E+01
Insectivorous & generalist mammal
1.91E+03
6.10E+02
Lead
4.41 E+02
2.66E+00
Insectivorous & general ist mammal
1.17E+03
3.75E+02
Zinc
5.39E+03
1.64E+01
Herbivorous & generalist mammal
8.82E+04
2.82E+04
Notes:
1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).
2 BAFs are obtained from Sample et al. 1998.
3 Wet Weight based concentrations are estimated assuming a 68% water content (EPA, 1993).
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Equation:
Concentration in Small Mammal = Soil Concentration x BAF
Reference:
Sample, B. E., J. J. Beauchamp, R. A. Efroymson and G. W. Suter. 1998b. Development and validation of bioaccumulation models for small mammals.
Oak Ridge, TN: Lockheed Martin Corp.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I,
EPA/600/R-93/187a, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixF_Revised_RAGS-D_Table7.4.xls (SmallGame-Rev)
Revised 02/09/2006 1 of 1 02/09/2006 12:34 PM
008680
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement B
Estimation of Chemical Concentrations in Beef and Milk (dairy)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Beef and Milk
Soil Exposure
Point
BTF for
Concentration
Concentration in
Concentration in
Concentration
Forage
in Forage
BTF for Beef
BTF for Milk
Beef
Milk
Chemical
(Cs)1
(Brforaqe)
(Pr)
(Babeef)
(Bami|k)
(Abeef)
(Amilk)
Cadmium
2.74E+01
3.64E-01
1.0E+01
1.2E-04
6.5E-06
1.27E-02
6.90E-04
Lead
4.41 E+02
4.50E-02
2.0E+01
3.0E-04
2.5E-04
1.21E-01
1.01E-01
Zinc
5.39E+03
2.50E-01
1.3E+03
9.0E-05
3.3E-05
1.37E+00
4.94E-01
Notes:
1 Soil Exposure Point Concentrations are based on 95% UCL of the mean (see Table 3.2).
Equations:
Abeef = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Babeef x MF
Amilk = [S (Fi x Qpi x Pr) + Qs x Cs x Bs ] x Bamilk x MF
Pr = Cs x Br
where:
Abeef Concentration in beef (mg/kg FW tissue)
Amiik Concentration in milk (mg/kg milk)
Pr Concentration in forage due to root uptake (mg/kg)
Fj Fraction of forage grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (cattle) (unitless)
QPi Quantity of forage eaten by the animal (cattle) per day (kg DW plant/day)
Pj Concentration in each plant type I eaten by the animal (cattle) (mg/kg DW)
Qs Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (cattle) each day (kg/day)
Cs Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg/kg)
Bs Soil bioavailability factor (unitless)
Babeef Biotransfer factor for beef (day/kg FW tissue)
Bami|k Biotransfer factor for milk (day/kg WW tissue)
MF Metabolism factor (unitless)
B^forage Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for forage (unitless)
Equations and input parameters are obtained from EPA, 2005.
References:
EPA, 2005: Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities.
Calculated
Calculated
1
9.27
Calculated
0.5
EPC (Table 3.2)
1
(see above)
(see above)
1
(see above)
TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixF_Revised_RAGS-D_Table7.4.xls (BeefMilk-Rev)
Revised 02/09/2006 1 of 1 02/09/2006 12:35 PM
008681
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement C
Concentrations Used to Estimate Chemical Intake Through Ingestion of Locally Caught Fish
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Fish (All sample preparations)1
Chemical
Data Set Used
for the
Analysis
Number of
Detection
Number of
Analysis
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)2
Cadmium
All
5
77
0.30
0.84
0.17
Lead
All
28
75
0.25
3.50
0.43
Zinc
All
77
77
3.50
70.0
21.3
Notes:
1 All Sample Preparations (Fillet, Whole-eviscerated, Whole-uneviscerated)
2 The Average Concentrations were used as exposure point concentrations,
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Reference:
Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).
008682
-------
Table 7.4.RME Supplement D
Estimation of Chemical Concentrations in Aquatic Food using Log-linear Regression Models for Bioaccumulation Factors
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Aquatic Biota (Invertebrate)
Chemical
Data Set Used for
the Analysis
Sediment
Concentration^
(mg/kg)1'2
Sediment
Concentration^
(mg/kg)3
B0
B1
Concentration in
Aquatic Biotadry
(mg/kg)
Concentration in
Aquatic Biota wet
(mg/kg)4
Cadmium
All
4.0E+00
1.0E+01
0.0395
0.692
5.39E+00
1.62E+00
Lead
All
2.9E+01
7.3E+01
-0.776
0.801
5.18E+00
1.55E+00
Zinc
All
3.6E+02
9.1E+02
1.80
0.208
2.60E+02
7.81 E+01
Notes:
1 Sediment Concentrations were obtained from ODEQ, 2003.
2 The Average Detected Concentrations were used.
3 Wet Weight based concentrations are estimated assuming a 40% water content.
4 Wet Weight based concentrations are estimated assuming a 70% water content,
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.
Equation:
Log (Concentration in aquatic biota - dry weight) = B1*(log[Site Specific Sediment Concentration - dry weight]) + BO
where:
BO = Intercept.
B1 = Slope.
References:
Bechtel Jacobs, 1998b. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge
Reservation. Prepared for the US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. BJC/OR-112. August, 1998.
Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in the Tri-State Mining Area FY 2003 Final Report (Oklahoma DEQ, 2003).
TC_HHRA_DraftFinalRA_AppendixF_Revised_RAGS-D_Table7.4.xls (AquaInvert-Rev)
Revised 02/09/2006 1 of 1 02/09/2006 12:35 PM
008683
-------
Appendix G
IEUBK Modeling
008684
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008685
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table G Neighborhood-Level Blood Lead Level
Estimate (from IEUBK Model)
008686
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008687
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table G
Neighborhood-Level Blood Lead Level Estimate (from IEUBK Model)
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Exposure Point Concentrations
IEUBK Model Results
Resident
Modeled Air
Concentration
(ug/m3)
Average Measured
Soil Concentration
(mg/kg)
Average Measured
Groundwater
Concentration
(uq/L)
Statistical Weight
Geo Mean
%Above
1
0.000524
29.6
4(1)
1
1.770
0.011
2
0.000514
31.6
4(1)
1
1.789
0.013
3**
0.000374
29.1
4(1)
1
1.765
0.011
4
0.00044
54.3
4(1)
1
2.003
0.031
5**
0.00042
88.4
0.417
1
2.043
0.036
6
0.003132
34.6
4(1)
1
1.819
0.014
7
0.004144
109
4(1)
1
2.515
0.166
8
0.00163
45.4
4(1)
1
1.921
0.022
9
0.000184
53.3
4(1)
1
1.995
0.030
10
0.00024
44.3
4(1)
1
1.909
0.021
11
0.000242
71
4(1)
1
2.160
0.056
12
0.000158
24.5
4(1)
1
1.721
0.009
13
0.00016
56
4(1)
1
2.020
0.033
14
0.000242
194
4(1)
1
3.280
0.885
15
0.000246
28.8
26.2
1
3.455
1.187
16
0.000268
24
0.85
1
1.464
0.002
17
0.004718
202
4(1)
1
3.352
1.002
18
0.005252
86.3
4(1)
1
2.307
0.090
19
0.001864
17.3
4(1)
1
1.654
0.006
20
0.000278
61.3
4(1)
1
2.069
0.040
21
0.008134
53.8
4(1)
1
2.005
0.031
22
0.001678
54.1
4(1)
1
2.003
0.031
23
0.000444
45.2
4(1)
1
1.918
0.022
24
0.000172
25.3
4(1)
1
1.728
0.009
25
0.000522
18.4
4(1)
1
1.663
0.007
26
0.000424
404.8
4(1)
1
5.061
7.365
27
0.000176
46.8
4(1)
1
1.932
0.023
28
0.000176
72.3
4(1)
1
2.172
0.058
29
0.000506
32.5
4(1)
1
1.798
0.013
30
0.000498
20.2
4(1)
1
1.680
0.007
31
0.000396
86.8
4(1)
1
2.307
0.090
32
0.000396
64
4(1)
1
2.095
0.044
33
0.00328
19.8
4(1)
1
1.679
0.007
34
0.002492
106.9
4(1)
1
2.494
0.157
35
0.003062
63.4
4(1)
1
2.092
0.044
36
0.000334
24.5
4(1)
1
1.721
0.009
38
0.001428
235.8
4(1)
1
3.645
1.588
39
0.002348
491
4(1)
1
5.749
11.943
40
0.004342
348
4(1)
1
4.599
4.919
41
0.004562
643.3
4(1)
1
6.910
21.578
42
0.000312
39
4(1)
1
1.859
0.017
43
0.000864
12.6
4(1)
1
1.608
0.005
44
0.000882
41.9
4(1)
1
1.887
0.019
45
0.000442
90.8
4(1)
1
2.345
0.101
46
0.000446
32.3
4(1)
1
1.795
0.013
GW1
0.000462
171 (2)
1.77
1
2.903
0.425
GW2
0.00019
171 (2)
2.85
1
2.984
0.505
GW3
0.000176
171 (2)
1.35
1
2.871
0.397
GW5
0.00018
171 (2)
0.125
1
2.779
0.322
GW8
0.000258
171 (2)
12.7
1
3.711
1.748
GW11
0.000998
171 (2)
0.65
1
2.819
0.353
Total
51
1.09
Note:
** Resident on BIA land
I Exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER.
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
(1) Default concentration of 4 ug/L was used for those residents without groundwater samples.
(2) Average lead concentration of 46 residential yards (171 mg/kg; including the former smelter home) used for those homes without soil samples.
008688
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008689
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
RAGS DIEUBK Lead Worksheet
008690
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008691
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TABLE G-l (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Resl, 61500 E. 57 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
29.625
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000524
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 61500 E. 57 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 29.6 mg/kg in soil and 0.000524 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.011° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.770 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
Res1
008692
-------
TABLE G-2 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_2,51496 E. 57 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
31.64
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000514
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 51496 E. 57 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 31.64 mg/kg in soil and 0.000514 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.013° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level =1.789 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008693
-------
TABLE G-3 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_3,5671 S. 630 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
29.075
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000374
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
Milk
1.01
ug/kg
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 263 (December, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not sieved,
provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 5671 S. 630 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
The updated dietary lead intake estimates from FDA dietary data were
used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input values of 29.07 mg/kg in soil, 0.000374 ug/m3 in
ambient air, and 1.01 mg/kg in milk result in 0.006% of
subsistence children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL.
The geometric mean blood lead level = 1.638 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008694
-------
TABLE G-4 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_4,62301 E. 57 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
54.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00044
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 62301 E. 57 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 54.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.00044 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in .031° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.003 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008695
-------
TABLE G-5/GW12 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_5,4200 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
88.4
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
0.417
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00042
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
Milk
1.01
ug/kg
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 263 (December, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not sieved,
provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 4200 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and groundwater and modeled ambient air and milk
concentrations were used. The updated dietary lead intake estimates
from FDA dietary data were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input values of 88.4 mg/kg in soil, 0.4167 ug/L in
groundwater, 0.00042 ug/m3 in ambient air, and 1.01
mg/kg in milk result in 0.022% of subsistence children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.918 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008696
-------
TABLE G-6 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_6, 54801 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
34.55
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.003132
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 54801 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 34.55 mg/kg in soil and 0.003132 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.014° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.819 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008697
-------
TABLE G-7 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_7, 2811 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
109
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.004144
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 2811 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 109 mg/kg in soil and 0.004144 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.166% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.515 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008698
-------
TABLE G-8 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_8,54501 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
45.44
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00163
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 54501 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 45.44 mg/kg in soil and 0.00163 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.022° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.921 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008699
-------
TABLE G-9 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_9,63040 E. 16 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
53.333333
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000184
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63040 E. 16 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 53.33 mg/kg in soil and 0.000184 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.030° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.995 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008700
-------
TABLE G-10 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (ReslO, 63470 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
44.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00024
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63470 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 44.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.00024 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.021% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.909 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008701
-------
TABLE G-ll (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Resll, 63430 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
71
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000242
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63430 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 71 mg/kg in soil and 0.000242 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.056° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.160 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008702
-------
TABLE G-12 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_12, 63401 E. 10 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
24.5
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000158
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63401 E. 10 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 24.5 mg/kg in soil and 0.000158 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.009° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.721 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008703
-------
TABLE G-13 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_13, 63501 E. 10 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
56
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00016
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63501 E. 10 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 56 mg/kg in soil and 0.00016 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.033° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.020 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008704
-------
TABLE G-14 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_14, 63451 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
194.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000242
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63451 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 194.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.000242 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.885° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 3.280 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008705
-------
TABLE G-15 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_15,63400 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
28.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
26.15
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000246
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63400 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 28.75 mg/kg in soil, 26.15 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.000246 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 1.187% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 3.455 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008706
-------
TABLE G-16 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_16, 63150 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
24
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
0.85
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000268
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63150 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 24 mg/kg in soil, 0.85 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.000268 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.002° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.464 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008707
-------
TABLE G-17 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_17,2501 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
202
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.004718
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 2501 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 202 mg/kg in soil and 0.004718 in
ambient air results in 1.002° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 3.352 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008708
-------
TABLE G-18 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_18, 2601 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
86.3
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.005252
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 2601 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 86.3 mg/kg in soil and 0.005252 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.090° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.307 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008709
-------
TABLE G-19 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_19,54600 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
17.325
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.001864
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 54600 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 17.325 mg/kg in soil and 0.001864 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.006° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.654 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008710
-------
TABLE G-20 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_20,3800 S. 630 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
61.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000278
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 3800 S. 630 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 61.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.000278 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.040° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 2.069 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008711
-------
TABLE G-21 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_21,2300 S. 590 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
53.8
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.008134
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 2300 S. 590 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 53.8 mg/kg in soil and 0.008134 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.031° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.005 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008712
-------
TABLE G-22 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_22, 59505 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
54.075
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.001678
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 59505 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 54.07 mg/kg in soil and 0.001678 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.031° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 2.003 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008713
-------
TABLE G-23 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_23, 62401 E. 50 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
45.233333
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000444
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 62401 E. 50 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 45.23 mg/kg in soil and 0.000444 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.022° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.918 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008714
-------
TABLE G-24 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_24, 63450 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
25.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000172
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63450 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 25.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.000172 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.009° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.728 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008715
-------
TABLE G-25 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_25,5301 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
18.4
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000522
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 5301 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 18.4 mg/kg in soil and 0.000522 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.007° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.663 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008716
-------
TABLE G-26 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_26,4990 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
404.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000424
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 4990 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 404.75 mg/kg in soil and 0.000424 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 7.365° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 5.061 ug/dL. This
exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a PRG of 500 ppm is indicated for
soil for this receptor.
008717
-------
TABLE G-27 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_27, 63349 E. 16 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
46.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000176
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63349 E. 16 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 46.75 mg/kg in soil and 0.000176 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.023° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.932 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008718
-------
TABLE G-28 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_28, 63350 E. 16 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
72.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000176
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63350 E. 16 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 72.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.000176 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.058° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 2.172 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008719
-------
TABLE G-29 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_29,5401 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
32.5
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000506
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 5401 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 32.5 mg/kg in soil and 0.000506 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.013% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.798 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008720
-------
TABLE G-30 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_30, 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer))
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
20.2
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000498
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer)
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 20.2 mg/kg in soil and 0.000498 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.007° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.680 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008721
-------
TABLE G-31 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_31, 62610 E. 60 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
86.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000396
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 62610 E. 60 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 86.75 mg/kg in soil and 0.000396 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.090° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 2.307 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008722
-------
TABLE G-32 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_32, 62612 E. 60 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
64
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000396
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 62612 E. 60 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 64 mg/kg in soil and 0.000396 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.044° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.095 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008723
-------
TABLE G-33 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_33,3195 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
19.8
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00328
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 3195 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 19.8 mg/kg in soil and 0.00328 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.007° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.679 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008724
-------
TABLE G-34 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_34, 56600 E. HWY 69 )
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
106.85
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.002492
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 56600 E. HWY 69
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 106.85 mg/kg in soil and 0.002494 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.157% of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 2.494 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008725
-------
TABLE G-35 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_35, 56600 E. HWY 69 )
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
63.433333
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.003062
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 56600 E. HWY 69
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 63.43 mg/kg in soil and 0.003062 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.044° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 2.092 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008726
-------
TABLE G-36 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_36, 3750 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
24.5
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000334
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 3750 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 24.5 mg/kg in soil and 0.000334 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.009° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.721 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008727
-------
TABLE G-37 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_37, 61210 E. 20 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
7470
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000486
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 61210 E. 20 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 7470 mg/kg in soil and 0.000486 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 99.536° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 33.962 ug/dL. This
exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a PRG of 500 ppm is indicated for
soil for this receptor. The model has not been validated at
these levels of environmental exposures.
008728
-------
TABLE G-38 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_38, 55200 E. 50 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
235.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.001428
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 55200 E. 50 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 235.75 mg/kg in soil and 0.001428 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 1.588% of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 3.645 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008729
-------
TABLE G-39 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_39, 57995 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
491
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.002348
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 57995 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 491 mg/kg in soil and 0.002348 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 11.943% of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 5.749 ug/dL. This
exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a PRG of 500 ppm is indicated for
soil for this receptor.
008730
-------
TABLE G-40 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_40, 56801 E. 20 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
348
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.004342
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 56801 E. 20 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 348 mg/kg in soil and 0.004342 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 4.919% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 4.599 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008731
-------
TABLE G-41 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_41, 56900 E. 20 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
643.33333
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.004562
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 56900 E. 20 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 643.33 mg/kg in soil and 0.004562 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 21.578% of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 6.910 ug/dL. This
exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a PRG of 500 ppm is indicated for
soil for this receptor.
008732
-------
TABLE G-42 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_42, 62350 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
39
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000312
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 62350 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 39 mg/kg in soil and 0.000312 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.017% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 1.859 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008733
-------
TABLE G-43 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_43,6800 S. 572 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
12.64
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Avg Measured at Yard
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000864
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 6800 S. 572 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 12.64 mg/kg in soil and 0.000864 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.005° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.608 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008734
-------
TABLE G-44 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_44,6751 S. 572 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
41.853125
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000882
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 6751 S. 572 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 41.85 mg/kg in soil and 0.000882 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.019° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.887 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008735
-------
TABLE G-45 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_45,4671 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
90.8
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000442
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 4671 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 90.8 mg/kg in soil and 0.000442 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.101% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.345 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008736
-------
TABLE G-46 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_46,4631 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
32.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4 (default)
ug/L
Default
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000446
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 4631 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 32.25 mg/kg in soil and 0.000446 ug/m3
in ambient air results in 0.013° o of general public
children above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The
geometric mean blood lead level = 1.795 ug/dL. This
meets the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5°o of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008737
-------
TABLE G-47 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW1,5709 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
170.69
mg/kg
Avg Measured at 46 Yards
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
1.767
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000462
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 5709 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, 1.767 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.000462 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.425° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.903 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008738
-------
TABLE G-48 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW2, 22099 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
170.69
mg/kg
Avg Measured at 46 Yards
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
2.85
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00019
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 22099 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, 2.850 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.00019 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.505° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.984 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008739
-------
TABLE G-49 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW3, 63500 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
170.69
mg/kg
Avg Measured at 46 Yards
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
1.35
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000176
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63500 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, .1.350 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.000176 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.397% of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.871 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008740
-------
TABLE G-50 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW5, 63601 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
170.69
mg/kg
Avg Measured at 46 Yards
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
0.125
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.00018
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63601 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, 0.125 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.00018 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.322° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.779 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008741
-------
TABLE G-51 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW8, 63300 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
170.69
mg/kg
Avg Measured at 46 Yards
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
12.683
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000258
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 63300 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, 12.683 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.000258 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 1.748° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 3.711 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008742
-------
TABLE G-52 (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (GW11, 201 S. Canary Ln.)
Receptor: Current Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
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
170.69
mg/kg
Avg Measured at 46 Yards
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
0.65
ug/L
Avg Measured at Well
15
ug/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Ambient Air
0.000998
ug/m3
Modeled from Sources
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used?
IEUBKwin vl.O build 262 (September, 2005) 32-bit version
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G dEUBKwin OUTPUT>
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
Refer to RAGS D Table 2.
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 value of exposure area; data presented in Appendix
G.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Yes.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
Yes, 250 microns.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Residential yard at 201 S. Canary Ln.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Appendix G.
Was the model run using default values only?
No; measured soil and modeled ambient air concentrations were used.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes.
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes.
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix G.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 170.69 mg/kg in soil, 0.650 ug/L of
groundwater concentration, and 0.000998 ug/m3 in
ambient air results in 0.353° o of general public children
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric
mean blood lead level = 2.819 ug/dL. This meets the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5° o of children exceeding 10
ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a soil lead PRG is not needed for this
receptor.
008743
-------
Lead Models
008744
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008745
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 01
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res01 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008746
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 20.790 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
29.625
20.790
1-2
29.625
20.790
2-3
29.625
20.790
3-4
29.625
20.790
4-5
29.625
20.790
5-6
29.625
20.790
6-7
29.625
20.790
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.653
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.774
0.000
0.960
2-3
0.000
3.125
0.000
1.001
3-4
0.000
3.023
0.000
1.027
4-5
0.000
2.929
0.000
1.072
5-6
0.000
3.096
0.000
1.133
6-7
0.000
3.420
0.000
1.153
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.606
3.643
2.0
1-2
0.963
4.697
2.0
2-3
0.966
5.093
1.9
3-4
0.972
5.021
1.8
4-5
0.724
4.725
1.6
5-6
0.653
4.883
1.5
6-7
0.617
5.191
1.4
Res01 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008747
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 02
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res02 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008748
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 22.199 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
31.640
22.199
1-2
31.640
22.199
2-3
31.640
22.199
3-4
31.640
22.199
4-5
31.640
22.199
5-6
31.640
22.199
6-7
31.640
22.199
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.652
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.772
0.000
0.959
2-3
0.000
3.123
0.000
1.001
3-4
0.000
3.021
0.000
1.026
4-5
0.000
2.928
0.000
1.072
5-6
0.000
3.095
0.000
1.133
6-7
0.000
3.420
0.000
1.153
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.647
3.682
2.0
1-2
1.028
4.760
2.0
2-3
1.031
5.156
1.9
3-4
1.037
5.085
1.8
4-5
0.773
4.773
1.6
5-6
0.697
4.926
1.5
6-7
0.659
5.232
1.5
Res02 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008749
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 02/01/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 03
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** yyj 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)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
3.160
1-2
2.600
2-3
2.870
3-4
2.740
4-5
2.610
5-6
2.740
6-7
2.990
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 20.390 ug/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
008750
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 02/01/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 03
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
29.075
20.390
1-2
29.075
20.390
2-3
29.075
20.390
3-4
29.075
20.390
4-5
29.075
20.390
5-6
29.075
20.390
6-7
29.075
20.390
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug Pb/day)
.5-1
2.580
1-2
2.540
2-3
2.520
3-4
2.490
4-5
2.460
5-6
2.430
6-7
2.410
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
1.515
1.237
0.383
1-2
0.000
1.251
1.222
0.963
2-3
0.000
1.387
1.218
1.005
3-4
0.000
1.331
1.210
1.030
4-5
0.000
1.275
1.202
1.075
5-6
0.000
1.342
1.190
1.136
6-7
0.000
1.466
1.182
1.157
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.594
3.729
2.0
1-2
0.947
4.384
1.9
2-3
0.951
4.563
1.7
3-4
0.956
4.528
1.6
4-5
0.712
4.264
1.5
008751
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 02/01/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 03
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
5-6 0.643 4.311 1.3
6-7 0.608 4.413 1.3
008752
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 04
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res04 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008753
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 38.019 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
54.250
38.019
1-2
54.250
38.019
2-3
54.250
38.019
3-4
54.250
38.019
4-5
54.250
38.019
5-6
54.250
38.019
6-7
54.250
38.019
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.639
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.000
2.755
0.000
0.953
2-3
0.000
3.107
0.000
0.996
3-4
0.000
3.008
0.000
1.022
4-5
0.000
2.919
0.000
1.069
5-6
0.000
3.088
0.000
1.130
6-7
0.000
3.413
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.103
4.123
2.3
1-2
1.750
5.459
2.3
2-3
1.757
5.860
2.2
3-4
1.769
5.799
2.1
4-5
1.321
5.309
1.8
5-6
1.192
5.411
1.7
6-7
1.127
5.691
1.6
Res04 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008754
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 02/01/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 05
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** yyj 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)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
3.160
1-2
2.600
2-3
2.870
3-4
2.740
4-5
2.610
5-6
2.740
6-7
2.990
****** Drinking 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: 0.420 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 61.922 ug/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
008755
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 02/01/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 05
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
88.400
61.922
1-2
88.400
61.922
2-3
88.400
61.922
3-4
88.400
61.922
4-5
88.400
61.922
5-6
88.400
61.922
6-7
88.400
61.922
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug Pb/day)
.5-1
2.580
1-2
2.540
2-3
2.520
3-4
2.490
4-5
2.460
5-6
2.430
6-7
2.410
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
1.500
1.225
0.040
1-2
0.000
1.240
1.211
0.100
2-3
0.000
1.377
1.209
0.105
3-4
0.000
1.323
1.202
0.107
4-5
0.000
1.272
1.199
0.113
5-6
0.000
1.340
1.188
0.119
6-7
0.000
1.465
1.181
0.121
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.788
4.553
2.5
1-2
2.853
5.404
2.3
2-3
2.870
5.561
2.1
3-4
2.888
5.521
2.0
4-5
2.159
4.742
1.7
008756
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 02/01/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 05
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
5-6 1.950 4.597 1.5
6-7 1.845 4.612 1.3
008757
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 06
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.003
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.003
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.003
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.003
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res06 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008758
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 24.498 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
34.550
24.498
1-2
34.550
24.498
2-3
34.550
24.498
3-4
34.550
24.498
4-5
34.550
24.498
5-6
34.550
24.498
6-7
34.550
24.498
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.650
0.000
0.383
1-2
0.001
2.770
0.000
0.959
2-3
0.002
3.121
0.000
1.000
3-4
0.002
3.019
0.000
1.026
4-5
0.002
2.927
0.000
1.071
5-6
0.003
3.094
0.000
1.132
6-7
0.003
3.419
0.000
1.153
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.709
3.743
2.1
1-2
1.127
4.856
2.1
2-3
1.131
5.254
1.9
3-4
1.137
5.185
1.8
4-5
0.848
4.848
1.7
5-6
0.765
4.995
1.5
6-7
0.723
5.297
1.5
Res06 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008759
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 07
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.004
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.004
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.004
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.004
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.004
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.004
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.004
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res07 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008760
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 76.714 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
109.000
76.714
1-2
109.000
76.714
2-3
109.000
76.714
3-4
109.000
76.714
4-5
109.000
76.714
5-6
109.000
76.714
6-7
109.000
76.714
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.607
0.000
0.377
1-2
0.001
2.715
0.000
0.939
2-3
0.003
3.068
0.000
0.983
3-4
0.003
2.975
0.000
1.011
4-5
0.003
2.899
0.000
1.061
5-6
0.004
3.071
0.000
1.124
6-7
0.004
3.396
0.000
1.145
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
2.194
5.178
2.8
1-2
3.472
7.128
3.0
2-3
3.494
7.547
2.8
3-4
3.523
7.512
2.6
4-5
2.640
6.603
2.3
5-6
2.386
6.584
2.1
6-7
2.257
6.802
1.9
Res07 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008761
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 08
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.002
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.002
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res08 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008762
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 31.971 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
45.440
31.971
1-2
45.440
31.971
2-3
45.440
31.971
3-4
45.440
31.971
4-5
45.440
31.971
5-6
45.440
31.971
6-7
45.440
31.971
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.644
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.001
2.762
0.000
0.956
2-3
0.001
3.113
0.000
0.998
3-4
0.001
3.013
0.000
1.024
4-5
0.001
2.923
0.000
1.070
5-6
0.002
3.091
0.000
1.131
6-7
0.002
3.415
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.927
3.954
2.2
1-2
1.472
5.190
2.2
2-3
1.478
5.590
2.1
3-4
1.487
5.525
2.0
4-5
1.110
5.103
1.7
5-6
1.001
5.225
1.6
6-7
0.946
5.515
1.5
Res08 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008763
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 09
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res09 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008764
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 37.352 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
53.333
37.352
1-2
53.333
37.352
2-3
53.333
37.352
3-4
53.333
37.352
4-5
53.333
37.352
5-6
53.333
37.352
6-7
53.333
37.352
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.639
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.000
2.756
0.000
0.954
2-3
0.000
3.108
0.000
0.996
3-4
0.000
3.008
0.000
1.022
4-5
0.000
2.920
0.000
1.069
5-6
0.000
3.088
0.000
1.130
6-7
0.000
3.413
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.084
4.105
2.3
1-2
1.720
5.430
2.3
2-3
1.728
5.831
2.2
3-4
1.739
5.770
2.0
4-5
1.298
5.287
1.8
5-6
1.172
5.390
1.7
6-7
1.108
5.671
1.6
Res09 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008765
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 10
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res10 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008766
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 30.999 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
44.250
30.999
1-2
44.250
30.999
2-3
44.250
30.999
3-4
44.250
30.999
4-5
44.250
30.999
5-6
44.250
30.999
6-7
44.250
30.999
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.644
0.000
0.383
1-2
0.000
2.763
0.000
0.956
2-3
0.000
3.114
0.000
0.998
3-4
0.000
3.014
0.000
1.024
4-5
0.000
2.923
0.000
1.070
5-6
0.000
3.091
0.000
1.131
6-7
0.000
3.416
0.000
1.152
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.901
3.929
2.2
1-2
1.431
5.150
2.2
2-3
1.437
5.549
2.1
3-4
1.446
5.484
1.9
4-5
1.079
5.072
1.7
5-6
0.973
5.196
1.6
6-7
0.920
5.487
1.5
Res10 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008767
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 11
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008768
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 49.724 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
71.000
49.724
1-2
71.000
49.724
2-3
71.000
49.724
3-4
71.000
49.724
4-5
71.000
49.724
5-6
71.000
49.724
6-7
71.000
49.724
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.629
0.000
0.380
1-2
0.000
2.743
0.000
0.949
2-3
0.000
3.095
0.000
0.992
3-4
0.000
2.997
0.000
1.018
4-5
0.000
2.913
0.000
1.066
5-6
0.000
3.083
0.000
1.128
6-7
0.000
3.408
0.000
1.149
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.438
4.447
2.4
1-2
2.279
5.972
2.5
2-3
2.291
6.378
2.4
3-4
2.307
6.323
2.2
4-5
1.724
5.704
2.0
5-6
1.557
5.768
1.8
6-7
1.472
6.029
1.7
Res11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008769
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 12
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res12 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008770
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 17.166 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
24.500
17.166
1-2
24.500
17.166
2-3
24.500
17.166
3-4
24.500
17.166
4-5
24.500
17.166
5-6
24.500
17.166
6-7
24.500
17.166
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.656
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.778
0.000
0.961
2-3
0.000
3.129
0.000
1.003
3-4
0.000
3.026
0.000
1.028
4-5
0.000
2.931
0.000
1.073
5-6
0.000
3.098
0.000
1.134
6-7
0.000
3.422
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.501
3.542
1.9
1-2
0.797
4.536
1.9
2-3
0.799
4.931
1.8
3-4
0.804
4.858
1.7
4-5
0.599
4.602
1.6
5-6
0.540
4.771
1.5
6-7
0.510
5.086
1.4
Res12 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008771
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 13
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res13 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008772
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 39.216 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
56.000
39.216
1-2
56.000
39.216
2-3
56.000
39.216
3-4
56.000
39.216
4-5
56.000
39.216
5-6
56.000
39.216
6-7
56.000
39.216
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.638
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.000
2.754
0.000
0.953
2-3
0.000
3.106
0.000
0.995
3-4
0.000
3.007
0.000
1.021
4-5
0.000
2.919
0.000
1.068
5-6
0.000
3.088
0.000
1.130
6-7
0.000
3.412
0.000
1.150
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.138
4.157
2.3
1-2
1.805
5.512
2.3
2-3
1.813
5.914
2.2
3-4
1.825
5.853
2.1
4-5
1.363
5.350
1.8
5-6
1.230
5.447
1.7
6-7
1.163
5.725
1.6
Res13 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008773
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 14
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res14 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008774
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 135.999 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
194.250
135.999
1-2
194.250
135.999
2-3
194.250
135.999
3-4
194.250
135.999
4-5
194.250
135.999
5-6
194.250
135.999
6-7
194.250
135.999
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.560
0.000
0.370
1-2
0.000
2.656
0.000
0.919
2-3
0.000
3.010
0.000
0.965
3-4
0.000
2.926
0.000
0.994
4-5
0.000
2.867
0.000
1.050
5-6
0.000
3.044
0.000
1.114
6-7
0.000
3.370
0.000
1.136
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.829
6.759
3.7
1-2
6.037
9.611
4.0
2-3
6.094
10.068
3.7
3-4
6.161
10.081
3.5
4-5
4.643
8.560
3.0
5-6
4.205
8.363
2.6
6-7
3.983
8.490
2.4
Res14 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008775
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 15/GW4
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 26.150 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res15 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008776
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 20.150 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
28.750
20.150
1-2
28.750
20.150
2-3
28.750
20.150
3-4
28.750
20.150
4-5
28.750
20.150
5-6
28.750
20.150
6-7
28.750
20.150
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.593
0.000
2.453
1-2
0.000
2.657
0.000
6.010
2-3
0.000
3.007
0.000
6.300
3-4
0.000
2.921
0.000
6.489
4-5
0.000
2.840
0.000
6.795
5-6
0.000
3.007
0.000
7.194
6-7
0.000
3.329
0.000
7.336
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.575
5.621
3.1
1-2
0.894
9.561
3.9
2-3
0.901
10.208
3.8
3-4
0.911
10.321
3.6
4-5
0.681
10.316
3.4
5-6
0.615
10.817
3.3
6-7
0.583
11.248
3.2
Res15 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008777
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, Resident 16/GW9
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 0.850 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res16 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008778
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 16.827 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
24.000
16.827
1-2
24.000
16.827
2-3
24.000
16.827
3-4
24.000
16.827
4-5
24.000
16.827
5-6
24.000
16.827
6-7
24.000
16.827
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.665
0.000
0.082
1-2
0.000
2.796
0.000
0.206
2-3
0.000
3.147
0.000
0.214
3-4
0.000
3.041
0.000
0.220
4-5
0.000
2.944
0.000
0.229
5-6
0.000
3.111
0.000
0.242
6-7
0.000
3.436
0.000
0.246
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.493
3.240
1.8
1-2
0.786
3.788
1.6
2-3
0.788
4.149
1.5
3-4
0.792
4.053
1.4
4-5
0.589
3.763
1.3
5-6
0.531
3.885
1.2
6-7
0.502
4.184
1.2
Res16 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008779
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 17
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.005
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.005
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.005
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.005
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res17 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008780
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 141.872 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
202.000
141.872
1-2
202.000
141.872
2-3
202.000
141.872
3-4
202.000
141.872
4-5
202.000
141.872
5-6
202.000
141.872
6-7
202.000
141.872
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.555
0.000
0.370
1-2
0.002
2.650
0.000
0.917
2-3
0.003
3.005
0.000
0.963
3-4
0.003
2.921
0.000
0.993
4-5
0.003
2.864
0.000
1.049
5-6
0.004
3.041
0.000
1.113
6-7
0.004
3.368
0.000
1.135
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.981
6.907
3.7
1-2
6.274
9.842
4.1
2-3
6.335
10.305
3.8
3-4
6.406
10.323
3.6
4-5
4.831
8.747
3.1
5-6
4.376
8.535
2.7
6-7
4.145
8.653
2.5
Res17 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008781
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 18
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.005
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.005
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.005
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.005
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res18 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008782
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 60.935 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
86.300
60.935
1-2
86.300
60.935
2-3
86.300
60.935
3-4
86.300
60.935
4-5
86.300
60.935
5-6
86.300
60.935
6-7
86.300
60.935
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.620
0.000
0.379
1-2
0.002
2.731
0.000
0.945
2-3
0.003
3.084
0.000
0.988
3-4
0.004
2.988
0.000
1.015
4-5
0.004
2.907
0.000
1.064
5-6
0.005
3.078
0.000
1.126
6-7
0.005
3.403
0.000
1.147
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.748
4.748
2.6
1-2
2.769
6.448
2.7
2-3
2.785
6.860
2.5
3-4
2.806
6.813
2.4
4-5
2.100
6.074
2.1
5-6
1.897
6.105
1.9
6-7
1.794
6.348
1.8
Res18 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008783
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 19
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.002
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.002
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res19 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008784
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 12.314 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
17.325
12.314
1-2
17.325
12.314
2-3
17.325
12.314
3-4
17.325
12.314
4-5
17.325
12.314
5-6
17.325
12.314
6-7
17.325
12.314
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.660
0.000
0.385
1-2
0.001
2.783
0.000
0.963
2-3
0.001
3.134
0.000
1.004
3-4
0.001
3.030
0.000
1.029
4-5
0.001
2.933
0.000
1.074
5-6
0.002
3.100
0.000
1.134
6-7
0.002
3.424
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.357
3.403
1.9
1-2
0.568
4.315
1.8
2-3
0.570
4.709
1.7
3-4
0.573
4.634
1.6
4-5
0.427
4.435
1.5
5-6
0.385
4.621
1.4
6-7
0.363
4.944
1.4
Res19 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008785
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 20
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res20 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008786
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 42.903 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
61.250
42.903
1-2
61.250
42.903
2-3
61.250
42.903
3-4
61.250
42.903
4-5
61.250
42.903
5-6
61.250
42.903
6-7
61.250
42.903
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.634
0.000
0.381
1-2
0.000
2.750
0.000
0.952
2-3
0.000
3.102
0.000
0.994
3-4
0.000
3.003
0.000
1.020
4-5
0.000
2.917
0.000
1.068
5-6
0.000
3.086
0.000
1.129
6-7
0.000
3.411
0.000
1.150
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.243
4.259
2.3
1-2
1.972
5.674
2.4
2-3
1.981
6.077
2.3
3-4
1.994
6.018
2.1
4-5
1.490
5.474
1.9
5-6
1.345
5.560
1.7
6-7
1.271
5.832
1.6
Res20 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008787
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 21
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.008
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.008
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.008
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.008
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.008
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.008
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.008
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res21 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008788
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 38.473 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
53.800
38.473
1-2
53.800
38.473
2-3
53.800
38.473
3-4
53.800
38.473
4-5
53.800
38.473
5-6
53.800
38.473
6-7
53.800
38.473
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.002
2.639
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.003
2.755
0.000
0.953
2-3
0.005
3.107
0.000
0.996
3-4
0.005
3.008
0.000
1.022
4-5
0.005
2.919
0.000
1.069
5-6
0.008
3.088
0.000
1.130
6-7
0.008
3.413
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.104
4.126
2.3
1-2
1.752
5.464
2.3
2-3
1.759
5.867
2.2
3-4
1.771
5.806
2.1
4-5
1.322
5.315
1.8
5-6
1.193
5.419
1.7
6-7
1.128
5.699
1.6
Res21 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008789
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 22
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.002
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.002
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res22 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008790
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 38.020 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
54.075
38.020
1-2
54.075
38.020
2-3
54.075
38.020
3-4
54.075
38.020
4-5
54.075
38.020
5-6
54.075
38.020
6-7
54.075
38.020
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.639
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.001
2.756
0.000
0.953
2-3
0.001
3.107
0.000
0.996
3-4
0.001
3.008
0.000
1.022
4-5
0.001
2.919
0.000
1.069
5-6
0.002
3.088
0.000
1.130
6-7
0.002
3.413
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.101
4.122
2.3
1-2
1.747
5.457
2.3
2-3
1.755
5.858
2.2
3-4
1.766
5.797
2.0
4-5
1.319
5.308
1.8
5-6
1.190
5.410
1.7
6-7
1.125
5.690
1.6
Res22 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008791
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Shana Alan/CVO
Date: 10/26/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 23
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Res23 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008792
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 31.708 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
45.233
31.708
1-2
45.233
31.708
2-3
45.233
31.708
3-4
45.233
31.708
4-5
45.233
31.708
5-6
45.233
31.708
6-7
45.233
31.708
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.644
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.000
2.762
0.000
0.956
2-3
0.000
3.113
0.000
0.998
3-4
0.000
3.013
0.000
1.024
4-5
0.000
2.923
0.000
1.070
5-6
0.000
3.091
0.000
1.131
6-7
0.000
3.415
0.000
1.152
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.922
3.948
2.2
1-2
1.463
5.181
2.2
2-3
1.469
5.580
2.1
3-4
1.478
5.515
2.0
4-5
1.103
5.096
1.7
5-6
0.995
5.218
1.6
6-7
0.940
5.508
1.5
Res23 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008793
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 24
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES24 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008794
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 17.692 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
25.250
17.692
1-2
25.250
17.692
2-3
25.250
17.692
3-4
25.250
17.692
4-5
25.250
17.692
5-6
25.250
17.692
6-7
25.250
17.692
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.656
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.777
0.000
0.961
2-3
0.000
3.128
0.000
1.003
3-4
0.000
3.025
0.000
1.028
4-5
0.000
2.930
0.000
1.073
5-6
0.000
3.097
0.000
1.133
6-7
0.000
3.422
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.517
3.557
2.0
1-2
0.821
4.559
1.9
2-3
0.823
4.954
1.8
3-4
0.828
4.881
1.7
4-5
0.617
4.620
1.6
5-6
0.556
4.788
1.5
6-7
0.526
5.101
1.4
RES24 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008795
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 25
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES25 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008796
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 12.932 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
18.400
12.932
1-2
18.400
12.932
2-3
18.400
12.932
3-4
18.400
12.932
4-5
18.400
12.932
5-6
18.400
12.932
6-7
18.400
12.932
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.660
0.000
0.385
1-2
0.000
2.783
0.000
0.963
2-3
0.000
3.133
0.000
1.004
3-4
0.000
3.029
0.000
1.029
4-5
0.000
2.933
0.000
1.074
5-6
0.000
3.100
0.000
1.134
6-7
0.000
3.424
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.378
3.422
1.9
1-2
0.600
4.346
1.9
2-3
0.602
4.739
1.8
3-4
0.605
4.664
1.7
4-5
0.451
4.458
1.5
5-6
0.406
4.641
1.4
6-7
0.384
4.963
1.4
RES25 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008797
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 26
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES26 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008798
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 283.367 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
404.750
283.367
1-2
404.750
283.367
2-3
404.750
283.367
3-4
404.750
283.367
4-5
404.750
283.367
5-6
404.750
283.367
6-7
404.750
283.367
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.451
0.000
0.355
1-2
0.000
2.521
0.000
0.872
2-3
0.000
2.878
0.000
0.922
3-4
0.000
2.813
0.000
0.956
4-5
0.000
2.794
0.000
1.023
5-6
0.000
2.980
0.000
1.091
6-7
0.000
3.309
0.000
1.115
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
7.641
10.447
5.6
1-2
11.943
15.337
6.3
2-3
12.138
15.938
5.9
3-4
12.343
16.112
5.6
4-5
9.426
13.243
4.7
5-6
8.580
12.651
4.0
6-7
8.148
12.572
3.6
RES26 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008799
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 27
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES27 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008800
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 32.743 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
46.750
32.743
1-2
46.750
32.743
2-3
46.750
32.743
3-4
46.750
32.743
4-5
46.750
32.743
5-6
46.750
32.743
6-7
46.750
32.743
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.643
0.000
0.382
1-2
0.000
2.761
0.000
0.955
2-3
0.000
3.112
0.000
0.998
3-4
0.000
3.012
0.000
1.023
4-5
0.000
2.922
0.000
1.070
5-6
0.000
3.091
0.000
1.131
6-7
0.000
3.415
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.952
3.977
2.2
1-2
1.511
5.227
2.2
2-3
1.517
5.627
2.1
3-4
1.527
5.562
2.0
4-5
1.139
5.131
1.8
5-6
1.028
5.249
1.6
6-7
0.971
5.538
1.6
RES27 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008801
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 28
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES28 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008802
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 50.593 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
72.250
50.593
1-2
72.250
50.593
2-3
72.250
50.593
3-4
72.250
50.593
4-5
72.250
50.593
5-6
72.250
50.593
6-7
72.250
50.593
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.628
0.000
0.380
1-2
0.000
2.742
0.000
0.949
2-3
0.000
3.094
0.000
0.992
3-4
0.000
2.997
0.000
1.018
4-5
0.000
2.912
0.000
1.066
5-6
0.000
3.082
0.000
1.128
6-7
0.000
3.407
0.000
1.149
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.462
4.471
2.4
1-2
2.319
6.010
2.5
2-3
2.330
6.416
2.4
3-4
2.347
6.362
2.2
4-5
1.754
5.733
2.0
5-6
1.584
5.794
1.8
6-7
1.498
6.054
1.7
RES28 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008803
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 29
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES29 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008804
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 22.801 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
32.500
22.801
1-2
32.500
22.801
2-3
32.500
22.801
3-4
32.500
22.801
4-5
32.500
22.801
5-6
32.500
22.801
6-7
32.500
22.801
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.651
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.772
0.000
0.959
2-3
0.000
3.123
0.000
1.001
3-4
0.000
3.021
0.000
1.026
4-5
0.000
2.927
0.000
1.072
5-6
0.000
3.095
0.000
1.133
6-7
0.000
3.419
0.000
1.153
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.664
3.699
2.0
1-2
1.055
4.786
2.0
2-3
1.059
5.183
1.9
3-4
1.065
5.113
1.8
4-5
0.794
4.793
1.6
5-6
0.716
4.944
1.5
6-7
0.677
5.249
1.5
RES29 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008805
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 30
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES30 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008806
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 14.190 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
20.200
14.190
1-2
20.200
14.190
2-3
20.200
14.190
3-4
20.200
14.190
4-5
20.200
14.190
5-6
20.200
14.190
6-7
20.200
14.190
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.659
0.000
0.385
1-2
0.000
2.781
0.000
0.962
2-3
0.000
3.132
0.000
1.004
3-4
0.000
3.028
0.000
1.029
4-5
0.000
2.932
0.000
1.073
5-6
0.000
3.099
0.000
1.134
6-7
0.000
3.423
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.414
3.458
1.9
1-2
0.658
4.402
1.9
2-3
0.660
4.796
1.8
3-4
0.664
4.722
1.7
4-5
0.495
4.500
1.5
5-6
0.446
4.680
1.4
6-7
0.421
4.999
1.4
RES30 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008807
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 31
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES31 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008808
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 60.765 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
86.750
60.765
1-2
86.750
60.765
2-3
86.750
60.765
3-4
86.750
60.765
4-5
86.750
60.765
5-6
86.750
60.765
6-7
86.750
60.765
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.620
0.000
0.379
1-2
0.000
2.731
0.000
0.945
2-3
0.000
3.084
0.000
0.988
3-4
0.000
2.988
0.000
1.015
4-5
0.000
2.907
0.000
1.064
5-6
0.000
3.078
0.000
1.126
6-7
0.000
3.403
0.000
1.147
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.751
4.749
2.6
1-2
2.773
6.450
2.7
2-3
2.789
6.861
2.5
3-4
2.810
6.814
2.4
4-5
2.103
6.074
2.1
5-6
1.899
6.104
1.9
6-7
1.796
6.347
1.8
RES31 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008809
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 32
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES32 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008810
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 44.840 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
64.000
44.840
1-2
64.000
44.840
2-3
64.000
44.840
3-4
64.000
44.840
4-5
64.000
44.840
5-6
64.000
44.840
6-7
64.000
44.840
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.633
0.000
0.381
1-2
0.000
2.748
0.000
0.951
2-3
0.000
3.100
0.000
0.994
3-4
0.000
3.002
0.000
1.020
4-5
0.000
2.916
0.000
1.067
5-6
0.000
3.085
0.000
1.129
6-7
0.000
3.410
0.000
1.150
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.298
4.312
2.4
1-2
2.059
5.758
2.4
2-3
2.068
6.162
2.3
3-4
2.083
6.105
2.2
4-5
1.556
5.539
1.9
5-6
1.405
5.619
1.7
6-7
1.328
5.888
1.7
RES32 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008811
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 33
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.003
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.003
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.003
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.003
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES33 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008812
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 14.188 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
19.800
14.188
1-2
19.800
14.188
2-3
19.800
14.188
3-4
19.800
14.188
4-5
19.800
14.188
5-6
19.800
14.188
6-7
19.800
14.188
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.659
0.000
0.385
1-2
0.001
2.781
0.000
0.962
2-3
0.002
3.132
0.000
1.004
3-4
0.002
3.028
0.000
1.029
4-5
0.002
2.932
0.000
1.073
5-6
0.003
3.099
0.000
1.134
6-7
0.003
3.423
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.410
3.454
1.9
1-2
0.651
4.396
1.9
2-3
0.653
4.791
1.8
3-4
0.657
4.717
1.7
4-5
0.489
4.497
1.5
5-6
0.441
4.677
1.4
6-7
0.417
4.997
1.4
RES33 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008813
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 34
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.002
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.002
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES34 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008814
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 75.044 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
106.850
75.044
1-2
106.850
75.044
2-3
106.850
75.044
3-4
106.850
75.044
4-5
106.850
75.044
5-6
106.850
75.044
6-7
106.850
75.044
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.608
0.000
0.377
1-2
0.001
2.717
0.000
0.940
2-3
0.002
3.069
0.000
0.984
3-4
0.002
2.976
0.000
1.011
4-5
0.002
2.899
0.000
1.061
5-6
0.002
3.071
0.000
1.124
6-7
0.002
3.397
0.000
1.145
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
2.149
5.135
2.8
1-2
3.402
7.059
3.0
2-3
3.423
7.478
2.8
3-4
3.452
7.441
2.6
4-5
2.586
6.549
2.3
5-6
2.337
6.535
2.0
6-7
2.211
6.755
1.9
RES34 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008815
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 35
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.003
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.003
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.003
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.003
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.003
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES35 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008816
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 44.707 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
63.430
44.707
1-2
63.430
44.707
2-3
63.430
44.707
3-4
63.430
44.707
4-5
63.430
44.707
5-6
63.430
44.707
6-7
63.430
44.707
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.633
0.000
0.381
1-2
0.001
2.748
0.000
0.951
2-3
0.002
3.100
0.000
0.994
3-4
0.002
3.002
0.000
1.020
4-5
0.002
2.916
0.000
1.067
5-6
0.003
3.085
0.000
1.129
6-7
0.003
3.410
0.000
1.150
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.290
4.305
2.4
1-2
2.046
5.747
2.4
2-3
2.056
6.152
2.3
3-4
2.070
6.094
2.2
4-5
1.547
5.532
1.9
5-6
1.396
5.613
1.7
6-7
1.320
5.882
1.7
RES35 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008817
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 36
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES36 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008818
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 17.183 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
24.500
17.183
1-2
24.500
17.183
2-3
24.500
17.183
3-4
24.500
17.183
4-5
24.500
17.183
5-6
24.500
17.183
6-7
24.500
17.183
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.656
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.778
0.000
0.961
2-3
0.000
3.129
0.000
1.003
3-4
0.000
3.026
0.000
1.028
4-5
0.000
2.931
0.000
1.073
5-6
0.000
3.098
0.000
1.134
6-7
0.000
3.422
0.000
1.154
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.502
3.542
1.9
1-2
0.797
4.536
1.9
2-3
0.800
4.931
1.8
3-4
0.804
4.858
1.7
4-5
0.599
4.603
1.6
5-6
0.540
4.772
1.5
6-7
0.510
5.086
1.4
RES36 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008819
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 37
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES37 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008820
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 5229.050 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
7470.000
5229.050
1-2
7470.000
5229.050
2-3
7470.000
5229.050
3-4
7470.000
5229.050
4-5
7470.000
5229.050
5-6
7470.000
5229.050
6-7
7470.000
5229.050
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
1.232
0.000
0.178
1-2
0.000
1.192
0.000
0.413
2-3
0.000
1.423
0.000
0.456
3-4
0.000
1.453
0.000
0.494
4-5
0.000
1.649
0.000
0.604
5-6
0.000
1.879
0.000
0.687
6-7
0.000
2.171
0.000
0.732
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
70.842
72.252
35.0
1-2
104.227
105.833
40.0
2-3
110.774
112.653
38.3
3-4
117.635
119.582
38.1
4-5
102.684
104.937
33.9
5-6
99.799
102.365
30.2
6-7
98.681
101.585
27.6
Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 |jg/dl are above
RES37 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008821
-------
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)
RES37
008822
10/31/2005 2:14 PM
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 38
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES38 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008823
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 165.168 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
235.750
165.168
1-2
235.750
165.168
2-3
235.750
165.168
3-4
235.750
165.168
4-5
235.750
165.168
5-6
235.750
165.168
6-7
235.750
165.168
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.537
0.000
0.367
1-2
0.000
2.628
0.000
0.909
2-3
0.001
2.983
0.000
0.956
3-4
0.001
2.903
0.000
0.986
4-5
0.001
2.852
0.000
1.044
5-6
0.001
3.031
0.000
1.109
6-7
0.001
3.358
0.000
1.132
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
4.608
7.512
4.1
1-2
7.251
10.789
4.5
2-3
7.330
11.270
4.2
3-4
7.420
11.310
4.0
4-5
5.608
9.505
3.4
5-6
5.084
9.226
2.9
6-7
4.818
9.309
2.7
RES38 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008824
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 39
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.002
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.002
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.002
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.002
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES39 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008825
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 343.935 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
491.000
343.935
1-2
491.000
343.935
2-3
491.000
343.935
3-4
491.000
343.935
4-5
491.000
343.935
5-6
491.000
343.935
6-7
491.000
343.935
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.410
0.000
0.349
1-2
0.001
2.471
0.000
0.855
2-3
0.001
2.827
0.000
0.906
3-4
0.002
2.770
0.000
0.941
4-5
0.002
2.765
0.000
1.012
5-6
0.002
2.955
0.000
1.081
6-7
0.002
3.284
0.000
1.107
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
9.117
11.876
6.4
1-2
14.203
17.530
7.2
2-3
14.472
18.207
6.7
3-4
14.747
18.460
6.4
4-5
11.319
15.097
5.4
5-6
10.323
14.361
4.6
6-7
9.813
14.207
4.1
RES39 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008826
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 40
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.004
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.004
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.004
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.004
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.004
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.004
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.004
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES40 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008827
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 244.034 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
348.000
244.034
1-2
348.000
244.034
2-3
348.000
244.034
3-4
348.000
244.034
4-5
348.000
244.034
5-6
348.000
244.034
6-7
348.000
244.034
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.479
0.000
0.359
1-2
0.001
2.556
0.000
0.884
2-3
0.003
2.912
0.000
0.933
3-4
0.003
2.842
0.000
0.966
4-5
0.003
2.813
0.000
1.030
5-6
0.004
2.997
0.000
1.097
6-7
0.004
3.325
0.000
1.121
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
6.649
9.488
5.1
1-2
10.416
13.857
5.7
2-3
10.568
14.415
5.3
3-4
10.730
14.541
5.1
4-5
8.167
12.012
4.3
5-6
7.424
11.521
3.6
6-7
7.045
11.495
3.3
RES40 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008828
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 41
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.005
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.005
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.005
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.005
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.005
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES41 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008829
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 450.766 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
643.300
450.766
1-2
643.300
450.766
2-3
643.300
450.766
3-4
643.300
450.766
4-5
643.300
450.766
5-6
643.300
450.766
6-7
643.300
450.766
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.001
2.342
0.000
0.339
1-2
0.002
2.389
0.000
0.827
2-3
0.003
2.744
0.000
0.880
3-4
0.003
2.698
0.000
0.917
4-5
0.003
2.715
0.000
0.994
5-6
0.004
2.912
0.000
1.066
6-7
0.004
3.242
0.000
1.093
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
11.608
14.290
7.6
1-2
17.991
21.208
8.7
2-3
18.407
22.033
8.1
3-4
18.822
22.440
7.8
4-5
14.569
18.281
6.5
5-6
13.329
17.311
5.5
6-7
12.695
17.034
4.9
RES41 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008830
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 42
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES42 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008831
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 27.331 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
39.000
27.331
1-2
39.000
27.331
2-3
39.000
27.331
3-4
39.000
27.331
4-5
39.000
27.331
5-6
39.000
27.331
6-7
39.000
27.331
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.648
0.000
0.383
1-2
0.000
2.767
0.000
0.957
2-3
0.000
3.118
0.000
0.999
3-4
0.000
3.017
0.000
1.025
4-5
0.000
2.925
0.000
1.071
5-6
0.000
3.093
0.000
1.132
6-7
0.000
3.417
0.000
1.152
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.796
3.826
2.1
1-2
1.263
4.988
2.1
2-3
1.268
5.385
2.0
3-4
1.276
5.318
1.9
4-5
0.951
4.947
1.7
5-6
0.858
5.083
1.6
6-7
0.811
5.381
1.5
RES42 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008832
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 43
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES43 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008833
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 8.934 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
12.640 i
3.934
1-2
12.640 (
3.934
2-3
12.640 (
3.934
3-4
12.640 (
3.934
4-5
12.640 (
3.934
5-6
12.640 (
3.934
6-7
12.640 (
3.934
******
Alternate Intake ******
Age
Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.663
0.000
0.385
1-2
0.000
2.787
0.000
0.964
2-3
0.001
3.137
0.000
1.006
3-4
0.001
3.033
0.000
1.030
4-5
0.001
2.935
0.000
1.074
5-6
0.001
3.102
0.000
1.135
6-7
0.001
3.426
0.000
1.155
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.260
3.309
1.8
1-2
0.414
4.166
1.8
2-3
0.415
4.559
1.7
3-4
0.417
4.481
1.6
4-5
0.311
4.321
1.5
5-6
0.280
4.517
1.4
6-7
0.265
4.846
1.3
RES43 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008834
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 44
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES44 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008835
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 29.385 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
41.853
29.385
1-2
41.853
29.385
2-3
41.853
29.385
3-4
41.853
29.385
4-5
41.853
29.385
5-6
41.853
29.385
6-7
41.853
29.385
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.646
0.000
0.383
1-2
0.000
2.765
0.000
0.957
2-3
0.001
3.116
0.000
0.999
3-4
0.001
3.015
0.000
1.024
4-5
0.001
2.924
0.000
1.070
5-6
0.001
3.092
0.000
1.131
6-7
0.001
3.417
0.000
1.152
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.854
3.883
2.1
1-2
1.356
5.078
2.2
2-3
1.361
5.476
2.0
3-4
1.370
5.410
1.9
4-5
1.022
5.016
1.7
5-6
0.922
5.146
1.6
6-7
0.871
5.440
1.5
RES44 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008836
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 45
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES45 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008837
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 63.604 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
90.800
63.604
1-2
90.800
63.604
2-3
90.800
63.604
3-4
90.800
63.604
4-5
90.800
63.604
5-6
90.800
63.604
6-7
90.800
63.604
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.617
0.000
0.379
1-2
0.000
2.728
0.000
0.944
2-3
0.000
3.081
0.000
0.987
3-4
0.000
2.986
0.000
1.014
4-5
0.000
2.905
0.000
1.064
5-6
0.000
3.076
0.000
1.126
6-7
0.000
3.401
0.000
1.147
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
1.831
4.827
2.6
1-2
2.900
6.573
2.8
2-3
2.916
6.985
2.6
3-4
2.939
6.940
2.4
4-5
2.200
6.169
2.1
5-6
1.987
6.190
1.9
6-7
1.880
6.428
1.8
RES45 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008838
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: W. Trevathan
Date: 10/25/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit-4, Resident 46
Run Mode: Research
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
RES46 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008839
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 22.620 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
32.250
22.620
1-2
32.250
22.620
2-3
32.250
22.620
3-4
32.250
22.620
4-5
32.250
22.620
5-6
32.250
22.620
6-7
32.250
22.620
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.652
0.000
0.384
1-2
0.000
2.772
0.000
0.959
2-3
0.000
3.123
0.000
1.001
3-4
0.000
3.021
0.000
1.026
4-5
0.000
2.928
0.000
1.072
5-6
0.000
3.095
0.000
1.133
6-7
0.000
3.419
0.000
1.153
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
0.659
3.694
2.0
1-2
1.047
4.778
2.0
2-3
1.051
5.175
1.9
3-4
1.057
5.104
1.8
4-5
0.788
4.787
1.6
5-6
0.711
4.939
1.5
6-7
0.672
5.244
1.5
RES46 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008840
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW1
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 1.767 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
GW1 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008841
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 119.527 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
170.687
119.527
1-2
170.687
119.527
2-3
170.687
119.527
3-4
170.687
119.527
4-5
170.687
119.527
5-6
170.687
119.527
6-7
170.687
119.527
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.578
0.000
0.165
1-2
0.000
2.683
0.000
0.410
2-3
0.000
3.037
0.000
0.430
3-4
0.000
2.949
0.000
0.443
4-5
0.000
2.885
0.000
0.466
5-6
0.000
3.060
0.000
0.495
6-7
0.000
3.387
0.000
0.504
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.389
6.132
3.3
1-2
5.360
8.453
3.5
2-3
5.404
8.871
3.3
3-4
5.457
8.850
3.1
4-5
4.106
7.457
2.6
5-6
3.715
7.271
2.3
6-7
3.517
7.408
2.1
GW1 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008842
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW2
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 2.850 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
GW2 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008843
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 119.500 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
170.687
119.500
1-2
170.687
119.500
2-3
170.687
119.500
3-4
170.687
119.500
4-5
170.687
119.500
5-6
170.687
119.500
6-7
170.687
119.500
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.575
0.000
0.265
1-2
0.000
2.678
0.000
0.660
2-3
0.000
3.032
0.000
0.692
3-4
0.000
2.944
0.000
0.713
4-5
0.000
2.881
0.000
0.751
5-6
0.000
3.056
0.000
0.797
6-7
0.000
3.382
0.000
0.812
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.385
6.226
3.4
1-2
5.348
8.686
3.6
2-3
5.393
9.117
3.4
3-4
5.448
9.105
3.2
4-5
4.099
7.731
2.7
5-6
3.710
7.563
2.4
6-7
3.512
7.707
2.2
GW2 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008844
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW3
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 1.350 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
GW3 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008845
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 119.499 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
170.687
119.498
1-2
170.687
119.498
2-3
170.687
119.498
3-4
170.687
119.498
4-5
170.687
119.498
5-6
170.687
119.498
6-7
170.687
119.498
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.579
0.000
0.126
1-2
0.000
2.685
0.000
0.314
2-3
0.000
3.040
0.000
0.329
3-4
0.000
2.951
0.000
0.338
4-5
0.000
2.887
0.000
0.357
5-6
0.000
3.062
0.000
0.378
6-7
0.000
3.388
0.000
0.386
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.390
6.096
3.3
1-2
5.364
8.363
3.5
2-3
5.407
8.775
3.3
3-4
5.460
8.750
3.1
4-5
4.107
7.351
2.6
5-6
3.717
7.157
2.3
6-7
3.519
7.293
2.1
GW3 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008846
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW5
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 0.125 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
GW5 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008847
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 119.499 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
170.687
119.499
1-2
170.687
119.499
2-3
170.687
119.499
3-4
170.687
119.499
4-5
170.687
119.499
5-6
170.687
119.499
6-7
170.687
119.499
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.582
0.000
0.012
1-2
0.000
2.692
0.000
0.029
2-3
0.000
3.046
0.000
0.031
3-4
0.000
2.957
0.000
0.031
4-5
0.000
2.892
0.000
0.033
5-6
0.000
3.067
0.000
0.035
6-7
0.000
3.393
0.000
0.036
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.395
5.989
3.3
1-2
5.376
8.097
3.4
2-3
5.419
8.495
3.2
3-4
5.471
8.459
3.0
4-5
4.115
7.039
2.5
5-6
3.723
6.825
2.2
6-7
3.524
6.953
2.0
GW5 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008848
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW8
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.000
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.000
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.000
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.000
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 12.683 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
GW8 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008849
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 119.507 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
170.687
119.507
1-2
170.687
119.507
2-3
170.687
119.507
3-4
170.687
119.507
4-5
170.687
119.507
5-6
170.687
119.507
6-7
170.687
119.507
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.550
0.000
1.170
1-2
0.000
2.628
0.000
2.884
2-3
0.000
2.981
0.000
3.030
3-4
0.000
2.901
0.000
3.125
4-5
0.000
2.842
0.000
3.298
5-6
0.000
3.017
0.000
3.500
6-7
0.000
3.342
0.000
3.572
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.352
7.072
3.8
1-2
5.250
10.762
4.4
2-3
5.304
11.315
4.2
3-4
5.368
11.395
4.0
4-5
4.044
10.184
3.5
5-6
3.663
10.180
3.2
6-7
3.470
10.384
2.9
GW8 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008850
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 262
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 10/28/2005
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4, GW11
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A | y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.001
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.001
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.001
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.001
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
5.530
1-2
5.780
2-3
6.490
3-4
6.240
4-5
6.010
5-6
6.340
6-7
7.000
****** Drinking 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: 0.650 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
GW11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008851
-------
Average multiple source concentration: 119.581 ug/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 (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
170.687
119.581
1-2
170.687
119.581
2-3
170.687
119.581
3-4
170.687
119.581
4-5
170.687
119.581
5-6
170.687
119.581
6-7
170.687
119.581
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.000
2.581
0.000
0.061
1-2
0.000
2.689
0.000
0.151
2-3
0.001
3.043
0.000
0.158
3-4
0.001
2.954
0.000
0.163
4-5
0.001
2.889
0.000
0.172
5-6
0.001
3.065
0.000
0.182
6-7
0.001
3.391
0.000
0.186
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
3.394
6.036
3.3
1-2
5.373
8.213
3.4
2-3
5.415
8.618
3.2
3-4
5.468
8.586
3.0
4-5
4.113
7.175
2.5
5-6
3.722
6.970
2.2
6-7
3.523
7.101
2.0
GW11 10/31/2005 2:14 PM
008852
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT_2005-1028
008853
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Probability Plots
008854
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT_2005-1028
008855
OCTOBER 2005
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 01
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 02
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Res. 03
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 04
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.918 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.022 Comment = Res05
008860
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 06
-------
0 2 4 6
8 10 12 14
16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.515
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 0.166
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 07
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 08
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 09
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 10
-------
0 2 4 6
8 10 12 14
16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.160
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 0.056
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 11
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 12
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 13
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 3.280 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.885 Comment = Resident 14
008869
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 3.455 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 1.187 Comment = Residentl5/GW4
008870
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.464 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.002 Comment = Residentl6/GW9
008871
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 3.352 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 1.002 Comment = Resident 17
008872
-------
0 2 4 6
8 10 12 14
16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.307
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 0.090
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 18
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 19
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.069 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.040 Comment = Resident 20
008875
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 21
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 22
-------
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Resident 23
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.728 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.009
008879
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 1.663
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.007
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008880
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 5.061 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 7.365
008881
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.932 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.023
008882
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100r
Comment — Resident 28
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.172
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.058
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008883
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 1.798
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.013
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008884
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 1.680
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.007
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008885
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100r
Comment ~ Resident 31
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.307
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.090
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008886
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.095
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.044
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008887
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.679 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.007
008888
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100r
Comment - Resident 34
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.494
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.157
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008889
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.092
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.044
ent -r Resident 35
9 10 11 12
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008890
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean =1.721
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.009
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008891
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (u«® Lament = Resident 37
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 33.962 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 99.536
Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 ug/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)
008892
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
8 10 12 14 16
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 3.645
GSD= 1.600
% Above =1.588
22 24
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008893
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100r
12 15 18 21 24 27
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
30 33
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 5.749
GSD= 1.600
% Above =11.943
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008894
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
12 15 18 21 24 27
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
30 33
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 4.599
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 4.919
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008895
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100r
50
25
Comment ~ Resident II
12 16 20 24 28 32
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 6.910
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 21.578
36 40 44 48
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008896
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.859 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.017
008897
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 1.608 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 0.005
008898
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 1.887
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.019
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008899
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100r
Comment — Resident 45
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.345
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.101
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008900
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100
4 5 6 7 8
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 1.795
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.013
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
008901
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.903 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.425 Comment = GW1
008902
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.984 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.505 Comment = GW2
008903
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.871 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.397 Comment = GW3
008904
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.779 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.322 Comment = GW5
008905
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 3.711 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above =1.748 Comment = GW8
008906
-------
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.819 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.353 Comment = GW11
008907
-------
Appendix H
Adult Lead Modeling
008908
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008909
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Summary of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Risk Estimations
008910
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008911
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table H
Summary of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) Risk Estimations
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Resident
Geo Mean
%Above
1
1.768
1.4%
2
1.773
1.4%
3 **
58400
100%
4
1.825
1.5%
5 **
58400
100%
6
1.780
1.4%
7
1.951
1.8%
8
1.805
1.5%
9
1.823
1.5%
10
1.802
1.4%
11
1.863
1.6%
12
1.756
1.3%
13
1.829
1.5%
14
2.147
2.4%
15
1.766
1.4%
16
1.755
1.3%
17
2.165
2.5%
18
1.899
1.7%
19
1.740
1.3%
20
1.841
1.5%
21
1.824
1.5%
22
1.824
1.5%
23
1.804
1.5%
24
1.758
1.3%
25
1.742
1.3%
26
2.631
4.2%
27
1.808
1.5%
28
1.866
1.6%
29
1.775
1.4%
30
1.746
1.3%
31
1.900
1.7%
32
1.847
1.6%
33
1.746
1.3%
34
1.946
1.8%
35
1.846
1.6%
36
1.756
1.3%
38
2.243
2.7%
39
2.830
5.0%
40
2.501
3.7%
41
3.181
6.7%
42
1.790
1.4%
43
1.729
1.3%
44
1.796
1.4%
45
1.909
1.7%
46
1.774
1.4%
Note:
** Resident on BIA land
C^Exceeds the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
008912
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008913
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table H-1 (Rags D Adult Lead Worksheet)
008914
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
008915
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TABLE H-l (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Resl, 61500 E. 57 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
29.625
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
61500 E. 57 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (central
tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum)
was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance
for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 29.6 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described
in the 1994 OS WER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses
of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res1
008916
-------
TABLE H-2 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_2, 51496 E. 57 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
31.64
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
51496 E. 57 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (central
tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum)
was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance
for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 31.6 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets the blood lead goal as described
in the 1994 OS WER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses
of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res2
008917
-------
TABLE H-3 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_3, 5671 S. 630 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
29.075
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
5671 S. 630 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (value
obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum) was 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; the ingestion rate of 400 mg/day was based on Harper et al. (2002).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 29.075 mg/kg in soil and ingestion of locally gathered
food items result in 100% of subsistence residents above a blood lead
level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 58,400
ug/dL. This exceeds 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.
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
(3) Flarper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME.
Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.
Res3
008918
-------
TABLE H-4 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_4, 62301 E. 57 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
54.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
62301 E. 57 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 54.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res4
008919
-------
TABLE H-5 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_5, 4200 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
88.4
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
4200 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year (value
obtained from undated EPA Region 6 Memorandum) was 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; the ingestion rate of 400 mg/day was based on Harper et al. (2002).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 88.4 mg/kg in soil and ingestion of locally gathered food
items result in 100% of subsistence residents above a blood lead level of
10 ug/dL. The geometric mean blood lead level = 58,400 ug/dL. This
exceeds 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.
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
(3) Flarper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME.
Risk Analysis. VOl. 22. No. 3.
Res5
008920
-------
TABLE H-6 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_6, 54801 E. 30 Rd. )
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
34.55
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
54801 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 34.6 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res6
008921
-------
TABLE H-7 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_7, 2811 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
109
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
2811 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 109.0 mg/kg in soil results in 1.8% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.0 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res7
008922
-------
TABLE H-8 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_8, 54501 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
45.44
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
54501 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 45.4 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res8
008923
-------
TABLE H-9 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_9, 63040 E. 16 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
53.3
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63040 E. 16 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 53.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res9
008924
-------
TABLE H-10 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (ReslO, 63470 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
44.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63470 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 44.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
ReslO
008925
-------
TABLE H-ll (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Resll, 63430 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
71
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63430 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 71.0 mg/kg in soil results in 1.6% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.9 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res11
008926
-------
TABLE H-12 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_12, 63401 E. 10 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
24.5
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63401 E. 10 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 24.5 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res12
008927
-------
TABLE H-13 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_13, 63501 E. 10 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
56
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63501 E. 10 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 56.0 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res13
008928
-------
TABLE H-14 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_14, 63451 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
194.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63451 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 194.3 mg/kg in soil results in 2.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.1 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res14
008929
-------
TABLE H-15 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_15, 63400 E. 40 Rd. )
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
28.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63400 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 28.8 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res15
008930
-------
TABLE H-16 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_16, 63150 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
24
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63150 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 24.0 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res16
008931
-------
TABLE H-17 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_17, 2501 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
202
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
2501 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 202.0 mg/kg in soil results in 2.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.2 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res17
008932
-------
TABLE H-18 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_18, 2601 S. 550 Rd. )
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
86.3
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
2601 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 86.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.7% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.9 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res18
008933
-------
TABLE H-19 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_19, 54600 E. 40 Rd. )
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
17.3
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
54600 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 17.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.7 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res19
008934
-------
TABLE H-20 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_20, 3800 S. 630 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
61.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
3800 S. 630 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 61.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res20
008935
-------
TABLE H-21 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_21, 2300 S. 590 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
53.8
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
2300 S. 590 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 53.8 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res21
008936
-------
TABLE H-22 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_22, 59505 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
54.1
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
59505 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 54.1 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res22
008937
-------
TABLE H-23 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_23, 62401 E. 50 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
45.2
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
62401 E. 50 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 45.2 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res23
008938
-------
TABLE H-24 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_24, 63450 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
25.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63450 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 25.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res24
008939
-------
TABLE H-25 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_25, 5301 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
18.4
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
5301 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 18.4 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.7 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res25
008940
-------
TABLE H-26 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_26, 4990 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
404.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
4990 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 404.8 mg/kg in soil results in 4.2% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.6 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res26
008941
-------
TABLE H-27 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_27, 63349 E. 16 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
46.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63349 E. 16 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 46.8 mg/kg in soil results in 1.5% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res27
008942
-------
TABLE H-28 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_28, 63350 E. 16 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
72.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
63350 E. 16 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 72.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.6% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.9 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res28
008943
-------
TABLE H-29 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_29, 5401 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
32.5
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
5401 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 32.5 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res29
008944
-------
TABLE H-30 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_30, 5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer))
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
20.2
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
5401 S. 620 Rd. (trailer)
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 20.2 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.7 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res30
008945
-------
TABLE H-31 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_31, 62610 E. 60 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
86.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
62610 E. 60 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 86.8 mg/kg in soil results in 1.7% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.9 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res31
008946
-------
TABLE H-32 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_32, 62612 E. 60 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
64
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
62612 E. 60 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 64.0 mg/kg in soil results in 1.6% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res32
008947
-------
TABLE H-33 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_33, 3195 S. 550 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
19.8
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
3195 S. 550 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 19.8 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.7 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res33
008948
-------
TABLE H-34 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_34, 56600 E. HWY 69 )
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
106.85
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
56600 E. HWY 69
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 106.9 mg/kg in soil results in 1.8% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.9 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res34
008949
-------
TABLE H-35 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_35, 56600 E. HWY 69 )
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
63.4
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
56600 E. HWY 69
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 63.4 mg/kg in soil results in 1.6% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res35
008950
-------
TABLE H-36 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_36, 3750 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
24.5
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
3750 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 24.5 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res36
008951
-------
TABLE H-37 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_37, 61210 E. 20 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
7470
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
61210 E. 20 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 7470.0 mg/kg in soil results in 73.8% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 18.9 ug/dL. This exceeds 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.
500 ppm in accordance with OU 2.
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res37
008952
-------
TABLE H-38 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_38, 55200 E. 50 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
235.75
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
55200 E. 50 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 235.8 mg/kg in soil results in 2.7% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.2 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res38
008953
-------
TABLE H-39 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_39, 57995 E. 40 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
491
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
57995 E. 40 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 491.0 mg/kg in soil results in 5.0% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res39
008954
-------
TABLE H-40 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_40, 56801 E. 20 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
348
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
56801 E. 20 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 348.0 mg/kg in soil results in 3.7% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 2.5 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res40
008955
-------
TABLE H-41 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_41, 56900 E. 20 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
643.3
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
56900 E. 20 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 643.3 mg/kg in soil results in 6.7% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 3.2 ug/dL. This exceeds 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.
500 ppm in accordance with OU 2.
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res41
008956
-------
TABLE H-42 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_42, 62350 E. 30 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
39
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
62350 E. 30 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 39.0 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res42
008957
-------
TABLE H-43 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_43, 6800 S. 572 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
12.64
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
6800 S. 572 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 12.6 mg/kg in soil results in 1.3% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.7 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res43
008958
-------
TABLE H-44 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_44, 6751 S. 572 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
41.9
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
6751 S. 572 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 41.9 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res44
008959
-------
TABLE H-45 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_45, 4671 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
90.8
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
4671 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 90.8 mg/kg in soil results in 1.7% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.9 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res45
008960
-------
TABLE H-46 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4 (Res_46, 4631 S. 620 Rd.)
Receptor: Adult Resident, Exposure to Media as Described
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
32.25
mg/kg
Avg Measured at Yard
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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 of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
4631 S. 620 Rd.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; the default residential exposure frequency of 350 days/year
(central tendency value obtained from undated EPA Region 6
Memorandum) was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 32.3 mg/kg in soil results in 1.4% of general public
residents above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 1.8 ug/dL. This meets 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.
Not needed
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from Phases 1 and 2 of the
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and RME-Draft.
Res46
008961
-------
TABLE H-47 (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Tar Creek, Operable Unit 4
Receptor: Adolescent Recreator, Exposure to Media as Described
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
3461
mg/kg
Avg Measured
NA
mg/kg
NA
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, Version date 05/19/03
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide
rationale for model selected.
~
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H.
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?
Arithmetric mean concentration of exposure area; data presented in
Appendix H.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Chat Pile Material and Tailings
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Appendix H
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended
range of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix .
Default GSDs of 2.1 and 2.3 for homogeneous and heterogeneous
population, respectively (EPA, 2002).
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 PbBO of 1.7 for heterogeneous population (EPA, 2002).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No; 184 days/year, the average total number of days without rain and
above freezing for the years between 1999 and 2003, was 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; the central tendency value was based on U.S. EPA (1993)
guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario).
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed
above, where are the rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Appendix H.
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 3461 mg/kg in soil results in 22.3% of adolescent
recreators above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. The geometric mean
blood lead level = 5.9 ug/dL. This exceeds 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.
Reference
(1) EPA. 2002. Blood Lead Concentrations of U.S> Adult Females: Summary Statistics from
National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III).
(2) EPA. 1993. Superfimd's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and
Recreator
Phases 1 and 2 of the
RME-Draft.
008962
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT_2005-1028
008963
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead
Concentrations(PbBs)
008964
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT_2005-1028
008965
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_l
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
29.6
29.6
29.6
29.6
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Resl
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008966
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_2
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
31.6
31.6
31.6
31.6
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_2
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008967
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbRs) -Res_3
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Harper et al., 2002
(high beef diet)
Harper et al., 2002
(high fish diet)
EFH (EPA, 1996)
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
29.1
S PbF*IRF =
X
X
Sum of Food lead concentration times ingestion rate
ug/day
822332.2
822332.2
822583.2
822583.2
344102.5
344102.5
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
afsd
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
EFs,d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
350
350
EFf
X
X
Exposure frequency (food ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
365
365
ATs,d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil, dust, food ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
365
365
PbBadult
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
39,474.0
39,474.2
39,486.0
39,486.2
16,519.0
16,519.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Pr obability that fetal PbB > FbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
*
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IR^d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetai>0.95-
* Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
I PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs D*EFs/ATs.D) + (PbF*BKSF*IRf*AFf**EFf/ATF) + PbB0
S PbF*IRF = PbF 1 *IRF1 + PbF2*IRF2 +PbF3 *IRF3 +PbF4*IRF4
EPC
Basis
PbFl
Food lead concentration (Food Item 1 - Small Mammals)
Ug/g or ppm
3.8E+02
Modeled
PbF2
Food lead concentration (Food Item 2 - Beef)
ug/g or ppm
1.2E-01
Modeled
PbF3
Food lead concentration (Food Item 3 - Aquatic Biota)
ug/g or ppm
1.6E+00
Modeled
PbF4
Food lead concentration (Food Item 4 - Fish)
ug/g or ppm
4.3E-01
Mean Measured
PbF5
Food lead concentration (Food Item 5 - Asparagus [above ground])
ug/g or ppm
1.9E+01
Avg Measured
PbF6
Food lead concentration (Food Item 6 - Asparagus [root])
ug/g or ppm
5.6E+02
Avg Measured
PbF7
Food lead concentration (Food Item 7 - Willow [above ground])
ug/g or ppm
1.1E+01
Avg Measured
PbF8
Food lead concentration (Food Item 8 - Willow [root])
ug/g or ppm
1.0E+03
Avg Measured
PbF9
Food lead concentration (Food Item 9 - Cattail [above ground])
ug/g or ppm
2.9E+02
Avg Measured
PbFlO
Food lead concentration (Food Item 10 - Cattail [root])
ug/g or ppm
1.1E+03
Avg Measured
Harper et al., 2002
EFH
(EPA, 1996)
High Beef Diet
High Fish Diet
IRfi
Food Iteml ingestion rate - Small Mammals
g/day
50
50
15.3
irF2
Food Item2 ingestion rate - Beef
g/day
885
100
169.5
IRf3
Food Item3 ingestion rate - Aquatic Biota
g/day
175
175
42.5
IRf4
Food Item4 ingestion rate - Fish
g/day
75
885
127.5
IRf5
Food Item5 ingestion rate - Asparagus [above ground]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf6
Food Item6 ingestion rate - Asparagus [root]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf7
Food Item7 ingestion rate - Willow [above ground]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf8
Food Item8 ingestion rate - Willow [root]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf9
Food Item9 ingestion rate - Cattail [above ground]
g/day
270
270
113.7
iRfio
Food Iteml 0 ingestion rate - Cattail [root]
g/day
270
270
113.7
References:
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
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
008968
Printed 02/09/2006 12:47 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_4
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
54.3
54.3
54.3
54.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_4
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008969
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbRs) -Res_5
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbRs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Harper et al., 2002
(high beef diet)
Harper et al., 2002
(high fish diet)
EEH (EPA, 1996)
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/gorppm
88.4
88.4
88.4
88.4
88.4
88.4
S PbF*IRF =
X
X
Sum of Food lead concentration times ingestion rate
ug/day
822332.2
822332.2
822583.2
822583.2
344102.5
344102.5
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
afsd
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
EFs,d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
350
350
EFf
X
X
Exposure frequency (food ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
365
365
ATs>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil, dust, food ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
365
365
PbBadult
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
39,475.1
39,475.3
39,487.1
39,487.3
16,520.0
16,520.2
PbRt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution
*
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, Kgo).
When IRS = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PbBfetal 0.95-
*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1,2 in USEPA (1996).
I PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs D*EFs/ATs.D) + (PbF*BKSF*IRF*AFf**EFf/ATF) + PbB0
E PbF* IRf = PbFl *IRF1 + PbF2*IRF2 +PbF3*rRF3 +PbF4 *IRF4
EPC
Basis
PbFl
Food lead concentration (Food Item 1 - Small Mammals)
Ug/gorppm
3.8E+02
Modeled
PbF2
Food lead concentration (Food Item 2 - Beef)
ug/gorppm
1.2E-01
Modeled
PbF3
Food lead concentration (Food Item 3 - Aquatic Biota)
ug/gorppm
1.6E+00
Modeled
PbF4
Food lead concentration (Food Item 4 - Fish)
ug/gorppm
4.3E-01
Mean Measured
PbF5
Food lead concentration (Food Item 5 - Asparagus [above ground])
ug/gorppm
1.9E+01
Avg Measured
PbF6
Food lead concentration (Food Item 6 - Asparagus [root])
ug/gorppm
5.6E+02
Avg Measured
PbF7
Food lead concentration (Food Item 7 - Willow [above ground])
ug/gorppm
1.1E+01
Avg Measured
PbF8
Food lead concentration (Food Item 8 - Willow [root])
ug/gorppm
1.0E+03
Avg Measured
PbF9
Food lead concentration (Food Item 9 - Cattail [above ground])
ug/gorppm
2.9E+02
Avg Measured
PbFlO
Food lead concentration (Food Item 10 - Cattail [root])
ug/gorppm
1.1E+03
Avg Measured
Harper et al., 2002
EFH
(EPA, 1996)
High Beef Diet
High Fish Diet
IRfi
Food Iteml ingestion rate - Small Mammals
g/day
50
50
15.3
irF2
Food Item2 ingestion rate - Beef
g/day
885
100
169.5
IRf3
Food Item3 ingestion rate - Aquatic Biota
g/day
175
175
42.5
IRf4
Food Item4 ingestion rate - Fish
g/day
75
885
127.5
IRf5
Food Item5 ingestion rate - Asparagus [above ground]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf6
Food Item6 ingestion rate - Asparagus [root]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf7
Food Item7 ingestion rate - Willow [above ground]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf8
Food Item8 ingestion rate - Willow [root]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRf9
Food Item9 ingestion rate - Cattail [above ground]
g/day
270
270
113.7
IRfio
Food Item 10 ingestion rate - Cattail [root]
g/day
270
270
113.7
References:
Harper et al. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No. 3.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
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
008970
Printed 02/09/2006 12:48 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_6
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_6
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008971
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_7
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.3
6.9
5.3
6.9
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.6%
1.8%
0.6%
1.8%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_7
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008972
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_8
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
45.4
45.4
45.4
45.4
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.9
6.4
4.9
6.4
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_8
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008973
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_9
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
53.3
53.3
53.3
53.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.9
6.5
4.9
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_9
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008974
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_10
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
44.3
44.3
44.3
44.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.9
6.4
4.9
6.4
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.4%
0.5%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_10
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008975
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_ll
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
71.0
71.0
71.0
71.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.1
6.6
5.1
6.6
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_l 1
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008976
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_12
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_12
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008977
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_13
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
56.0
56.0
56.0
56.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_13
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008978
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_14
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
194.3
194.3
194.3
194.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.9
7.6
5.9
7.6
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.9%
2.4%
0.9%
2.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_14
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008979
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_15
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
28.8
28.8
28.8
28.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_15
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008980
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_16
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
24.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_16
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008981
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_17
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
202.0
202.0
202.0
202.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.2
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
6.0
7.7
6.0
7.7
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
1.0%
2.5%
1.0%
2.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_17
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008982
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_18
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
86.3
86.3
86.3
86.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.2
6.7
5.2
6.7
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.6%
1.7%
0.6%
1.7%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_18
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008983
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_19
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
17.3
17.3
17.3
17.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_19
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008984
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_20
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
61.3
61.3
61.3
61.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_20
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008985
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_21
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
53.8
53.8
53.8
53.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_21
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008986
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_22
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
54.1
54.1
54.1
54.1
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_22
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008987
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_23
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
45.2
45.2
45.2
45.2
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.9
6.4
4.9
6.4
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_23
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008988
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_24
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.2
4.8
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_24
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008989
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_25
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
18.4
18.4
18.4
18.4
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_25
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008990
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_26
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
404.8
404.8
404.8
404.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.6
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
7.4
9.3
7.4
9.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
2.0%
4.2%
2.0%
4.2%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_26
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008991
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_27
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
46.8
46.8
46.8
46.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.9
6.4
4.9
6.4
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.5%
0.5%
1.5%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_27
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008992
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_28
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
72.3
72.3
72.3
72.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.1
6.6
5.1
6.6
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_28
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008993
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_29
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_29
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008994
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_30
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
20.2
20.2
20.2
20.2
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_30
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008995
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_31
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
86.8
86.8
86.8
86.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.2
6.7
5.2
6.7
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.6%
1.7%
0.6%
1.7%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_31
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008996
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_32
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_32
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008997
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_33
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
19.8
19.8
19.8
19.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_33
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008998
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_34
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
106.9
106.9
106.9
106.9
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.3
6.9
5.3
6.9
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.6%
1.8%
0.6%
1.8%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_34
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
008999
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_35
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
63.4
63.4
63.4
63.4
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.0
6.5
5.0
6.5
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.5%
1.6%
0.5%
1.6%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_35
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009000
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_36
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.2
4.7
6.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_36
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009001
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_37
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
7470.0
7470.0
7470.0
7470.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
18.7
18.9
18.7
18.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
57.0
66.9
57.0
66.9
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
75.8%
73.8%
75.8%
73.8%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes \*/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
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
009002
Res_37
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_38
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
235.8
235.8
235.8
235.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.2
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
6.2
7.9
6.2
7.9
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
1.1%
2.7%
1.1%
2.7%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_38
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009003
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_39
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
491.0
491.0
491.0
491.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
8.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
2.6%
5.0%
2.6%
5.0%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_39
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009004
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_40
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
348.0
348.0
348.0
348.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.5
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
7.0
8.9
7.0
8.9
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
1.7%
3.7%
1.7%
3.7%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_40
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009005
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_41
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
643.3
643.3
643.3
643.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
9.1
11.3
9.1
11.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
3.8%
6.7%
3.8%
6.7%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_41
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009006
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_42
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
39.0
39.0
39.0
39.0
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_42
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009007
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_43
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.7
6.1
4.7
6.1
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_43
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009008
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_44
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
41.9
41.9
41.9
41.9
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.9
6.4
4.9
6.4
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_44
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009009
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_45
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
90.8
90.8
90.8
90.8
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.9
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.2
6.8
5.2
6.8
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.6%
1.7%
0.6%
1.7%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_45
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009010
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Res_46
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
32.3
32.3
32.3
32.3
P-fetal/matemal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IR-s+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of II^+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
K-sd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efs>d
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust?
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ats>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBa(iuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
PbBfetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.3
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBj)
Probability that fetal PbB >PbBi, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.4%
1.4%
0.4%
1.4%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes ^/KSD).
When IRg = IRs+d and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PhE^ 0 95.
2 Based on U.S. EPA (1993) guidance for adult (non-contact residential scenario)
"Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult = (PbS*BKSF*IRs+D*AFs,D*EFs/ATs.D) + PbB0
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
**Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1, 2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
p|)B _ PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+r,)*AFs*EFs*Ws]+[KSI,*(IRs+I1)*(l-Ws)*AFI*EFI1])/365+PbB„
r UE> adult
PbB f0t,lo95 = PbB„Jllt » (GSD,1 645 » R)
Res_46
Printed 10/31/2005 2:22 PM
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
009011
-------
0 3 6 9
12 15 18 21
24 27 30 33 36
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 4.915
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 6.535
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = Mean(Soil) - Max(Air)
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
IOOt
50
25
12 15 18 21
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
24
27
30
33
36
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 4.790
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 5.866
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = Mean(Soil) - Mean(Air)
009013
-------
Appendix I
Future Blood Lead Levels
009014
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009015
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Table 1-1
Summary of Health Risks associated with Future Lead Exposure to Residential Child
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Soil (mg/kg)
Ambient Air (ug/m3)
Geo Mean BLL
% Above Target Level
Maximum
18900
Maximum
0.18
57.42
99.999
Mean
(75th Percentile)
131
Maximum
0.18
2.319
0.094
009016
-------
Table 1-2
Summary of Health Risks associated with Future Lead Exposure to Residential Adult
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Resident (General Public)
Resident
Subsistence)
Soil (mg/kg)
Geo Mean BLL
% Above Target Level
Geo Mean BLL
% Above Target Level
Maximum
18900
45.2
95.4
349.7
100
Mean
131
2.0
1.98
4.11
11.6
Median
45.6
-
-
2.54
3.82
009017
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future General Public (Max)
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/gorppm
18900
18900
18900
33066
n
^Metal/m ateraal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokmetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IRs+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of IRg+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
Ksd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efS(D
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ATs>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBaduIt
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
45.0
45.2
45.0
77.8
PbBfetal( 0 95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
137.2
160.1
137.2
275.6
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution
%
97.0%
95.4%
97.0%
99.0%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws =1.0, the equations yield the same PbEjetal 0 95.
*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
(PbS*BKSF*IRs+D* AFS(D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
"""Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1,2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+D )*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D >*( 1 -Ws )*AFD*EFD] )/365+PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
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
009018
Printed 02/09/2006 12:53 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future General Public (Mean/75%)
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/gorppm
131
131
131
131
n
^Metal/m ateraal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokmetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
-
-
IRs+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.050
0.050
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of IRg+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
Ksd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efS(D
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ATs>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBaduIt
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
PbBfetal( 0 95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
5.5
7.1
5.5
7.1
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.7%
2.0%
0.7%
2.0%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws =1.0, the equations yield the same PbEjetal 0 95.
*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
(PbS*BKSF*IRs+D* AFS(D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
"""Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1,2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+D )*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D >*( 1 -Ws )*AFD*EFD] )/365+PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
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
009019
Printed 02/09/2006 12:54 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future Subsistence Resident (Max)
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/gorppm
18900
18900
18900
18900
n
^Metal/m ateraal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokmetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.400
0.400
-
-
IRs+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.400
0.400
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of IRg+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
Ksd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efS(D
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ATs>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBaduIt
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
349.5
349.7
349.5
349.7
PbBfetal( 0 95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
1,065.9
1,238.6
1,065.9
1,238.6
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution
%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws =1.0, the equations yield the same PbEjetal 0 95.
*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
(PbS*BKSF*IRs+D* AFS(D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
"""Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1,2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+D )*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D >*( 1 -Ws )*AFD*EFD] )/365+PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
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
009020
Printed 02/09/2006 12:54 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future Subsistence Resident (Mean)
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/gorppm
131
131
131
131
n
^Metal/m ateraal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokmetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.400
0.400
-
-
IRs+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.400
0.400
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of IRg+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
Ksd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efS(D
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ATs>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBaduIt
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
PbBfetal( 0 95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
11.9
14.6
11.9
14.6
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution
%
8.0%
11.6%
8.0%
11.6%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws =1.0, the equations yield the same PbEjetal 0 95.
*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
(PbS*BKSF*IRs+D* AFS(D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
"""Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1,2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+D )*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D >*( 1 -Ws )*AFD*EFD] )/365+PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
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
009021
Printed 02/09/2006 12:54 PM
-------
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs) - Future Subsistence Resident (Median)
Revised 02/09/2006
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PbB
Equation1
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
Using Equation 2
1*
2**
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbS
X
X
Soil lead concentration
ug/gorppm
45.6
45.6
45.6
45.6
n
^Metal/m ateraal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokmetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
GSDj
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.3
PbB0
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.7
IRS
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.400
0.400
-
-
IRs+d
X
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
-
-
0.400
0.400
Ws
X
Weighting factor; fraction of IRg+D ingested as outdoor soil
-
-
1.0
1.0
Ksd
X
Mass fraction of soil in dust
-
-
0.7
0.7
afs>d
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
efS(D
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
350
350
ATs>d
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
365
365
PbBaduIt
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.5
PbBfetal( 0 95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
7.1
9.0
7.1
9.0
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbBt, assuming lognormal distribution
%
1.8%
3.8%
1.8%
3.8%
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws =1.0, the equations yield the same PbEjetal 0 95.
*Equation 1, based on Eq. 1, 2 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
(PbS*BKSF*IRs+D* AFS(D*EFS/ATS.D) + PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
"""Equation 2, alternate approach based on Eq. 1,2, and A-19 in USEPA (1996).
PbB adult —
PbS*BKSF*([(IRs+D )*AFS*EFS*WS]+[KSD*(IRS+D >*( 1 -Ws )*AFD*EFD] )/365+PbB0
PbB fetal 0 95 =
PbB,dult*(GSDiL645 *R)
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
009022
Printed 02/09/2006 12:54 PM
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009023
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 01/31/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A j y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.180
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.180
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.180
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.180
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.180
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.180
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.180
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
3.160
1-2
2.600
2-3
2.870
3-4
2.740
4-5
2.610
5-6
2.740
6-7
2.990
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 13248.000 ug/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Max(s)-Max(a) Revised 02/09/2006
009024
-------
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
18900.000
13248.000
1-2
18900.000
13248.000
2-3
18900.000
13248.000
3-4
18900.000
13248.000
4-5
18900.000
13248.000
5-6
18900.000
13248.000
6-7
18900.000
13248.000
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year
Air
Diet
Alternate
Water
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
.5-1
0.038
0.507
0.000
0.128
1-2
0.062
0.391
0.000
0.301
2-3
0.112
0.454
0.000
0.329
3-4
0.120
0.456
0.000
0.353
4-5
0.120
0.508
0.000
0.428
5-6
0.168
0.580
0.000
0.491
6-7
0.168
0.669
0.000
0.528
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
129.137
129.810
59.6
1-2
192.582
193.337
67.7
2-3
202.259
203.153
64.7
3-4
212.808
213.737
63.8
4-5
184.541
185.598
56.7
5-6
180.654
181.894
50.9
6-7
180.117
181.482
46.9
Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 |jg/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)
Max(s)-Max(a)
009025
Revised 02/09/2006
-------
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.0
Model Version: 1.0 Build 263
User Name: Hiroshi Awata
Date: 01/31/2006
Site Name: Tar Creek
Operable Unit: Operable Unit 4
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
The time step used in this model run: 1 - Every 4 Hours (6 times a day).
****** A j y ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ai
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(mA3/day)
(%)
(ug Pb/mA3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.180
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.180
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.180
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.180
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.180
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.180
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.180
****** Qjg^ ******
Age
Diet lntake(ug/day)
.5-1
3.160
1-2
2.600
2-3
2.870
3-4
2.740
4-5
2.610
5-6
2.740
6-7
2.990
****** Drinking 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 ug Pb/L
****** Soil & Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 109.700 ug/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Mean,75%(s)-Max(a) Revised 02/09/2006
009026
-------
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ug Pb/g) House Dust (ug Pb/g)
.5-1
131.000
109.700
1-2
131.000
109.700
2-3
131.000
109.700
3-4
131.000
109.700
4-5
131.000
109.700
5-6
131.000
109.700
6-7
131.000
109.700
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ug 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: 2.500 ug Pb/dL
*****************************************
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
*****************************************
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day) (ug/day)
.5-1
0.038
1.497
0.000
0.379
1-2
0.062
1.226
0.000
0.943
2-3
0.112
1.363
0.000
0.988
3-4
0.120
1.311
0.000
1.014
4-5
0.120
1.264
0.000
1.066
5-6
0.168
1.333
0.000
1.129
6-7
0.168
1.458
0.000
1.151
Year
Soil+Dust
Total
Blood
(ug/day)
(ug/day)
(ug/dL)
.5-1
2.882
4.795
2.6
1-2
4.555
6.785
2.8
2-3
4.588
7.050
2.6
3-4
4.623
7.068
2.5
4-5
3.467
5.917
2.1
5-6
3.135
5.765
1.8
6-7
2.967
5.745
1.7
Mean,75%(s)-Max(a)
009027
Revised 02/09/2006
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl
Geo Mean = 2.319
GSD = 1.600
% Above = 0.094
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Time Step = Every 4 Hours
Run Mode = Research
Comment = Mean, 75%(Soil) - Max(Air)
009028
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ug/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ug/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 57.420 Time Step = Every 4 Hours
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Research
% Above = 99.990 Comment = Max(Soil) - Max(Air)
Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 ug/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)
009029
-------
Appendix J
Statistical Elevation of Future Soil
Concentrations
009030
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009031
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
CH2MHILL
Appendix J
Technical Memorandum
Updated Statistical Evaluation of Future Soil Concentrations
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit No. 4
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Ursula Lennox/USEPA Region 6 RPM
CH2M HILL, Inc.
EPA Region 5 Response Action Contract No. 68-W6-0025,
Work Assignment No. 233-RKED-06JW
February 3, 2006
06-8499
The estimated future soil concentrations (with depletion) for cadmium, lead, and zinc were
evaluated for distributional fit and representative values for use in estimating future potential
exposures in the HHRA. Over 14,000 estimated concentrations were available (populating a
100-foot grid pattern over the OU4 area). These data were evaluated using three different
goodness-of-fit tests: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Cramer-von Mises test, and the
Anderson-Darling test. These were applied to five different distributions: the Normal, the
Lognormal, the Weibull distribution, the Gamma distribution, and the Exponential distribution
(note: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was not possible with the Weibull distribution). The results
are presented in Table 1. In each case, the parameters of the distributions were optimized to fit
the data as closely as possible.
Table 1: Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Formal
Distributions
Kolmogorov-
Cramer-von
Anderson-
Smirnov
Mises
Darling
Cadmium
Exponential
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Gamma
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Lognormal
< 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Normal
< 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Weibull
-
< 0.01
< 0.01
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 1 FEBRUARY2006
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXJ_REVISED.DOC
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
PREPARED UNDER:
DATE:
DCN NUMBER::
009032
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX J: STATISTICAL ELEVATION FOR FUTURE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
Table 1: Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Formal
Distributions
Kolmogorov-
Cramer-von
Anderson-
Smirnov
Mises
Darling
Lead
Exponential
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Gamma
-
-
-
Lognormal
< 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Normal
< 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Weibull
-
< 0.01
< 0.01
Zinc
Exponential
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Gamma
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
Lognormal
< 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Normal
< 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
Weibull
-
< 0.01
< 0.01
The goodness-of-fit probabilities for the Gamma distribution are not provided for lead, since that
distribution was sufficiently unsuitable for the data that it was impossible to estimate the
specifics of the distribution, much less calculate goodness of fit. (Actually, this was the case
with all three constituents for the beta distribution, so beta was not included in the table at all).
Although the statistics appear near identical for each metal, they were calculated individually.
Note that all these probabilities are low, certainly all well below a significance level such as 0.05
which might be used to determine whether the distribution was a good fit. This lack of fit is at
least partly due to the very large sample size which makes these tests very powerful against
accepting a distributional assumption. Even given that, however, the distribution that appears to
fit the data best is the Weibull distribution which is described with the following probability
distribution function:
pdf = -]
p{p)
A-l
exp
fxv
P.
\iJ J
Where ? (gamma) is a shape parameter, and B (beta) is a scale parameter. The optimized values
for these two parameters for each metal are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Parameters for Optimized Weibull Distributions
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
gamma
1.03
0.690
1.07
beta
0.549
88.7
77.8
This fit can be visualized in the histograms presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 for cadmium, lead,
and zinc, respectively. The superior fit of the Weibull distribution (bold overlayed curve)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFTFINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXJ_REVISED.DOC
009033
2
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX J: STATISTICAL ELEVATION FOR FUTURE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
relative to the normal and lognormal curves can be seen, even though there is some obvious lack
of fit to the data.
In addition to the large sample size, however, there appears to be other factors contributing to the
low goodness-of-fit probabilities, namely multimodal distributions within the data. These can be
viewed in histograms of log-transformed data as presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6 for cadmium,
lead, and zinc, respectively. These histograms suggest at least three distributions combining
together to form the overall data set. Gaining approximate concentrations of each of these three
modes help to portray the distributions. The approximations of these modes, and other overall
statistics of the data for each metal, are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary Statistics (ppm) for Each Data Set
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Minimum
0.0206
0.870
3.81
25th Percentile
0.157
19.3
21.0
Median
0.307
45.6
45.4
75th Percentile
0.800
131
110
Maximum
4.61
18900
846
Mean
0.540
131
75.7
First Mode
0.0302
4.06
13.9
Second Mode
0.174
30.0
37.7
Third Mode
1.65
221
217
Given these statistics, and the observed indication of multimodal distributions, the most
trustworthy best estimates of these distributions may simply be the mean and perhaps the median
of these data. These values were used in the HHRA for evaluation of future soils to estimate
risks associated with this overall area.
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 3
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXJ_REVISED.DOC
009034
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX J: STATISTICAL ELEVATION FOR FUTURE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 4 FEBRUARY 2006
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXJ_REVISED.DOC
009035
-------
Figures
009036
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX J: STATISTICAL ELEVATION FOR FUTURE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
(This page intentionally left blank.)
P:\USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02\APPENDICIES\ 6 FEBRUARY 2006
APPENDIXATC_HHRA_DRAFTFINALRA_APPENDIXJ_REVISED.DOC
009037
-------
Figure 1: Histogram and Distribution Curves for Cadmium
25
20
§15
-------
Figure 2: Histogram and Distribution Curves for Lead
c
-------
Figure 3: Histogram and Distribution Curves for Zinc
Concentration
Solid Line = Normal Curve; Dashed Line = Lognormal Curve; Bold Line = Weibull Curve
009040
-------
Figure 4: Histogram of Log Transformed Values for Cadmium
-4.00 -3.75 -3.50 -3.25 -3.00 -2.75 -2.50 -2.25 -2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Log (Concentration, ppm)
-------
Figure 5: Histogram of Log Transformed Values for Lead
-0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.6 9.0 9.4 9.8
Log (Concentration, ppm)
009042
-------
Figure 6: Histogram of Log Transformed Values for Zinc
11
10'
6
5
1.38 1.63 1.88 2.13 2.38 2.63 2.88 3.13 3.38 3.63 3.88 4.13 4.38 4.63 4.88 5.13 5.38 5.63 5.88 6.13 6.38 6.63
Log (Concentration, ppm)
009043
-------
Appendix K
Native American Risk Calculations
009044
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009045
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TABLE K-1
Comparison of Exposure Factors Used For Subsistence Resident Daily Intake Calculations
Tar Creek - Miami, OK
Exposure Factors
Exposure
Obtained from Harper et al.
Factors
Food Item
Units
High
High
Obtained from
Fish
Beef
EPA's Exposure
Diet
Diet
Note
Factors Handbook
Note
Fish
kg/day
0.885
0.075
0.128
(2)
Aquatic Food (Mussels, Crayfish)
kg/day
0.175
0.175
0.043
(2)
Small Game
kg/day
0.05
0.05
0.015
(3)
Beef
kg/day
0.10
0.885
0.170
(4)
Asparagus (above ground)
kg/day
0.27
0.27
(1)
0.114
(5)
Asparagus (root)
kg/day
0.27
0.27
(1)
0.114
(5)
Willow (above ground)
kg/day
0.27
0.27
(1)
0.114
(5)
Wllow (root)
kg/day
0.27
0.27
(1)
0.114
(5)
Cattail (above ground)
kg/day
0.27
0.27
(1)
0.114
(5)
Cattail (root)
kg/day
0.27
0.27
(1)
0.114
(5)
Units are presented each food item (kg)/day.
References:
Harper etal. 2002. The Spokane Tribe's Multipathway Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Screening Level RME. Risk Analysis. VOL 22. No.
EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
Notes:
(1) Composition of Total Plant Intake of 1,600 g/day was equally divided as follows:
Asparagus (above ground) -16.7%, (root) -16.7%
Willow (above ground) -16.7%, (root) -16.7%
Cattail (above ground) -16.7%, (root) -16.7%
(2) Fish /aquatic organisms intake from Section 10.10.4 of EPA, 1997.
170 g/day total - 95th percentile
Assumed 75% fish, 25% aquatic organisms.
Fish: x 0.75 = 127.5 g/day. Aquatic Organisms: x 0.25 = 42.5 g/day.
(3) small game intake from Table 11-6 of EPA, 1997.
0.255 g/kg-day - 100th percentile
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 15.3 g/day
(4) Beef intake from Table 11-3 of EPA, 1997.
2.825 g/kg-day - 95th percentile
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 169.5 g/day
(5) Vegetable intake from Table 9-4 of EPA, 1997.
11.37 g/kg-day - 95th percentile
Divide total by 6 for each of the 6 edible plant categories in the Tar
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 682.2 g/day; divided by 6 =
Creek HHRA (see below).
113.7 g/day for each of 6 edible plant categories
009046
Page 1 of 1
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009047
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
TABLE K-2
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
e Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Surface Soil (residential,
smelter, transition zone)
Animal Tissue
Small Game
(Bird, Rabbit)
Cadmium
6.1E+02
2.8E+04
MG/KG
MG/KG
1.2E-01
5.5E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day) I
1/(mg/kg-day) I
1.3E-07
6.0E-06
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
Exposure Point Total
Ingestion ICadmium
Exposure Point Total
1 0.0E+00
1.3E-02
1.4E+00
MG/KG
MG/KG
2.8E-05
3.0E-03
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day) I
1/(mg/kg-day) I
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.3E-04
2.0E-05
mg/kg/day I 3.1E-08
mg/kg/day I 1.1E-08
ixposure Medium Total
Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone)Total
Revised 02/10/2006
009048
Page 1 of 2
-------
Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE K-2
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Route
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Cancer Risk Calculations
e Concentration
CSF/Unit Risk
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Transition Zones
Asparagus (above ground)
Asparagus (root)
Ingestior
Ingestior
Cadmium
Cadmium
5.5E+00
1.4E+02
1.2E+01
1.4E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
8.2E-03
2.1E-01
1.9E-02
2.1E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
8.9E-03
2.3E-01
2.0E-02
2.3E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Point Total
| Exp. Route Total
Willow (above ground)
Willow (root)
Ingestior
Ingestior
Cadmium
Cadmium
1.8E+01
4.7E+02
5.0E+01
4.6E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
2.7E-02
7.0E-01
7.4E-02
6.9E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
2.9E-02
7.6E-01
8.1E-02
7.5E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Point Total
Exp. Route Total
Cattail (above ground)
Cattail (root)
Ingestion ICadmium
Ingestion |Cadmium
2.0E+01
2.6E+03
6.1E+01
4.4E+03
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
2.9E-02
3.8E+00
9.1E-02
6.5E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
3.2E-02
4.2E+00
1.0E-01
7.1E+00
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Medium Total
Transition Zones Total
Exposure Point Total
Fish Tissue/Aquatic Food
Aquatic Food Tissue
(Mussels etc.)
Ingestion ICadmium
1.6E+00
7.8E+01
MG/KG
MG/KG
9.1E-04
4.4E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
9.9E-04
4.8E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Exposure Point Total
Ingestion ICadmium
1.7E-01
2.1E+01
MG/KG
MG/KG
2.8E-04
3.6E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1/(mg/kg-day)
1/(mg/kg-day)
3.1E-04
3.9E-02
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
exposure Medium Total
'Vquatic Biota Total
Exposure Point Total
Revised 02/10/2006
009049
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE K-3
SUM MARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Surface Soil (residential,
Animal Tissue
Small Game
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.3E-04
NA
NA
1.3E-04
smelter, transition zone)
(Bird, Rabbit)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
2.0E-05
NA
NA
2.0E-05
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.5E-04
NA
NA
1.5E-04
Beef (Cattle)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
3.1 E-08
NA
NA
3.1 E-08
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.1 E-08
NA
NA
1.1 E-08
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.2 E-08
NA
NA
4.2E-08
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.5E-04
NA
NA
1.5E-04
Surface Soil (residential, smelter, transition zone) Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.5E-04
NA
NA
1.5E-04
Plant Tissue
Asparagus (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
8.9E+00
NA
NA
8.9E+00
Transition Zones
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
7.7E-01
NA
NA
7.7E-01
Asparagus (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.0E+01
NA
NA
2.0E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
7.6E+00
NA
NA
7.6E+00
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
3.8E+01
NA
NA
3.8E+01
Willow (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
2.9E+01
NA
NA
2.9E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
2.5E+00
NA
NA
2.5E+00
Willow (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
8.1E+01
NA
NA
8.1E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
2.5E+01
NA
NA
2.5E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.4E+02
NA
NA
1.4E+02
Cattail (above ground)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
3.2E+01
NA
NA
3.2E+01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.4E+01
NA
NA
1.4E+01
Cattail (root)
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
1.0E+02
NA
NA
1.0E+02
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
2.4E+01
NA
NA
2.4E+01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.7E+02
NA
NA
1.7E+02
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.4E+02
NA
NA
3.4E+02
Transition Zones Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.4E+02
NA
NA
3.4E+02
Revised 02/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
009050
-------
TABLE K-3
SUM MARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs USING EPA, 1997 ASSUMPTIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICANS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Tar Creek, Miami, OK
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Residential (Subsistence)
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
Aquatic Biota
Fish Tissue/
Aquatic Food Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
9.9E-01
NA
NA
9.9E-01
Aquatic Food
(Mussels etc.)
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.6E-01
NA
NA
1.6E-01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.2E+00
NA
NA
1.2E+00
Fish Tissue
Cadmium
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
3.1 E-01
NA
NA
3.1 E-01
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
Circulatory
1.3 E-01
NA
NA
1.3E-01
Chemical Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
4.4 E-01
NA
NA
4.4E-01
Exposure Medium Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.6E+00
NA
NA
1.6E+00
Aquatic Biota Total
0.0E+00
NA
NA
0.0E+00
1.6E+00
NA
NA
1.6E+00
Receptor Total
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.5E+02
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.5E+02
Total Circulatory HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) =
Total Kidney HI Across Media (High Fish Diet) =
7E+Q1
3E+Q2
Revised 02/10/2006
009051
Page 2 of 2
-------
Appendix L
ProUCL Output
009052
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009053
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Copy of Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 (2).xls
CADMIUM
21
0
21
20
0.35
139
36.55
38.51864
1483.686
1.053862
1.188588
NO
N/R
N/R
0.860225
0.908
NOT NORMAL
51.04704
0.668714
0.604929
54.65717
60.42029
28.08598
25.40703
14.92176
0.0383
14.305
0.317309
0.790126
AD GAMMA
0.13484
0.198038
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
62.23305
64.91626
-1.04982
4.934474
2.689102
1.73354
3.005161
N/R
N/R
0.919793
0.908
LOGNORMAL
66.13399
289.7051
4.380578
97.20268
14.71846
63.68466
136.5514
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
SASO-Cd
Revised 02/10/2006
009054
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
254.8756
829.9093
13.69891
56.78836
151.4415
26.42896
276.6166
171.9895
221.8372
319.7532
50.37574
52.70525
51.4104
51.04704
73.18853
89.04206
120.1832
2000
49.8754
54.5279
54.57195
50.57619
50.90476
NO
GAMMA
62.23305
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
SASO-Cd
009055
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Copy of Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 (2).xls
LEAD
21
0
21
21
31.4
70800
10002.92
16938.54
2.87E+08
1.693359
2.79791
NO
N/R
N/R
0.611415
0.908
NOT NORMAL
16377.98
0.467323
0.432309
21404.74
23138.39
19.62756
18.15696
9.503008
0.0383
9.023417
0.296865
0.811902
AD GAMMA
0.132303
0.201183
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
19112.13
20127.93
3.446808
11.16761
7.837012
2.086843
4.354915
N/R
N/R
0.946283
0.908
LOGNORMAL
22347.5
195920.4
8.766996
700.1342
2532.626
14770.61
36997.51
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
SASO-Pb
Revised 02/10/2006
009056
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
78422.75
324814.6
2282.049
17156.07
64905.59
9769.247
165415.8
59739.23
78164.99
114358.8
16082.78
18494.19
16754.12
16377.98
26114.69
33086.26
46780.56
2000
15963.43
25781.12
40668.48
16278.62
18935.1
NO
GAMMA
20127.93
NONE
NONE
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
SASO-Pb
009057
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Copy of Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 (2).xls
ZINC
21
0
21
21
46.1
7980
1751.719
2206.223
4867421
1.259462
1.74508
NO
N/R
N/R
0.75994
0.908
NOT NORMAL
2582.063
0.695616
0.627988
2518.227
2789.413
29.21587
26.37551
15.66698
0.0383
15.03342
0.321814
0.787708
AD GAMMA
0.124356
0.197668
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
2949.035
3073.318
3.830813
8.984694
6.5988
1.504166
2.262515
N/R
N/R
0.966428
0.908
LOGNORMAL
2275.734
6676.562
2.933807
34.05334
734.2137
2617.095
5072.826
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wlk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
SASO-Zn
Revised 02/10/2006
009058
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
8718.069
24281.99
695.6162
2056.774
4318.224
813.3438
6945.969
5602.058
7136.105
10149.44
2543.613
2739.509
2612.619
2582.063
3850.256
4758.295
6541.961
2000
2489.911
2969.139
3042.781
2549.476
2676.238
NO
GAMMA
2949.035
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
SASO-Zn
009059
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
BUM-Cd
CADMIUM
261
0
261
110
0.125
248
13.57155
35.77084
1279.553
2.635722
4.546143
NO
0.353493
0.054842
N/A
N/A
NOT NORMAL Data not normal at 5% significance level
17.22654
0.43473
0.432287
31.21837
31.39477
226.9289
225.6539
191.8772
0.04908
191.706
23.80135
0.837279
NOT AD GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
0.250532
0.060387
NOT KS GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
NOT GAMMA Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
15.96059
15.97484
-2.07944
5.513429
1.114368
I.531564
2.345688
0.115702
0.054842
N/A
N/A
NOT LOGNORMAL Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
9.847446
30.25658
3.072531
38.22367
3.047643
II.11771
21.81129
Revised 02/10/2006
009060
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
37.85605
107.4242
3.033978
9.752941
28.72127
1.334413
12.62019
15.56951
18.08635
23.03019
17.21352
17.87927
17.33039
17.22654
23.22285
27.39897
35.60216
2000
17.2497
18.09729
17.88966
17.50297
17.56073
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
27.39897
NONE
NONE
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
BUM-Cd
009061
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
Data not normal at 5% significance level
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 rev1.xls
ZINC
261
0
261
235
0.25
39200
2668.832
7040.595
49569974
2.638081
3.781873
NO
0.368811
0.054842
N/A
N/A
NOT NORMAL
3388.226
0.380161
0.378346
7020.266
7053.951
198.4441
197.4965
165.9755
0.04908
165.8166
23.91561
0.850569
NOT AD GAMMA
0.244047
0.060827
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
3175.68
3178.723
-1.38629
10.57643
6.144169
1.721383
2.963159
0.110915
0.054842
N/A
N/A
NOT LOGNORMAL
2050.316
8785.079
4.284745
91.51801
465.9924
1995.676
4256.262
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
BUM-Zn
Revised 02/10/2006
009062
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
7909.694
25542.68
463.3546
2022.076
8134.983
330.1959
2766.777
3461.366
4084.149
5307.484
3385.663
3494.67
3405.229
3388.226
4568.449
5390.414
7005.006
2000
3390.531
3555.215
3491.596
3413.467
3451.148
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
5390.414
NONE
NONE
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
BUM-Zn
009063
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
Data not normal at 5% significance level
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 rev1.xls
CADMIUM
172
0
172
66
0.25
47.5
4.048837
7.285125
53.07304
1.799313
4.023453
NO
0.301026
0.067557
N/A
N/A
NOT NORMAL
4.967506
0.831983
0.821347
4.866491
4.929506
286.2021
282.5435
244.6047
0.048605
244.3094
9.192734
0.791873
NOT AD GAMMA
0.178967
0.07345
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
4.676823
4.682476
-1.38629
3.86073
0.688723
1.07537
1.156422
0.093323
0.067557
N/A
N/A
NOT LOGNORMAL
3.549952
5.239684
1.475987
7.643457
1.991172
4.940227
7.929375
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
ResSOGP-Cd
Revised 02/10/2006
009064
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
11.67801
24.28927
1.984489
3.531345
5.101875
0.358491
4.261102
5.093973
5.770123
7.09829
4.96253
5.14462
4.995909
4.967506
6.470143
7.517843
9.575849
2000
4.955484
5.21747
5.199166
4.932558
5.209593
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
7.517843
NONE
NONE
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
ResSOGP-Cd
009065
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
Data not normal at 5% significance level
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 rev1.xls
LEAD
172
0
172
129
0.0125
822
89.19019
128.5803
16532.88
1.441641
3.155662
NO
0.305207
0.067557
N/A
N/A
NOT NORMAL
105.4044
0.968962
0.955937
92.04715
93.30128
333.3229
328.8425
287.8185
0.048605
287.4975
9.303523
0.78518
NOT AD GAMMA
0.186206
0.07304
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
101.9029
102.0166
-4.38203
6.71174
3.892838
1.139761
1.299056
0.114401
0.067557
N/A
N/A
NOT LOGNORMAL
93.91275
153.3349
1.632738
9.250819
49.04991
128.501
212.1793
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
ResSOGP-Pb
Revised 02/10/2006
009066
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
319.8159
695.0077
48.86503
93.33572
148.591
10.24698
114.5383
138.0013
157.3281
195.2919
105.3166
107.8373
105.7976
105.4044
131.9255
150.4171
186.7403
2000
105.0489
109.121
108.1927
106.1443
108.4227
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
150.4171
NONE
NONE
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
ResSOGP-Pb
009067
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
Data not normal at 5% significance level
C:\Documents and Settings\hawata\My Documents\Projects\Tar Creek_MSSL\RAGS-D\Rev Table2\Select AOC ProUCL and Rags D Table 2 051230 rev1.xls
ZINC
172
0
172
160
0.25
7700
645.5363
1133.534
1284899
1.755957
3.813788
NO
0.290177
0.067557
N/A
N/A
NOT NORMAL
788.4773
0.743899
0.7348
867.7746
878.5202
255.9011
252.7711
216.9519
0.048605
216.6742
6.194203
0.796474
NOT AD GAMMA
0.132567
0.073725
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
752.1156
753.0795
-1.38629
8.948976
5.664463
1.27813
1.633616
0.050577
0.067557
N/A
N/A
LOGNORMAL
652.8001
1325.42
2.030361
14.46097
288.433
849.3595
1490.489
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
ResSOGP-Zn
Revised 02/10/2006
009068
-------
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
2361.345
5638.612
287.0664
647.2655
1268.372
83.24207
825.9889
1010.109
1167.112
1475.514
787.7029
814.559
792.6663
788.4773
1022.281
1185.299
1505.515
2000
786.8043
832.1014
816.8206
790.6003
811.1163
NO
LOGNORMAL
825.9889
NONE
NONE
95% H-UCL
ResSOGP-Zn
009069
Revised 02/10/2006
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\ Working\Table3 Backup\ProUCL input.xls
CADMIUM
9
0
9
7
0.25
9.6
2.85
3.084133
9.511875
1.082152
1.389807
NO
N/R
N/R
0.827359
0.829
NOT NORMAL
4.761698
0.796516
0.605085
3.578084
4.710086
14.33728
10.89152
4.505437
0.02308
3.679105
0.567083
0.749973
AD GAMMA
0.219404
0.288837
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
6.889639
8.437063
-1.386294
2.261763
0.30178
1.459533
2.130236
N/R
N/R
0.847233
0.829
LOGNORMAL
3.923161
10.6843
2.72339
28.36914
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
SO NA-Cd
009070
-------
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
1.352263
4.64172
8.822271
14.92013
40.31215
1.199608
3.234613
5.242462
1.627646
38.55269
10.32936
13.39926
19.42949
4.540982
5.049874
4.841074
4.761698
7.331141
9.270134
13.07891
2000
4.432332
5.928511
8.506043
4.505556
4.95
NO
GAMMA
6.889639
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009071
SO NA-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\ProUCL input.xls
ZINC
9
0
9
8
47
1940
527.8889
635.7323
404155.6
1.204292
1.607372
NO
N/R
N/R
0.783211
0.829
NOT NORMAL
921.9472
0.725462
0.557716
727.6586
946.5198
13.05832
10.03888
3.965233
0.02308
3.201154
0.637796
0.753347
AD GAMMA
0.277486
0.289751
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
1336.47
1655.47
3.850148
7.570443
5.439953
1.496399
2.239211
N/R
N/R
0.835441
0.829
LOGNORMAL
705.9598
2044.351
2.895846
32.97188
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
SO NA-Zn
009072
-------
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
230.4313
815.9966
1576.285
2701.411
7484.411
203.1532
574.4162
958.3916
295.9448
7728.495
1864.41
2422.591
3519.029
876.4511
997.77
940.8705
921.9472
1451.587
1851.271
2636.375
2000
851.3017
1279.972
2725.517
896
960.3333
NO
GAMMA
1336.47
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009073
SO NA-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\ Working\Table3 Backup\ProUCL input.xls
CADMIUM
25
0
25
12
5.00E-05
0.003
0.000808
0.001014
1.03E-06
1.255375
1.421234
NO
N/R
N/R
0.70931
0.918
NOT NORMAL
0.001155
0.744188
0.681552
0.001086
0.001186
37.20939
34.0776
21.72424
0.0395
21.05139
1.214488
0.784005
NOT AD GAMMA
0.182338
0.181374
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
0.001267
0.001308
-9.903488
-5.809143
-7.926212
1.343115
1.803959
N/R
N/R
0.90596
0.918
NOT LOGNORMAL
0.00089
0.002005
2.252475
18.18569
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
GW_GP-Cd
009074
-------
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
0.000361
0.001124
0.002029
0.00329
0.008212
0.000348
0.000836
0.001516
0.000271
0.002016
0.002016
0.002527
0.00353
0.001142
0.001203
0.001165
0.001155
0.001692
0.002075
0.002827
2000
0.001141
0.001284
0.001145
0.001152
0.00119
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
0.002827
NONE
NONE
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
009075
GW_GP-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\ProUCL input.xls
ZINC
25
0
25
17
0.005
1.11
0.2074
0.30396
0.092392
1.465576
2.027789
NO
N/R
N/R
0.667525
0.918
NOT NORMAL
0.311408
0.608542
0.562183
0.340815
0.368919
30.42708
28.10916
17.01113
0.0395
16.42232
1.102471
0.796734
NOT AD GAMMA
0.204483
0.183094
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
0.342707
0.354995
-5.298317
0.10436
-2.586335
1.55063
2.404453
N/R
N/R
0.938492
0.918
LOGNORMAL
0.250547
0.795162
3.1737
41.48779
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
GW_GP-Zn
009076
-------
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
0.075296
0.279137
0.552238
0.965076
2.774389
0.071754
0.227978
0.523839
0.087809
0.71083
0.61073
0.776347
1.101669
0.307394
0.333738
0.315517
0.311408
0.472387
0.587046
0.812274
2000
0.304933
0.370323
0.386097
0.3086
0.3284
NO
LOGNORMAL
0.61073
NONE
NONE
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
009077
GW_GP-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\ Working\Table3 Backup\ProUCL input.xls
CADMIUM
97
0
97
91
10.4
197
76.23196
38.93794
1516.163
0.510782
1.193111
NO
0.134377
0.08996
N/A
N/A
NOT NORMAL
82.79833
Data not normal at 5% significance level
3.923543
3.809069
19.42937
20.01328
761.1673
738.9594
676.8694
0.047526
675.9821
0.917759
0.756289
NOT AD GAMMA
0.091539
0.091214
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
83.2248
83.33405
2.341806
5.283204
4.200966
0.547492
0.299747
0.122505
0.08996
N/A
N/A
NOT LOGNORMAL
77.54354
45.84377
0.5912
1.980237
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
Recr All-Cd
009078
-------
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
66.75077
106.0167
134.8945
164.2829
238.515
66.64771
77.4065
45.44717
4.58555
86.03965
97.39445
106.0433
123.0322
82.73497
83.24672
82.87816
82.79833
93.46508
100.9219
115.5693
2000
82.75868
83.48924
83.37989
82.82887
83.45464
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
93.46508
NONE
NONE
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
009079
Recr All-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
MLE Skewness
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\ProUCL input.xls
ZINC
97
0
97
86
2200
42200
16388.97
8901.49
79236526
0.543139
0.671467
NO
0.078351
0.08996
N/A
N/A
NORMAL
17890.09
Data are normal at 5% significance level
3.032734
2.945811
5404.025
5563.483
588.3504
571.4873
517.027
0.047526
516.2531
0.355082
0.758649
AD GAMMA
0.0558
0.091502
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
18115.28
18142.43
7.696213
10.65018
9.530529
0.643228
0.413742
0.090656
0.08996
N/A
N/A
NOT LOGNORMAL
16939.45
12126.41
0.715868
2.514463
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
Recr All-Zn
009080
-------
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
13773.88
23719.6
31479.04
39681.46
61492.94
13744.54
16896.17
11974.94
1201.809
19218.85
22134.74
24401.47
28854.02
17875.6
17941.44
17900.36
17890.09
20328.58
22033.26
25381.76
2000
17836.23
18050.32
17942.51
17893.81
17879.38
NO
NORMAL
17890.09
NONE
NONE
95% Student's-t UCL
009081
Recr All-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
CADMIUM, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
0.6707
21.333
3.645237
4.612722
21.2772
1.265411
3.450191
NO
N/R
N/R
0.566188
0.901
NOT NORMAL
5.480276
1.415181
1.226819
2.57581
2.971292
53.77686
46.61911
31.94917
0.03687
30.8882
0.85842
0.759025
NOT AD GAMMA
0.215702
0.202443
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
5.319003
5.501703
-0.399433
3.060255
0.900232
0.823448
0.678067
N/R
N/R
0.954524
0.901
LOGNORMAL
3.453076
3.401
0.984919
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
ASP AG-Cd
009082
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
3.910192
2.460174
4.933486
7.087714
9.533426
16.70273
2.416626
3.3752
3.072981
0.691824
5.483135
6.390793
7.695642
10.25877
5.385872
6.28088
5.61988
5.480276
8.257959
10.25389
14.1745
2000
5.345888
8.1932
11.99714
5.445216
6.676116
NO
LOGNORMAL
5.483135
NONE
NONE
95% H-UCL
009083
ASP AG-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
ZINC, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
23.3758
409.5
105.6423
85.47525
7306.018
0.809101
2.641651
NO
N/R
N/R
0.718194
0.901
NOT NORMAL
139.6461
2.233108
1.915599
47.30728
55.14841
84.85809
72.79278
54.14289
0.03687
52.73746
0.602674
0.750962
AD GAMMA
0.184297
0.200637
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
142.0315
145.8165
3.151701
6.014937
4.419752
0.715774
0.512332
N/R
N/R
0.937265
0.901
LOGNORMAL
107.3311
87.80044
0.818034
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
ASP AG-Zn
009084
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
3.001512
83.07572
152.1065
208.413
269.6703
439.0625
81.96243
105.5912
81.59491
18.50786
156.833
186.265
221.1727
289.742
137.8968
150.595
141.6268
139.6461
191.1175
228.1027
300.753
2000
137.3801
162.4541
301.4031
140.0269
154.2966
NO
GAMMA
142.0315
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009085
ASP AG-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
CADMIUM, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
4.4243
25.915
10.16578
5.64115
31.82257
0.554916
1.772553
NO
N/R
N/R
0.797381
0.901
NOT NORMAL
12.40995
4.535564
3.85451
2.241348
2.637372
172.3514
146.4714
119.4954
0.03687
117.367
0.692881
0.743651
AD GAMMA
0.164039
0.199085
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
12.46069
12.68666
1.487112
3.254822
2.204756
0.468776
0.219751
N/R
N/R
0.943686
0.901
LOGNORMAL
10.12119
5.017559
0.495748
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
ASP RT-Cd
009086
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
1.609082
9.068034
13.47547
16.56236
19.6071
26.98087
9.015731
10.05744
4.874791
1.115772
12.60478
14.92098
17.02544
21.15923
12.2945
12.85683
12.49766
12.40995
15.80693
18.24786
23.04259
2000
12.24567
13.81046
14.27187
12.35551
12.82011
NO
GAMMA
12.46069
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009087
ASP RT-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
ZINC, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
234.107
3578.58
1021.17
901.7106
813082
0.883017
2.079078
NO
N/R
N/R
0.728782
0.901
NOT NORMAL
1379.89
1.992271
1.71279
512.5659
596.2029
75.7063
65.086
47.51986
0.03687
46.20834
0.637977
0.751899
AD GAMMA
0.172274
0.200849
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
1398.655
1438.352
5.455778
8.182721
6.657217
0.724864
0.525428
N/R
N/R
0.963172
0.901
LOGNORMAL
1012.25
841.5587
0.831374
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
ASP RT-Zn
009088
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
3.068755
778.3814
1436.159
1975.679
2564.756
4201.729
767.6854
995.3521
780.4031
176.9209
1489.018
1766.532
2100.223
2755.693
1361.435
1466.865
1396.335
1379.89
1922.881
2313.052
3079.467
2000
1358.941
1785.722
3146.537
1367.658
1480.772
NO
GAMMA
1398.655
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009089
ASP RT-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
CADMIUM, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
1.1515
32.2588
12.04075
10.01287
100.2575
0.831582
0.855541
NO
N/R
N/R
0.881934
0.901
NOT NORMAL
16.02408
1.324837
1.15074
9.088475
10.46348
50.3438
43.72811
29.56107
0.03687
28.54353
0.286315
0.761246
AD GAMMA
0.105129
0.202852
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
17.81123
18.44618
0.141065
3.473791
2.065624
1.045095
1.092224
N/R
N/R
0.937549
0.901
LOGNORMAL
13.62268
19.17314
1.407443
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
WLW_AG-Cd
009090
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
7.010325
7.89022
19.08169
30.22203
44.0271
89.70397
7.666344
13.07086
16.00393
3.516115
26.42137
28.39725
35.029
48.05577
15.81916
16.30091
16.09922
16.02408
22.05361
26.38619
34.89669
2000
15.72547
16.69524
16.01696
15.74878
16.0731
NO
GAMMA
17.81123
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009091
WLW_AG-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
ZINC, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
67.445
705.55
400.7297
167.0303
27899.12
0.416815
0.252928
NO
N/R
N/R
0.959289
0.901
NORMAL
467.1779
4.843729
4.114017
82.73165
97.40593
184.0617
156.3327
128.4228
0.03687
126.2132
0.407739
0.742794
AD GAMMA
0.144998
0.199002
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
487.8193
496.3596
4.211312
6.558978
5.886524
0.530245
0.28116
N/R
N/R
0.859201
0.901
NOT LOGNORMAL
414.5127
236.1869
0.569794
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
WLW_AG-Zn
009092
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
1.894374
360.1511
563.7331
711.8653
861.5877
1236.294
357.4953
411.0981
227.4641
51.99108
535.2106
637.722
735.7823
928.4028
463.7595
466.1353
467.5485
467.1779
567.76
640.0341
782.0027
2000
463.2602
466.4933
467.0013
462.0852
466.2501
NO
NORMAL
467.1779
NONE
NONE
95% Student's-t UCL
009093
WLW_AG-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
CADMIUM, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
4.8909
132.818
34.46778
31.97573
1022.447
0.927699
1.759641
NO
N/R
N/R
0.786625
0.901
NOT NORMAL
47.18841
1.500287
1.298487
22.97412
26.54456
57.01091
49.34252
34.21303
0.03687
33.11236
0.743366
0.756937
AD GAMMA
0.182362
0.202059
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
49.70992
51.36231
1.587376
4.88898
3.171127
0.885017
0.783255
N/R
N/R
0.941768
0.901
LOGNORMAL
35.26018
38.44143
1.090222
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
WLW_RT-Cd
009094
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
4.566487
23.83433
50.34836
74.31951
102.2049
186.7323
23.34758
34.31395
34.08254
7.630985
58.9531
67.57664
81.96944
110.2413
46.53399
49.69825
47.68197
47.18841
66.44351
80.27944
107.4574
2000
46.20038
51.89723
56.11224
47.60856
51.09325
NO
GAMMA
49.70992
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009095
WLW_RT-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
ZINC, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
466.04
13202
3017.537
3357.135
11270354
1.112541
1.921427
NO
N/R
N/R
0.753607
0.901
NOT NORMAL
4353.078
1.136297
0.99197
2655.588
3041.965
43.1793
37.69485
24.63453
0.03687
23.71244
0.673637
0.76588
AD GAMMA
0.193424
0.203704
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
4617.324
4796.875
6.144271
9.488124
7.5115
1.013264
1.026704
N/R
N/R
0.944045
0.901
LOGNORMAL
3055.97
4090.721
1.3386
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
WLW_RT-Zn
009096
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
6.41437
1828.955
4305.757
6724.713
9684.865
19309.5
1780.136
2941.442
3460.515
763.5768
5745.001
6269.796
7709.977
10538.94
4284.37
4647.13
4409.661
4353.078
6374.672
7827.307
10680.73
2000
4248.001
4990.943
5450.668
4308.696
4663.491
NO
GAMMA
4617.324
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009097
WLW_RT-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
CADMIUM, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
0.018535
34.17
1.929388
7.809385
60.98649
4.047596
4.355261
NO
N/R
N/R
0.257606
0.901
NOT NORMAL
5.036129
0.253795
0.24881
7.602157
7.754474
9.644205
9.454769
3.603142
0.03687
3.293088
4.341475
0.863551
NOT AD GAMMA
0.433269
0.217306
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
5.062782
5.539458
-3.988094
3.531348
-2.134677
1.64886
2.71874
N/R
N/R
0.770123
0.901
NOT LOGNORMAL
0.460562
1.733159
3.763138
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
CT AG-Cd
009098
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
64.57999
0.118283
0.476451
0.984234
1.781931
5.477077
0.110087
0.39892
0.947943
0.181207
1.912974
1.188783
1.530557
2.201906
4.876301
6.78905
5.334479
5.036129
9.738773
13.1179
19.75554
2000
4.781867
212.4849
75.70447
5.500168
7.374327
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
19.75554
NONE
NONE
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
009099
CT AG-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
ZINC, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
13.9518
4411.5
269.7441
1003.163
1006337
3.718944
4.356125
NO
N/R
N/R
0.259171
0.901
NOT NORMAL
668.824
0.374906
0.350798
719.4987
768.9449
14.24642
13.33032
6.114415
0.03687
5.691057
5.051205
0.827825
NOT AD GAMMA
0.45319
0.213205
NOT KS GAMMA
NOT GAMMA
588.0815
631.8289
2.635609
8.39197
3.823786
1.202141
1.445143
N/R
N/R
0.6211
0.901
NOT LOGNORMAL
94.2883
169.7833
1.800683
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Data not gamma distributed at 5% significance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
CT AG-Zn
009100
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
11.24069
45.77718
126.4181
214.5487
330.7317
749.9193
44.06575
88.8236
131.1865
28.09326
216.1033
211.2793
264.266
368.348
648.2931
894.0461
707.1565
668.824
1272.907
1706.977
2559.622
2000
634.1924
18462.06
7059.112
728.7642
964.6947
NO
NON-PARAMETRIC
2559.622
NONE
NONE
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
009101
CT AG-Zn
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
CADMIUM, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
0.04185
249.426
27.9128
58.66365
3441.424
2.101676
3.416635
NO
N/R
N/R
0.49694
0.901
NOT NORMAL
51.25046
0.435663
0.401962
64.06967
69.44138
16.5552
15.27456
7.45171
0.03687
6.977314
0.615849
0.815671
AD GAMMA
0.179181
0.211643
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
57.21582
61.10598
-3.173663
5.519162
1.839188
2.100436
4.41183
N/R
N/R
0.936759
0.901
LOGNORMAL
57.11706
515.3852
9.023314
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
CT RT-Cd
009102
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
761.7499
6.291425
37.11629
93.52676
199.2189
832.8064
5.597965
42.62768
155.798
25.0661
520.2386
151.8883
199.1654
292.0323
50.04984
61.32167
53.00863
51.25046
86.57645
111.9603
161.8218
2000
49.68431
122.5275
132.3307
52.26816
64.9869
NO
GAMMA
61.10598
NONE
NONE
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
009103
CT RT-Cd
-------
Data File
Variable:
Raw Statistics
Number of Observations
Number of Missing Data
Number of Valid Observations
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Coefficient of Variation
Skewness
Too Few Distinct Observations?
Normal Statistics
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Normality Test Result
95% Student's-t UCL
Gamma Statistics
k hat
k star (bias corrected)
Theta hat
Theta star
nu hat
nu star
5% Approximate Chi Square Value
Adjusted Level of Significance
Adjusted Chi Square Value
Anderson-Darling Test Statistic
Anderson-Darling 5% Critical Value
Anderson-Darling 5% Gamma Test Result
Kolmogrov-Smirnov Test Statistic
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Critical Value
Kolmogrov-Smirnov 5% Gamma Test Result
5% Gamma Test Result
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
Lognormal Statistics
Minimum of log data
Maximum of log data
Mean of log data
Standard Deviation of log data
Variance of log data
Lilliefors Test Statisitic
Lilliefors 5% Critical Value
Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value
5% Lognormality Test Result
MLE Mean
MLE Standard Deviation
MLE Coefficient of Variation
P:\US Environmental Protection
Agency\168732TarCreek\HHRA\_Working\Table3_Backup\Wet Weight Biota
ProUCL and Table2s for CD-PB-ZN 051028.xls
ZINC, Wet Weight Basis
19
0
19
19
17.825
18414
2448.916
4099.711
16807631
1.674092
3.617535
NO
N/R
N/R
0.532021
0.901
NOT NORMAL
4079.869
0.650501
0.582878
3764.661
4201.421
24.71904
22.14937
12.44871
0.03687
11.81492
0.503688
0.78834
AD GAMMA
0.129583
0.207642
KS GAMMA
GAMMA
4357.235
4590.972
2.880602
9.820867
6.864662
1.697119
2.880213
N/R
N/R
0.881736
0.901
NOT LOGNORMAL
4043.105
16580.7
4.100983
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not normal at 5% significance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level.
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Data follow gamma distribution at 5% signifcance level
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Shapiro Wilk method yields a more accurate result
Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
CT RT-Zn
009104
-------
MLE Skewness
MLE Median
MLE 80% Quantile
MLE 90% Quantile
MLE 95% Quantile
MLE 99% Quantile
MVU Estimate of Median
MVU Estimate of Mean
MVU Estimate of Standard Deviation
MVU Estimate of SE of Mean
95% H-UCL
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL
Non-parametric Statisitics
95% CLT UCL
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL
95% Modified-t UCL
95% Jackknife UCL
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
Bootstrap Statistics
Number of Bootstrap Runs
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
95% Bootstrap-t UCL
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
Recommendations
Human Inspection Recommended?
Appropriate Distribution
1st Recommended UCL
2nd Recommended UCL
3rd Recommended UCL
Recommended UCL > Max Data Value
Recommendation Warning!
Alternative UCL
81.27352
957.822
4018.755
8479.949
15621.8
49620.56
887.6495
3458.55
8621.658
1622.23
18102.08
10529.69
13589.37
19599.53
3995.964
4830.015
4209.964
4079.869
6548.627
8322.576
11807.15
2000
3954.936
6803.386
9837.032
4128.391
5200.836
NO
GAMMA
4357.235
NONE
NONE
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
009105
CT RT-Zn
-------
Appendix M
Report to Congress
009106
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009107
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
REPORT TO CONGRESS
Tar Creek Superfund Site
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
October 2004
009108
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table of Contents
I. REPORT SUMMARY 4
Purpose 4
Findings 4
Recommendations 5
II. BACKGROUND 6
History of ATSDR Activities 6
Current ATSDR Activities 7
III. EXPOSURE PATHWAY EVALUATION 7
Identification of Pathways of Exposure 7
Sources and Exposure Pathways at Tar Creek Superfund Site 8
Major Completed Exposure Pathways 8
Residential Area Soil 8
Mine Tailings 9
Lead-Based Paint 9
Other Exposure Pathways 9
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce 9
Ingestion of Tap Water 10
Airborne Dust 10
Use of Biota by Tar Creek Site Area Tribal Populations 10
Physical Hazards 11
IV. DISCUSSION 11
Blood Lead Evaluation 12
Datasets Reviewed 12
Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs 13
Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund Site as a Whole 13
Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs 14
Data Limitations 14
Interventions 14
V. CONCLUSIONS 15
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 15
VII. APPENDICES 17
TABLE 1 — MAJOR LEAD EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE 18
TABLE 2 — OTHER LEAD EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE 19
TABLE 3 — DEMOGRAPHICS IN TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE AREA* 20
009109
2
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
TABLE 4 — CHARACTERISTICS OF BLOOD LEAD TESTING DATA AMONG CHILDREN AGED 1-5 YEARS
LIVING WITHIN THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE—ENTIRE SITE* 21
TABLE 5 — CHARACTERISTICS OF BLOOD LEAD TESTING DATA AMONG CHILDREN AGED 1-5 YEARS
LIVING WITHIN THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE—PICHER AND CARDIN ONLY* 23
TABLE 6 - EXISTING HEALTH STUDY INFORMATION 25
TABLE 7 — CHILDREN AGED 1-5 YEARS LIVING IN THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE WITH KNOWN
ELEVATED BLLS IN 2003, RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT LEAD EXPOSURE STATUS 26
VIII. FIGURES 27
IX. REFERENCES 35
009110
3
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
I. Report Summary
Purpose
The Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) "to help assess the level of lead poisoning of families, especially children, at
the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Oklahoma. A report to Congress on this assessment is due no
later than July 31, 2004" (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies, Appropriations Bill, 2004, Senate Report 108-143, September 5, 2003,
page 86).
Senator James Inhofe, as a senator from Oklahoma and as the Chairman of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, expressed his expectations about the directive: "I cannot
emphasize enough the importance of this endeavor to more fully understand the elevated lead
levels we're seeing in this community, particularly in children. As the chairman of the
committee with jurisdiction over both Superfund and ATSDR, I would like to take this
opportunity to elaborate on my expectations of ATSDR in connection with this directive: I am
urging ATSDR, in collaboration with the Oklahoma State Health Department, to work to identify
significant sources and pathways of exposure to lead that may be contributing to elevated blood
lead levels in children at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma" (CongressionalRecord,
Senate, January 22, 2004, page S140).
Findings
Mine tailings and lead-based paint are two potential sources contributing to lead exposures in
children residing in the Tar Creek Site area. Children can be exposed to these sources of lead
primarily through contact with household dust and soil.
From 1995 to 2003, a decrease was observed both in the average blood lead levels (BLLs) and
the percentage of elevated BLLs (at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter [|ig/dL]) among
children aged 1 to 5 years who were living at the Tar Creek Superfund site and who were tested
for lead. In 2003, the average BLL and the percentage of elevated BLLs among children who
were tested for lead and who lived at the site were slightly higher than those of children living in
the United States as a whole during 1999 and 2000 (1). This comparison should be viewed with
caution, however, because the U.S. data are based on a representative sample of the United
States (1), and the data collected for tested children at the site are not representative of all
children living at the Tar Creek Superfund site area. Risk behaviors and/or exposure sources
in a limited number of households may have been important factors contributing to the number of
children with elevated BLLs living at the site from January 2000 to February 2004.
Declining BLLs among tested children living at the site should not be interpreted to mean that
existing interventions in the Tar Creek area are no longer needed. Indeed, such ongoing efforts as
soil remediation and an active lead screening and health education program should be evaluated
to determine their contribution to this decline. Meanwhile, these efforts should be continued.
Elimination of the sources of lead contamination will achieve long-term protection of children.
Screening efforts will confirm and monitor blood lead trends, while ongoing public health
education reinforces the need for behaviors that may reduce exposure to lead and its subsequent
health effects among adults and children.
009111
4
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Recommendations
On the basis of the review of environmental and blood lead screening data, ATSDR is taking a
number of steps to address expressed concerns and has recommended additional actions to
protect the health of Tar Creek area residents:
• Continue to provide blood lead screening to children living around the site. Currently,
ATSDR provides funds from EPA to the Ottawa County Health Department to
conduct screening activities. EPA is continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.
• Continue to provide lead exposure prevention education to people potentially
impacted by the site. Currently, ATSDR provides funds from EPA to the Ottawa
County Health Department to engage in prevention education activities. EPA is
continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.
• Recommend that the Oklahoma State Department of Health or the Ottawa County
Health Department support periodic reports of Tar Creek and Ottawa County child
blood lead statistics to the Ottawa County communities. These reports could include
trends and comparisons to state and national levels.
• Complete remediation of residential properties. EPA funds this activity. According
to EPA, residential remediation is ongoing.
• Complete the investigation of chat piles, mill and mine residues, and flotation ponds.
According to EPA, these activities are planned for completion next year.
• Assess the risk for lead exposure from using mine tailings (chat) for commercial and
residential purposes, including processing and transporting the material. ATSDR has
included in its FY 2004 and in the FY 2005 President's Budget request funding for an
ongoing public health assessment regarding public health hazards associated with the
Tar Creek site. The public health assessment will include identification of gaps in
existing data and recommendations regarding further monitoring and other activities
to evaluate risks of lead exposure. ATSDR recommends that any person proposing to
use chat for commercial purposes arrange for an independent assessment of risks
from exposure potentially associated with that use.
• To address concerns regarding the sources of lead exposure for children who
currently have elevated BLLs, correlate lead isotopes in the environment and in
children's blood. This approach would seek to identify specific environmental
sources contributing to elevated BLLs in children. The measured ratio of lead
206 207 • •
isotopes Pb and Pb in the blood of children and adults would be compared with
the ratio of 206Pb and 207Pb in environmental sources and biota (2, 3). ATSDR may
conduct a small project to assess the feasibility of this approach.
• Evaluate the health risks of other site-related contaminants and of physical hazards.
Funding to support this ongoing activity is included in ATSDR's FY 2004 and the
FY 2005 President's Budget.
ATSDR is considering whether to evaluate the effectiveness of activities at the Site, including soil
remediation and tribal and non-tribal health education/blood lead screening programs. Such an
evaluation might result in identification and then strengthening of those activities that have the most
impact on reducing or eliminating lead exposure.
5
009112
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
II. Background
The Tar Creek Superfund site (the site) is located in far northeastern Oklahoma (Ottawa County)
near the Oklahoma/Kansas border. The site itself comprises a 40-square mile area but is part of
the larger Tri-State Mining District that includes areas of Kansas and Missouri and 10 Tribal
Nations. The site encompasses portions of several communities, including Quapaw Nation,
Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, North Miami, and Commerce. Approximately 6,400 residents live
within the site boundaries.
From the early 1900s through the late 1970s, the site was mined extensively for lead and zinc
ore. The milling process for the lead and zinc ore resulted in a concentrated form of the original
mined material. It also resulted in mine tailings (chat) that were originally considered a waste
product. The chat was disposed of in piles or in flotation or tailing ponds. Some piles are as high
as 200 feet and contain elevated levels of lead and other heavy metals. The chat in flotation
ponds has not been quantified. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers estimate that the site contains 75 million tons of chat. The chat has been sold as a
construction product, similar to limestone gravel, for many years.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listed the site on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in September 1983. Initially, EPA addressed surface water contamination, which included
the mine water discharge in Tar Creek and the threat of contamination from open abandoned
wells to the Roubidoux Aquifer. In 1995, EPA began sampling area soils. On the basis of
elevated lead levels in soils, EPA began yard remediation activities that continue today. EPA has
entered into an Administrative Order of Consent with several entities to investigate the site and
provide the information needed to begin cleanup of chat piles, flotation ponds, and mill ponds.
History of ATSDR Activities
In September 1993, ATSDR reviewed the limited environmental data for the site. On the basis of the
review, ATSDR made the following recommendations:
• Restrict access to any known open mine shafts and cave-ins at the site.
• Continue sampling of the Roubidoux Aquifer to determine whether acid mine water is
significantly impacting it.
• Continue monitoring area drinking water wells, especially public water supply wells,
for site-related contaminants.
• Continue periodic sampling of water and sediments in Tar Creek and other area surface
waters.
• Consider sampling fish from area surface waters impacted by acid mine drainage.
• Sample area chat piles and soils near piles (including residential yards and other areas that
children frequent) to determine whether metals are detected at levels of health concern.
• Review results of any sampling activities conducted in accordance with these
recommendations to determine whether further actions by ATSDR are needed.
009113
6
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
From 1993 to the present time, ATSDR has participated in numerous activities at the Tar Creek
Site. Beginning in spring 1993, ATSDR became aware of blood lead sampling data collected by
the Indian Health Service (IHS). ATSDR and IHS evaluated these data and determined that 35%
of the children tested at the IHS clinic in Ottawa County had elevated blood lead levels (BLLs)
(at or above 10 (j,g/dL). ATSDR initiated a limited investigation to evaluate the lead levels in soil,
paint, dust, and water at nine houses identified by IHS as homes to children with BLLs at or
abovelO (j,g/dL. The results indicated elevated levels of lead in paint and dust/soil in two homes.
In 1995, in a second effort to address exposure, ATSDR provided technical assistance and
resources to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to conduct BLL screening in all
children who lived in Ottawa County.
On the basis of the finding of elevated BLLs, EPA investigated the contamination of residential
yards and play areas. An extensive residential yard cleanup was conducted, and over 2,012
properties were remediated. ATSDR provided health recommendations to EPA on the
remediation plans for residential soils.
In 1997, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the residential areas. As part of this ROD,
EPA recommended ongoing blood lead screening and health professional/community health
education. EPA agreed to fund the OSDH/Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD) to
implement a lead screening and education program for the Tar Creek area. EPA originally
committed to funding $1 million, but it continues to fund the project, even though the $1 million
has been expended. Continued funding is determined on an annual basis. EPA has provided
$175,000 of FY2004 monies for work in FY2005.
Current ATSDR Activities
ATSDR has identified data that address the multiple pathways of exposure for the Tar Creek
Site. On the basis of availability of this data, ATSDR is currently preparing a public health
assessment. ATSDR is working collaboratively with OSDH and EPA to evaluate the public
health issues associated with the site. Additionally, OSDH requested that ATSDR assist OSDH
in evaluating the potential health threat posed by the chat piles. ATSDR, with the assistance of
OSDH and EPA, has obtained blood lead and environmental data for completion of this report.
Lead isotopes and isotopic ratios have been used to identify the source of lead poisoning when
multiple sources of lead are present (2). ATSDR is developing a protocol to test this technique
in the Ottawa County Health Department investigations of children with elevated blood lead
levels. This protocol would measure lead isotopes and compare the isotopic ratio of lead in
children with elevated blood lead levels to isotopic ratios of lead present in the child's
environment.
ATSDR will continue to work with OSDH and EPA to complete the public health assessment. A
description of the current evaluation of the sources and pathways of exposure and blood lead
exposure status follows.
III. Exposure Pathway Evaluation
Identification of Pathways of Exposure
ATSDR identifies human exposure pathways by examining environmental and human
009114
7
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
components that might lead to contact with contaminants (4). A pathway analysis considers five
principal elements:
• Source of contamination
• Transport through an environmental medium
• A point of exposure
• A route of human exposure
• An exposed population
Completed exposure pathways are those for which the five elements are evident and exposure to
a contaminant has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. ATSDR regards people who come in
contact with contamination as exposed. That exposure can occur through breathing airborne
contaminants, drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated plants or animals, or playing or
digging in contaminated soil. Identification of a completed exposure pathway does not
necessarily mean that health effects will occur. Exposures may or may not be significant. Thus,
even after exposure, human health effects may not necessarily result.
Sources and Exposure Pathways at Tar Creek Superfund Site
ATSDR reviewed site history, site activities, and sampling data for the site. From this review,
ATSDR identified sources and pathways of exposure that warranted consideration (Tables 1 and
2). These pathways are subdivided into the major pathways of exposure and pathways for which
additional data are needed to assess their contribution to exposure.
Major Completed Exposure Pathways
Residential Area Soil
Residential area soil (i.e., residential yards, daycare centers, playgrounds, and parks) is
considered a completed exposure pathway for areas identified (Figure 1) as having soil lead
levels at or above 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The main source of lead contamination
in the residential area of the site is mine tailings (5). The tailings were transported to the
residential properties as a result of deposition of airborne dust from tailings piles and ponds and
use of chat as fill and for surfacing driveways. People can ingest soils as an incidental
consequence of typical outdoor activities, such as working in the yard, gardening, and playing.
The soil exposure pathway is especially important for children, who exhibit hand-to-mouth
behavior and consequently have higher soil ingestion rates.
The extent of lead contamination of residential soil has decreased since 1995. Over 2,000
residential yards have been cleaned up by EPA, and EPA continues to address residential
contamination. As of April 2004, over 500 residential properties still need to be sampled. EPA's
system for remediating yards gives top priority to homes with children under 7 years of age.
Because all yards have yet to be remediated, young children may continue to be exposed to lead
from residential soil.
009115
8
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
The tailings also contribute to lead exposures in homes. House dust sampling described in EPA's
1996 Tar Creek Risk Assessment indicate that tailings are present in house dust. Confirming this
finding, the 1997 Tribal Efforts Against Lead (TEAL) investigation also identified house dust as
a point of exposure to lead (6). Household dust is another point of exposure to site-related lead
for children and adults through hand-to-mouth behaviors.
Mine Tailings
Mine tailings are a completed exposure pathway for tailings piles, ponds, and embankments
identified (Figure 2). The locations where mine tailings are found in the Tar Creek site area were
provided to ATSDR by EPA. Adults and children swallow lead-contaminated mine tailings as an
incidental consequence of walking or playing on the tailings piles, ponds, or embankments. The
exposure pathway for mine tailings is especially important for children who live near the tailings
piles, ponds, or embankments. Hand-to-mouth behaviors of children, especially those 6 years of
age or younger, can result in higher soil ingestion rates. At the site, exposure to mine tailings is
especially likely in Picher and Cardin, where many homes are within 250 feet of tailings (Figure
2).
Lead-Based Paint
Some lead found in soil and house dust may have come from lead-based paint (LBP) or other
sources not related to the site. Exposure to LBP occurs in or around homes painted with LBP that
is peeling, chipping, or deteriorating. LBP is an important source of exposure to lead for many
children aged at or under 6 years in the site area. Children are exposed to LBP through ingestion
of dust, soil contaminated with small particles of LBP, or through direct ingestion of paint chips.
Homes most likely to have LBP were those built before 1950, but lead paint also was used in
some homes built during 1950-1978 (7). Use of paint containing lead in homes was banned in
1978, so homes built after 1978 are unlikely to contain LBP. Data from the 2000 Census indicate
that 22% of housing units in the United States were built before 1950. In comparison, ATSDR
found that 32% of the housing in the general Tar Creek Superfund site area and 39% of housing
in the Picher-Cardin area were built before 1950. These statistics for Tar Creek areas are 44%
and 75% higher, respectively, than for the United States as a whole (Table 3) [2000 U.S.
Census], As part of the Tar Creek Risk Assessment, EPA sampled a variety of environmental
media from randomly selected homes in the site area (5). Paint was tested at all of these homes
where chipped or damaged paint was noted outdoors or indoors. Outdoor paint from 28 (65%) of
43 homes contained lead, while indoor paint from four (40%) of 10 homes had lead (8).
Therefore, some of the children living in the Tar Creek site area could be exposed to lead from
LBP.
Other Exposure Pathways
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce
Plants can absorb lead from the soil (9). Lead-contaminated soil can adhere to plant surfaces, and
especially potatoes, carrots, and similar "root" vegetables. Thus, because some Tar Creek
residents grow fruits and vegetables in their home gardens, consumption of plants grown in lead-
contaminated soil could be another source of exposure. In addition, tribal members regularly use
these foods for medicinal and ceremonial purposes, thus increasing their consumption rates.
009116
9
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Recent research indicates that this pathway would be a concern only for children who eat large
amounts (about Vz pound a day) of homegrown produce (10).
Ingestion of Tap Water
Drinking water contaminated with lead is another exposure pathway for people at the site. The
drinking water in most homes comes from municipal water supplies. EPA included tap water in
the environmental samples from 100 randomly selected homes at the site as part of its risk
assessment (5). EPA found a mean of 1.8 parts per billion (ppb) lead in the tap water tested with
a maximum level of 8.3 ppb. EPA's action level for lead in drinking water is 15 ppb. The source
of the lead in drinking water is most likely lead pipes or lead solder.
Airborne Dust
Inhalation of dust contaminated with lead is an additional exposure pathway for people at the site
(Figures 1 and 2). Mine tailings contaminated with lead are found throughout the site. Residents
of Picher and Cardin live near tailings piles, ponds, and embankments. EPA monitored the air for
lead and other contaminants at four locations in the Picher/Cardin area and one control location
in Afton for 3 months (5). The low levels found did not represent a health risk on the basis of
EPA input of the data into the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead (IEUBK)
model. However, this conclusion has some limitations. First, it is based on monitoring during
mid-April through mid-July 1995 and may not represent exposures during the rest of the year (8).
Second, the IEUBK model evaluated only the health risk for inhalation, not whether airborne
transport of the tailings might eventually recontaminate residential areas. To confirm air
sampling results from 1995, EPA again collected soil samples in August 2003 from properties in
both Picher and Cardin that were remediated during 1997 to early 2000. While this sampling
was limited, it may provide useful information in evaluating the recomtamination of residential
yards.
The Quapaw Tribe is conducting long-term monitoring of the Picher/Cardin area. Also, the EPA
is planning to model air emissions from chat piles and tailing ponds which would include real
time wind speed and directions for five consecutive years. A risk assessment will also be
completed to evaluate the impact of emitted contaminants from chat piles and tailing ponds on
the surrounding communities. These data should provide some valuable information in
addressing whether airborne transport of tailings is recontaminating the residential area soils and
to what extent residents are being exposed to airborne particulates. ATSDR will evaluate this
information to determine whether it addresses these concerns and whether additional sampling is
needed.
Use of Biota by Tar Creek Site Area Tribal Populations
The tribal populations may use biota (i.e., plants and animals) for food and for cultural,
ceremonial, and religious practices. The tribes would use biota as food probably in amounts
much greater than amounts used by other area residents. Native populations can use plant
materials for medicine regularly, further increasing consumption rates for lead. Tribal members
who practice crafts such as basket weaving may spend most of their day sifting the plant through
their teeth, a practice that means they can easily inhale contaminated dust and small soil
particulates bound to plant materials. The biota used and the cultural, ceremonial, and religious
practices may differ among the 10 tribes in the Tar Creek site area. Therefore, this pathway must
009117
10
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
be evaluated by or in close cooperation with the 10 tribes. One issue to be discussed with the
tribes is the recent Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality fish tissue sampling data
and whether those data address tribal concerns.
Physical Hazards
Although not directly related to BLLs, physical hazards, in particular subsidence issues, play a
significant role in the safety of the site. Approximately 2,540 surface acres of land are
undermined at Tar Creek, including under the communities of Picher and Cardin (9). The largest
form of subsidence occurs when an undermined area collapses. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, as part of the comprehensive watershed management plan, will attempt to identify the
areas most prone to major subsidence and determine when collapses might occur.
IV. Discussion
Residential area soil, lead-based paint, and mine tailings are the primary exposure pathways for
potential lead exposure in the Tar Creek Site area. The points of exposure for the residential soil
and lead-based paint pathways are house dust and yard soil (Table 1). In 1997, TEAL conducted
blood lead testing of children and environmental sampling and administered a questionnaire (12,
6). Lead-based paint, lead-containing floor dust in residences, and lead in yard soil were
identified as sources of elevated BLLs among children living at the site (Table 6).
EPA's Tar Creek Risk Assessment strongly linked house dust and yard soil to elevated BLLs in
children (5). EPA tested a variety of environmental media from a random sample of 100 homes
in the site area. Fifteen homes were sampled in Afton, Oklahoma, a location well away from the
Tar Creek site area and mining activities. House dust, tap water, and soil were obtained from
each house. Soil was obtained from the front and back yards, drip line, play areas, and gardens if
the home had one. Three floor dust samples were obtained from each home sampled: 1) the entry
area, 2) a bedroom (a child's was preferred), and 3) the living room or kitchen. As described
earlier, samples of interior or exterior paint were taken at homes in the sample set where the
paint was damaged or chipped. Samples of home-grown produce were obtained at the 29 homes
in the sample group with gardens. Air was sampled at four locations in the site area and one in
Afton for 3 months. These data were entered into EPA's IEUBK Model.
The results of the IEUBK model predicted that 82% of the total uptake of lead came from house
dust and soil, 16% from diet, and 2% from water (5). The lead uptake from diet was based
mostly on default values from national data, but the lead levels in produce from gardens was
factored into the model.
The IEUBK model predicted that about 22% of children exposed to the lead levels in these
homes in the site area would have BLLs at or abovelO |ig/dL. This prediction is based on
environmental levels in the Tar Creek site area before remediation of the residential areas. The
22% of children with elevated BLLs predicted by the IEUBK model is similar to the 19% of
children with elevated BLLs in the 1997 TEAL survey (12) and elevated BLLs reported to the
OSDH during 1995-1997.
Evidence suggests the plausibility that both mine tailings and lead-based paint could be
contributing to the BLLs of people living in the Tar Creek Superfund site. However, the relative
contributions of exposure to mine tailings and exposure to lead-based paint on the BLLs of
people living at the site cannot be determined with existing information.
11
009118
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Blood Lead Evaluation
Datasets Reviewed
ATSDR reviewed and analyzed data on the BLLs of children living at the site from January 1995
through February 2004 (Figure 3). The Ottawa County Sunshine Clinic, the Ottawa County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program (OCLPPP) managed by the OCHD, TEAL and Community
Health Action and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) surveys, Tribal Health Clinics, private
physicians, and other private and public clinics collect blood from children and test for lead.
These programs send data to the OSDH Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Surveillance System (CLPPSS), which then transmits aggregate data to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance Program.
The most useful data sources for assessing BLLs of children living at the site were the 1995—
2002 OSDH Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPSS), the 1997 and 2000
TEAL survey, and the 1999-2004 OCLPPP screening data (Tables 4 and 5). Children were
considered to live at the site if their medical records indicated that they lived at addresses in the
northeast Oklahoma towns of Cardin, Commerce, North Miami, Picher, or Quapaw. For this
analysis, all children with addresses from North Miami were included as living at the site—even
though a portion of North Miami is outside the site boundaries (Figure 1). ATSDR included this
portion of North Miami in the estimates for the population or number of children living at the
site.
OCLPPP provides blood lead testing free of charge to children living at the site and to all other
children, including tribal children, living in Ottawa County. Families with young children who
may be at risk for lead poisoning are highly encouraged to participate in the voluntary program.
OCLPPP personnel offer testing on site at the OCHD and conduct regular screening efforts at
schools, preschools, daycare centers, Head Start programs, and local shopping areas. OCLPPP
also conducts identification and screening efforts in coordination with the Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) program and with other public health programs. In addition, OCLPPP provides
on-location testing services to potential high-risk areas, as warranted (13).
ATSDR used the OCLPPP data as the source for 2003 BLLs for tested children living at the site
because those data incorporate
• The most recent and current data available at the time of this analysis;
• A substantial number of children tested (40% of the estimated population of children,
aged 1 to 5 years, living at the site—based on 2000 census block data analysis for
population estimate);
• Numerous BLL tests throughout the year (total of 308 for children, aged 1 to 5 years,
living at the site in 2003);
• A high level of test result recording accuracy (a check of existing BLL entries with
actual patient paper records showed only four errant electronic entries in 390 follow-
up patient records that contain up to 14 entries each);
• BLLs reported to the 10th |ig/dL (OSDH CLPPSS data were rounded to the nearest
whole number) with consistent application of non-detect values (statistical values
assigned to test results when lead in a blood sample is too low to be detected);
009119
12
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
• Data based on results obtained from consistent testing protocols and analysis criteria;
and
• Targeted testing for potentially higher risk children (Head Start programs, siblings of
children with elevated BLLs, WIC).
The OCLPPP data system is the largest contributor of data to the OSDH CLPPSS system. Both
OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets are comprised primarily of capillary blood lead testing
data (under OCLPPP, a confirmatory venous test is provided after an elevated capillary test
result). Both the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets consist of convenience samples rather
than representative samples. All TEAL survey blood lead tests were venous, and TEAL used a
door-to-door sampling method. In calculating geometric means for the OSDH CLPPSS and
OCLPPP data for each year, ATSDR used the highest test of each child tested in the respective
year.
The simple arithmetic mean is not suitable for representing "average" conditions when a large
proportion of the observations are clustered at one end of the data range. This is often the
situation with blood lead levels. The occurrence of a few high numbers would result in a
perceived "average" far higher than a number that would be reflective of actual conditions. In
such situations, the geometric mean is a more appropriate measure of central tendency than the
arithmetic mean. The result represents a more accurate estimate of common or typical
conditions.
Percentage of Elevated BLLs and Geometric Mean of BLLs
Among tested children aged 1-5 years living in the Tar Creek Superfund site, the percentage of
BLL elevations and the geometric BLL mean declined from 1995-2003 (Figures 4 and 6). In
1996, OSDH CLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living at the site,
31.2% (67/215) had BLL at or above 10 |ig/dL and the geometric mean was 6.65 |ig/dL. In 2003,
OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living at the site, 2.8% (7/250)
had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.04 |ig/dL. These 2003 statistics are slightly
higher than the findings of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES)
for children living in the United States as a whole. NHANES data indicate that among U.S.
children aged 1-5 years during 1999-2000, 2.2% had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean
was 2.2 (j,g/dL.
Picher/Cardin in Comparison with the Tar Creek Superfund Site as a Whole
Of the children in Picher and Cardin who were tested for blood lead, the percentage with
elevated BLLs and the geometric mean declined from 1995-2003 (Figures 5 and 7). In 1996,
OKCLPPSS data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in Picher and Cardin,
44.6% (41/92) had elevated BLLs and the geometric mean was 9.17 (j,g/dL. In 2003, the
OCLPPP data showed that among tested children aged 1-5 years living in Picher and Cardin,
3.4% (3/88) had elevated BLLs, and the geometric mean was 3.82 (j,g/dL.
In 1996, the percentage of children identified with elevated BLLs and the geometric BLL mean
for all children tested were higher in the combined areas of Picher and Cardin than at the site as a
whole. However, these differences have diminished in recent years.
009120
13
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Characteristics of Children With Elevated BLLs
From January 2000 to March 2004, 37 children under 6 years of age living at the site were
identified with elevated BLLs (at or above 10 |ig/dL) by the Ottawa County Health Department.
Of these children 41% (15/37) were from five households. This could suggest that high-risk
behaviors were shared by these family members or that common exposure sources were present.
In 2003, OCLPPP identified seven children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site as having elevated
BLLs. The OCLPPP program conducted or received data from environmental assessments of the
residences of six of these children at various points in time (some prior to 2003). The potential
sources of lead exposure found to be present at the respective residences are described in Table 7
in the appendix and include lead-based paint, lead-containing floor dust (at or above 10 |ig/ft2),
and soil with elevated lead levels (above 500 mg/kg).
Data Limitations
Any comparisons of the OCLPPP data with NHANES U.S. data should be viewed with caution
because the NHANES data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1, 14), and
the OCLPPP data comprises a convenience sample rather than representative samples of the site
area. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the OKCLPPSS, TEAL, and OCLPPP data samples include a
substantial proportion but not all of the estimated population of children, aged 1 to 5 years, living
at the site.
NHANES data are generalized to the U.S. population and were not intended to provide estimates
for smaller areas or for specific populations where the risk for elevated BLLs is high (14).
Furthermore, all NHANES blood lead tests are collected by venous sampling (14), whereas the
OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP programs primarily collect blood through capillary sampling.
Because sample contamination of a capillary test can over-estimate BLLs (15, 16) and because
ATSDR used each tested child's highest BLL to calculate geometric means, geometric means of
the OSDH CLPPSS and OCLPPP datasets probably overestimate actual geometric means.
The 1997 and 2000 TEAL surveys measured lead from venous blood. Given the relatively high
availability of free screening in the area, it is not known if the use of venous testing and the
presence of incentives to participant families could have resulted in higher relative TEAL
participation in areas of lower median income and among children with higher risk factors for
lead poisoning.
Many other relative factors could be explored, including the prevalence of pre-1950 housing
units and poverty at the site area as compared to that of the United States (Table 3). An updated
NHANES blood lead survey might show a further decline in national BLLs since 1999-2000.
BLLs in U.S. children have been declining (14).
Interventions
Many activities may have been instrumental in reducing elevated BLLs at the site. In 1995, after
the confirmation of elevated BLLs, ATSDR funded the OSDH to conduct extensive blood lead
testing throughout Ottawa County. OSDH determined that 28.3% of children tested had BLLs at
or above 10 (j,g/dL. Several projects implemented over the past several years have increased
community knowledge of exposure and the harmful effects of lead. Some of those include
CHAMP and TEAL. Beginning in 1995, EPA began testing and remediating residential soils and
areas where children play (e.g., school and city parks and playgrounds, ball fields, daycare
14
009121
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
centers). Since 1998, the OCHD has conducted extensive blood lead screening, and community
and health provider education. OCHD has distributed HEPA vacuums to area households who
have children with elevated BLLs. The area also received U.S. Housing and Urban Development
funds for lead abatement in homes.
These activities, combined, may have helped to reduce BLLs in Ottawa County. BLLs of
children living at or near the site might increase without these interventions.
V. Conclusions
Two potential sources were found for lead in children in the Tar Creek site area: mine tailings
and lead-based paint. Both could contribute lead to house dust and soil, which most likely are the
points of exposure for children. The relative contributions of exposure to mine tailings and
exposure to lead-based paint on the BLLs of people living at the site cannot be determined from
existing information.
The evidence available to ATSDR indicates that mine tailings in the residential area soil
exposure pathway may have been a primary source of the lead in children's blood before EPA
remediated the Tar Creek residential areas. Exposure to mine tailings still could occur because
Tar Creek area residents, especially those in Picher and Cardin, remain near tailings piles, ponds,
and embankments and can readily access these tailings deposits. In addition, the close proximity
of these tailings to residences increases the risk for recontamination of residential soil because of
blowing dust or residential or commercial use of the tailings.
A decline in the average BLLs among tested children aged 1 to 5 years living at the site from
1995-2003 has been observed, as was a decrease in the percentage of tested children with
elevated BLLs from 1995 to 2003. The average BLLs and the percentage of elevated BLLs
among tested children living at the site in 2003 were slightly higher than for children living in
the United States as a whole in 1999-2000 (1). However, this comparison should be viewed with
caution because the U.S. data are based on a representative sample of the United States (1), the
Tar Creek data is from a convenience sample and not a representative sample, and U.S. child
BLLs also may have declined since 2000.
Declining BLLs among tested children living at the site should not be interpreted to mean that
existing interventions in the Tar Creek area are no longer needed. Potential lead sources,
including unremediated yards, chat piles, tailings ponds, and residential lead-based paint, remain
at the site.
Existing programs should be evaluated to determine how they may have contributed to this
decline. The Ottawa County Health Department should continue existing blood lead screening
and public health education efforts. Ongoing screening efforts are needed to confirm and monitor
trends. Ongoing public health education reinforces the need for adult, parental, and child
behaviors that may reduce exposure to lead and subsequent health effects.
VI. Recommendations
ATSDR recommends the following:
• Continue to provide blood lead screening to children living around the site. Currently,
ATSDR provides funds from the EPA to the Ottawa County Health Department to
009122
15
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
conduct screening activities. EPA is continuing to fund these activities through FY
2005.
• Continue to provide lead exposure prevention education to people potentially
impacted by the site. Currently, ATSDR provides funds from EPA to the Ottawa
County Health Department to engage in prevention education activities. EPA is
continuing to fund these activities through FY 2005.
• Recommend that the Oklahoma State Department of Health or the Ottawa County
Health Department support periodic reports of Tar Creek and Ottawa County child
blood lead statistics to the Tar Creek Superfund Site and Ottawa County
communities. These reports could include trends and comparisons to state and
national levels.
• Complete remediation of residential properties. EPA funds this activity. According
to EPA, residential remediation is ongoing.
• Complete the investigation of chat piles, mill and mine residues, and flotation ponds.
According to EPA, these activities are planned for completion next year.
• Assess the risk for lead exposure from using mine tailings (chat) for commercial and
residential purposes, including processing and transporting the material. ATSDR has
included in its FY 2004 and in the FY 2005 President's Budget request funding for an
ongoing public health assessment regarding public health hazards associated with the
Tar Creek site. The public health assessment will include identification of gaps in
existing data and recommendations regarding further monitoring and other activities
to evaluate risks of lead exposure. ATSDR recommends that any person proposing to
use chat for commercial purposes arrange for an independent assessment of risks
from exposure potentially associated with that use.
• To address concerns regarding the sources of lead exposure for children who
currently have elevated BLLs, correlate lead isotopes in the environment and in
children's blood. This approach would seek to identify specific environmental
sources contributing to elevated BLLs in children. The measured ratio of lead
• 206 207 ¦ • •
isotopes Pb and Pb in the blood of children and adults would be compared with
the ratio of 206Pb and 207Pb in environmental sources and biota (2, 3). ATSDR may
conduct a small project to assess the feasibility of this approach.
• Evaluate the health risks of other site-related contaminants and of physical hazards.
Funding to support this ongoing activity is included in ATSDR's FY 2004 and FY
2005 President's Budget.
ATSDR is considering whether to evaluate the effectiveness of activities at the Site, including
soil remediation and tribal and non-tribal health education/blood lead screening programs. Such
an evaluation might result in identification and then strengthening of those activities that have
the most impact on reducing or eliminating lead exposure.
009123
16
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
VII. Appendices
009124
17
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 1 — Major Lead Exposure Pathways at the Tar Creek Superfund Site
Pathway Name
Environmental Media
and Transport
Mechanisms
Point Of Exposure
Route Of
Exposure
Exposure
Population
Time
Notes
Complete
Exposure
Pathway?
Residential area
soil
Lead present in soil as a
result of use of tailings as
fill or airborne transport
of tailings from piles or
ponds
Surface soil outside
and house dust
inside homes in Tar
Creek area with soil
leads above 500
mg/kg
Incidental
ingestion,
inhalation
Residents
(particularly
children 6 and
younger)
Past, Present,
Future
Elevated soil lead
concentrations and BLLs
identified in children in Tar
Creek Area prior to the
clean up of residential soil
by EPA. Exposure continues
to occur at any home yet to
be remediated.
Yes
Mine tailings
Lead present in mine
tailings deposited in
tailings piles, ponds, or
embankments
Walking or playing
on the tailings
piles, ponds, or
embankments
Incidental
ingestion,
inhalation
Residents
(particularly
children 6 and
younger)
Past, Present,
Future
Many homes in the Picher
and Cardin area are within
250 feet of tailings deposits.
Yes
Lead-based paint
(LBP) Not site-
related
Lead present in house
dust, soil, and paint chips
due to the use of LBP
House dust, soil,
and paint chips in
or around homes
with deteriorating
LBP
Incidental
ingestion
Residents
(particularly
children 6 and
younger)
Past, Present,
Future
Available data indicate that
30% to 40% of the homes in
the Tar Creek area are likely
to have LBP.
Yes
009125
18
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 2 — Other Lead Exposure Pathways at the Tar Creek Superfund Site
Pathway Name
Environmental Media
and Transport
Mechanisms
Point Of
Exposure
Route Of
Exposure
Exposure
Population
Time
Notes
Complete
Exposure
Pathway?
Ingestion of
homegrown
produce
Uptake of lead from soil
by fruits and vegetables
grown in residential
gardens
Produce
consumption
Ingestion
Residents
Past, Present,
Future
EPA sampling identified low
levels of lead in homegrown
produce.
Yes
Drinking water
Not site-
related
Movement of lead from
lead pipes or solder into
water
Municipal
drinking water
Ingestion
Water supply users
Past, Present,
Future
EPA sampling identified
lead in the tap water of 13
of 100 homes.
Yes
Airborne dust
Airborne transport of mine
tailings from piles, ponds,
and embankments in the
Tar Creek Site Area
Residential areas
near tailings piles,
ponds, and
embankments
Inhalation
Individuals living
near tailings piles,
ponds, and
embankments
Past, Present,
Future
EPA sampling identified low
levels of lead in the air.
Yes
Biota (wild
animals &
plants)
Uptake or ingestion of lead
which had come from
mine tailings in the
environment
Consumption of
animals and plants
contaminated with
lead from the site
Ingestion
Anyone who eats
animals & plants
from site area
Past, Present,
Future
Members of the 9 tribes in
Ottawa County may be at the
greatest risk of exposure to
contaminants in this
pathway.
Unknown
009126
19
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 3 — Demographics in Tar Creek Superfund Site Area*
CHARACTERISTIC
PICHER/CARDIN AREA
TAR CREEK SITE AREA
UNITED STATES
Percent of People in Poverty
26
19
12.4
Percent of Homes Built Prior
to 1950
39
32
22.3
*2000 Census Data
20
009127
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 4 — Characteristics of Blood Lead Testing Data Among Children Aged 1-5 Years Living within the
Tar Creek Superfund Site*
All Tar Creek Superfund Site (also includes portion of North Miami that is outside the boundaries of Superfund site)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(Jan, Feb only)
Oklahoma Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Total Elevated (>10
Hg/dL) (%)
20(19.4) 67(31.2)
50(22.5)
14(19.2)
9 (9.09)
25 (6.9)
16 (6.4)
11(4.5)
Geometric BLL Mean
4.80 6.65
6.00
5.36
4.93
3.81
3.32
3.05
% Child Tested/Pop
(actual number tested)
16(103) 34(215)
36 (222)
12 (73)
16 (99)
58 (361)
40(249)
39(242)
Sampling Design
Convenience Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
TEAL Surveys (Personal Conversation, Malcoe 2004)
Total Elevated (>10
Hg/dL) (%)
26(18.2)
14(8.6)
Geometric BLL Mean
5.77
4.25
% Child Tested/Pop
(actual number tested)
23 (143)
26(162)
Sampling Design
Door-to-door
Door-to-door
009128
21
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 4 (Continued)
1995 1996 1997 1998
Ottawa Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Total Elevated (>10 ng/dL)
(%)
Geometric BLL Mean
% Child Tested/Pop
(actual number tested)
Sampling Design
* n=625 (estimate based on 2000 Census)
009129
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(Jan, Feb only)
N/A 13(5.4) 14(8.2) 9(5.7) 7(2.8) N/A
5.13 3.62 3.15 2.65 3.04 2.21
5(33) 38(240) 27(171) 25(158) 40(250) 9(55)
Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience
22
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 5 — Characteristics of Blood Lead Testing Data Among Children Aged 1-5 Years Living within the
Tar Creek Superfund Site*
Picher and Card in only
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(Jan, Feb
only)
Oklahoma Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Total Elevated (>10 ng/dL) 17(31.5) 41 (44.6) 34(33.7) 5(29.4) 3(9.1) 17(13.2) 7(12.1) 3(7.0)
(%)
Geometric BLL Mean 6.13 9.17 7.66 6.63 5.24 4.30 4.42 4.24
% Child Tested/Pop 36(54) 61 (92) 67(101) 11 (17) 22(33) 86(129) 39(58) 29(43)
(actual number tested)
Sampling Design Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience
TEAL Surveys (Personal Conversation, Malcoe 2004)
Total Elevated (>10 ng/dL) 16(25.0) 10(13.3)
(%)
Geometric BLL Mean 6.63 4.76
% Child Tested/Pop 43 (64) 50 (75)
(actual number tested)
Sampling Design Door-to-door Door-to-door
Ottawa Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
Total Elevated (>10 ng/dL) N/A 6(8.2) 5(12.2) 2(6.67) 3(3.4) N/A
(%)
009130
23
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 5 (Continued)
1995 1996 1997 1998
Geometric BLL Mean
% Child Tested/Pop
(actual number tested)
Sampling Design
* n=150 (estimate based on 2000 Census)
009131
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
(Jan, Feb
only)
4.99 3.86 4.76 4.64 3.82 2.43
9 (13) 49 (73) 27 (41) 20 (30) 59 (88) 11 (17)
Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience Convenience
24
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 6 - Existing Health Study Information
Factors Associated with
Elevated BLLs*
Teal Study
(Lynch et al. 2000) OR (95% CI)
Teal Study
(Malcoe et al. 2002) OR (95% CI)
Floor lead dust > 10 ug/ft2
8.1 (1.8, 37.8)
11.4(3.5, 37.3)
Yard soil lead
>500 mg/kg
6.4(1.4, 30.7)
>165.3 mg/kg (front yard)
4.1 (1.3, 12.4)
Any interior lead paint
3.0(1.2, 7.8)
Superfund location
3.4(1.3,8.8)
5.6(1.8, 17.8)
Hand-to-mouth behaviors
index 2
7.0 (3.0, 16.5)
index 3
48.9 (8.7, 272.7)
* Blood lead levels
009132
25
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Table 7 — Children Aged 1-5 Years Living in the Tar Creek Superfund Site with Known Elevated BLLs in
2003, Residential Assessment Lead Exposure Status
Child
Known Exposure Status*
Environmental
Testing (Y/N)
Environmental Age in Years
Testing Date
Race
Sex
Residence
Blood Lead
Level
1
Unknown; frequent mover
N
3
W
M
Commerce
13.0
2
Lead-based paint
Y
12/16/2003 2
W
M
Quapaw
11.8
3
Lead-based paint
Y
11/15/2003 3
w
F
Picher
12.1
4
Floor dust, soil, no
electricity or running water
Y
2/9/2001 2
w
F
Picher
17.6
5
Floor dust, soil, no
electricity or running water
Y
2/9/2001 5
w
M
Picher
15.8
6
Lead-based paint, floor
dust, soil
Y
9/12/2002 3
w
M
Quapaw
23.7
7
Lead-based paint, floor
dust, soil
Y
9/12/2002 1
w
F
Quapaw
17.0
* Child may have moved and potential exposure source may have been remediated since testing date.
[Source: Ottawa County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Data, 2003]
26
009133
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
VIII. Figures
009134
27
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Quapav/
Commerce
North
~ Boundaries of Tar Creek Site Area
Soil lead levels by block_all data .shp
No Samples
Less 500 mg/kg
11111 500 - 1,200 mg/kg
mm Greater than 1,200 mg/kg
Figure 1 - Soil Lead Levels in Tar Creek
Residential Area Soil
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Prepared by John R. Crellin, Ph.D-ATSDR: 04202
Baxter Springs, Kansa
o.
Kansas
TAR CREEK SITE
STUDY AREA
LEGEND
Rairoads
a Roads
Boundark
009135
28
-------
Tar Creek Superfund Site - Report to Congress
Figure 2 - Tailings in the Picher, Cardin, and Quapaw Area
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Prepared by John R. Crellin, PhD- 04202004
009136
29
-------
Figure 3
TAR CREEK CREEK SUPERFUND SITE - DATA FLOW FOR CHILD BLOOD LEAD DATA
1995-2004
30
009137
-------
Figure 4
Children Age 1-5 Years Old With Elevated BLLs (> 10 [lgldL)
All Tar Creek Superfund Site
Oklahoma State Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Surveillance Data
Ottawa County Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Data
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
009138
31
-------
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
Figure 5
Children Age 1-5 Years Old With Elevated BLLs (> 10 (jg/dL)
Picherand Cardin Only
Oklahoma State Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Surveillance Data
TEAL Survey Data
Ottawa County Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Data
009139
32
-------
Figure 6
Geometric Blood Lead Means of Children Age 1-5 Years Old
All Tar Creek Superfund Site
Oklahoma State Childhood Lead Poisoning
Ottawa County Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Data
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
33
-------
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 7
Geometric Blood Lead Means of Children Age 1-5 Years Old
Picherand Cardin Only
Ottawa County Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program Data
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
34
-------
IX. References
1. National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Hyattsville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gOv/nceh/lead/research/kidsBLL.htm#National%20surveys.
2. Jaeger RJ, Weiss AL, Manton WI. Isotope ratio analysis in residential lead-based paint and
associated surficial dust. Journal of Toxicology - Clinical Toxicology, 36(7): 691-703,
1998.
3. Manton W, Angle C, Stanek L, Reese Y, Kuehnemann A. Acquisition and retention of lead
by young children. Environ Res, 2000; 82:60-80.
4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Public health assessment guidance
manual. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992. Available
at http: //atsdr 1. at sdr. cdc. gov: 8080/H AC/H AGM.
5. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Baseline human health risk assessment of residential
exposures Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Lancaster, New York:
Ecology and Environment, Inc. Prepared for EPA Region 6. 1996.
6. Malcoe L, Lynch R, Kegler M, Skaggs V. Lead sources, behaviors, and socioeconomic
factors in relation to blood lead of native American and white children: a community-based
assessment of former mining area. Environmental Health Perspectives; 2002; 110:221-31.
7. Jacobs DE, Clickner RP, Zhou JY, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW, et al. The prevalence
of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspect, 2002, 110:
599-606.
8. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Data evaluation summary report Tar Creek site. Site
assessment/risk assessment. Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Dallas, Texas: Ecology and
Environment, Inc. Prepared for EPA Region 6, December 1995.
9. Luza, K.V. 1986. A Study of Stability Problems and Hazard Evaluation of the Oklahoma
Portion of the Tri-State Mining Area (3 maps). Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular 88,
6/8/05.
10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta,
Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.
11. Hough RL, Breward N, Young SD, Crout NMJ, Tye AM, Moir AM, et al. Assessing
potential risk of heavy metal exposure from consumption of home produced vegetables by
urban populations. Environ Health Perspect 2004; 1 12:215—21. Available at
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/5589/5589.html.
12. Lynch R, Malcoe L, Skaggs V, Kegler M. The relationship between residential lead
exposures and elevated blood-lead levels in a rural mining community. Journal of
Environmental Health; 2000; 63:9-15.
13. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Ottawa County Blood Lead Testing
Project: Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR, 1997.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for elevated blood lead levels
among children-United States, 1997-2001. MMWR 2003;52:SS-10.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing lead poisoning in young children.
Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 1991.
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening young children for lead poisoning:
guidance for state and public health officials. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health
and Human Services, 1997.
35
009142
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
U SEPA\317950\T7\RA04\D RAFT_2005-1028
009143
OCTOBER 2005
-------
Appendix N
Preliminary Remediation Goal Calculations
009144
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009145
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Figure 1: Comparison of All Concentrations
for Cadmium in Washed Root
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Plant Concentration, mg/kg
X represents data pairs excluded via Cook's distance evaluation.
-------
Figure 2: Regression Analysis of Non-excluded Concentrations
for Cadmium in Washed Root
Plant Concentration, mg/kg
X represents data pairs excluded via Cook's distance evaluation.
009147
-------
Figure 3: Comparison of All Concentrations
for Lead in Washed Root
9000
™ 8000
O)
E
7000
g" 6000
1 5000
0)
o
c
o
O
o
CO
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
X
•
is.
X
0
1000 2000 3000
Plant Concentration, mg/kg
X represents data pairs excluded via Cook's distance evaluation.
009148
-------
Figure 4: Regression Analysis of Non-excluded Concentrations
for Lead in Washed Root
Plant Concentration, mg/kg
X represents data pairs excluded via Cook's distance evaluation.
009149
-------
Figure 5: Comparison of All Concentrations
for Zinc in Washed Root
120000
110000
100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Plant Concentration, mg/kg
X
•
• •
•
•
X
I I I I I
X represents data pairs excluded via Cook's distance evaluation.
-------
Figure 6: Regression Analysis of Non-excluded Concentrations
for Zinc in Washed Root
Plant Concentration, mg/kg
X represents data pairs excluded via Cook's distance evaluation.
009151
-------
Figure 1: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentrations
5000
4000 -
E 3000
2000 -
1000 -
Background
Residential
Rural
Transition
009152
-------
:igu
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentrations
*
*
*
~
*
*
*
*
*
*
s
x
Backg round
Residential
*
*
zc
Rural
-------
Figure 3: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentration Ranks
400 -
300 -
c
200 -
100 -
o -*
Background Residential Rural Transition
009154
-------
Figure 4: Box and Whisker Plot Comparison of Lead Concentration Ranks
c
a:
Backg round
Residential
Rural
009155
-------
Table N-1
Soil PRGs for General Public Agriculture On-Property
Tar Creek OU4, Miami, OK
Fl - Veg
Cd
Zn
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Soil PRG
Plant
Soil PRG
Plant
Soil PRG
Plant
Soil PRG
Plant
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
9.40E+00
1.18E+00
4.86E+00
6.08E-01
3.58E+03
3.51 E+02
1.83E+03
1.79E+02
25%
3.79E+00
4.74E-01
2.02E+00
2.53E-01
1.45E+03
1.42E+02
7.67E+02
7.52E+01
50%
1.90E+00
2.37E-01
1.02E+00
1.28E-01
7.26E+02
7.12E+01
3.90E+02
3.82E+01
100%
9.51E-01
1.19E-01
5.15E-01
6.44E-02
3.64E+02
3.57E+01
1.97E+02
1.93E+01
Fl = fraction ingested from impacted source
009156
-------
Table N-2
Soil PRGs for General Public Agriculture On-Property
Tar Creek OU4, Miami, OK
Adult (General Public) Child (General Public)
Cadmium
Zinc
Reference
Cadmium
Zinc
Reference
CSon
Concentration in Soil (on property)
mg/kg
1.0
364
EPC
0.5
197
EPC
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Soil
mg/day
100
100
EPA, 1991
200
200
EPA, 1991
Cveg
Chemical Concentration in Veg
mg/kg
0.1
35.7
Calculated
0.1
19.3
Calculated
slope (a)
8.0
10.2
1/Br (EPA, 1998)
8.0
10.2
1/Br (EPA, 1998)
IR-VEG
Ingestion Rate - Vegetable
kg/day
0.59
0.59
EPA, 1997 (Table 9-4)
0.23
0.23
EPA, 1997 (Table 9-4)
FI-VEG
Fraction Ingested - Veg
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
EF
Exposure Frequency (soil)
days/year
350
350
EPA, 1991
350
350
EPA, 1991
EF
Exposure Frequency (ingestion)
days/year
365
365
EPA, 1997
365
365
EPA, 1997
ED
Exposure Duration
years
24
24
EPA, 1991
6
6
EPA, 1991
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
70
EPA, 1991
15
15
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
days
8,760
8,760
EPA, 1991
2,190
2,190
EPA, 1991
Contribution: Soil
1.3E-06
5.0E-04
6.6E-06
2.5E-03
Soil Intake Factor
1.4E-06
1.4E-06
1.3E-05
1.3E-05
Contribution: Vegetable
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
9.9E-04
3.0E-01
Veg Intake Factor
8.4E-03
8.4E-03
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
Cumulative Intake
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
RfD (ing)
Ingestion Reference Dose
mg/kg-day
0.001
0.3
IRIS
0.001
0.3
IRIS
HQ: Soil
1.3E-03
1.7E-03
6.6E-03
8.4E-03
HQ: Vegetable
1.0E+00
1.0E+00
9.9E-01
9.9E-01
Total HI
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Soil PRG (based on Soil)
7.3E+02
2.2E+05
mg/kg (soil only)
7.8E+01
2.3E+04
mg/kg (soil only)
9.5E-01
3.6E+02
mg/kg (plant + soil)
5.2E-01
2.0E+02
mg/kg (plant + soil)
Hl = i 1i
009157
-------
Table N-3
Soil PRGs for General Public Agriculture and Native American On-Property
Tar Creek OU4, Miami, OK
Soil
Pb
Soil PRG
Adult
460.3 (mg/kg)
Native American
Pb
Soil PRG
IR
Adult
110.4
(mg/kg)
400
(mg/day)
441.4
(mg/kg)
100
(mg/day)
Beef
General Public Agriculture
Fl - Beef
Pb
Adult
Soil PRG
Beef
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
455.2
0.13
25%
447.8
0.12
50%
436.0
0.12
100%
414.1
0.11
Native American (IRsoil = 400 mg/day)
Fl - Beef
Pb
Adult
Soil PRG
Beef
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
109.1
0.030
25%
107.2
0.030
50%
104.3
0.029
100%
98.8
0.027
Native American (IRsoil = 100 mg/day)
Fl - Beef
Pb
Adult
Soil PRG
Beef
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
421.7
0.116
25%
395.3
0.109
50%
357.9
0.098
100%
301.0
0.083
General Public Agriculture
Beef intake from Table 11 -3 of EPA, 1997.
0.648 g/kg-day - 50th percentile (Region-South)
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 38.88 g/day
Native American
Beef intake from Table 11 -3 of EPA, 1997.
2.825 g/kg-day - 95th percentile
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 169.5 g/day
Plant
General Public Agriculture
Fl - Plant
Pb
Adult
Soil PRG
Plant
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
111.9
1.52
25%
52.4
0.71
50%
27.8
0.38
100%
14.3
0.19
Native American (IRsoil = 400 mg/day)
Fl - Plant
Pb
Adult
Soil PRG
Plant
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
33.2
0.45
25%
16.2
0.22
50%
00
CO
0.12
100%
4.6
0.062
General Public Agriculture
Vegetable intake from Table 9-4 of EPA, 1997.
3.66 g/kg-day - 50th percentile (Region-South)
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 219.6 g/day.
Native American
Vegetable intake from Table 9-4 of EPA, 1997.
11.37 g/kg-day -95th percentile
x 60 kg body weight (per EPA, 1997) = 682.2 g/day.
Fl = fraction ingested from an impacted source.
PRGs were calculated based on the new NHANES GSD of 2.1 and baseline blood lead level of 1.16.
009158
-------
TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4
DRAFT FINAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
USEPA\317950\T7\RA04\DRAFT FINAL_2006-02
009159
FEBRUARY 2006
-------
Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
Table N-4
Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) - General Public
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PRG
Equation
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential
Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
1*
2* *
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbBfetal o 95
X
X
95th percentile PbB in fetus
ug/dL
10
10
"D
-^Metal/m aternal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
-
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
-
2.1
2.1
PbB„
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.16
1.16
iRs
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.100
0.100
afSiD
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
-
0.12
0.12
EFS D
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
350
350
PbBeef
Chemical Concentration in Beef
mg/kg
1.3.E-01
1.3.E-01
BAFb
Bio-accumulation Factor - Beef
-
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
IRb
X
Beef ingestion rate
g/day
39
39
FIb
Fraction Ingested - Beef
%
0%
0%
AFb
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
-
0.12
0.12
EFb
X
X
Exposure frequency (ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
I'knil
Chemical Concentration in Plant
mg/kg
6.3
6.3
1/BAF
slope (a) - 1/Br
-
73.5
73.5
IRP
X
Plant ingestion rate
g/day
220
220
FIp
Fraction Ingested - Plant
%
0%
0%
AFP
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
-
0.12
0.12
EFP
X
X
Exposure frequency (ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
AT
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
1.7E+00
1.7E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
PRG
Preliminary Remediation Goal
ppm
460
460
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG.
'Equation 1, based on Eq. 4 in USEPA (1996).
PRG = ([PbB95fetal/(R*(GSDi1 645)] )-PbB0)*AT
BKSF*AF*[(IRs+D*EFSD)+(BAFB*IRB*FlB*EFB)+((IRp*FIp*EFp)/a)]
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
009160
-------
Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
Table N-5
Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) - Native American
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 05/19/03
Exposure
Variable
PRG
Equation
Description of Exposure Variable
Units
Values for Non-Residential
Exposure Scenario
Using Equation 1
1*
2* *
GSDi = Horn
GSDi = Het
PbBfetal o 95
X
X
95th percentile PbB in fetus
ug/dL
10
10
"D
-^Metal/m aternal
X
X
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
-
0.9
0.9
BKSF
X
X
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD;
X
X
Geometric standard deviation PbB
-
2.1
2.1
PbB„
X
X
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.16
1.16
iRs
X
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.100
0.100
afSiD
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
-
0.12
0.12
EFS iD
X
X
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBeef
Chemical Concentration in Beef
mg/kg
8.3.E-02
8.3.E-02
BAFb
Bio-accumulation Factor - Beef
-
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
IRb
X
Beef ingestion rate
g/day
170
170
FIb
Fraction Ingested - Beef
%
100%
100%
AFb
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
-
0.12
0.12
EFb
X
X
Exposure frequency (ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
I'knil
Chemical Concentration in Plant
mg/kg
4.1
4.1
1/BAF
slope (a) - 1/Br
-
73.5
73.5
IRP
X
Plant ingestion rate
g/day
682
682
FIp
Fraction Ingested - Plant
%
0%
0%
AFP
X
X
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
-
0.12
0.12
EFP
X
X
Exposure frequency (ingestion)
days/yr
365
365
AT
X
X
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
1.8E+00
1.8E+00
8.2E-01
8.2E-01
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
PRG
Preliminary Remediation Goal
ppm
301.0
301.0
1 Equation 1 does not apportion exposure between soil and dust ingestion (excludes Ws, KSD).
When IRS = IRS+D and Ws = 1.0, the equations yield the same PRG.
'Equation 1, based on Eq. 4 in USEPA (1996).
PRG = ([PbB95fetal/(R*(GSDi1 645)] )-PbB0)*AT
BKSF*AF*[(IRs+D*EFSD)+(BAFB*IRB*FlB*EFB)+((IRp*FIp*EFp)/a)]
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
009161
-------
Table N-6
Soil PRGs for Native American Adult - Vegetables Grown On-Property
Tar Creek OU4, Miami, OK
Fl - Veg
Adult
Cd
Zn
Soil PRG
Plant
Soil PRG
Plant
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
10%
7.84E+00
9.80E-01
2.96E+03
2.90E+02
25%
3.22E+00
4.03E-01
1.23E+03
1.20E+02
50%
1.63E+00
2.03E-01
6.21E+02
6.08E+01
100%
8.17E-01
1.02E-01
3.12E+02
3.06E+01
Fl = fraction ingested from an impacted source.
009162
-------
Table N-7
Soil PRGs for Native American Adult - Vegetables Grown On-Property
Tar Creek OU4, Miami, OK
Adult (Tribal)
Cadmium
Zinc
Reference
CSon
Concentration in Soil (on property)
mg/kg
0.8170411
312.1175
EPC
IR-S
Ingestion Rate of Soil
mg/day
400
400
Harper et al., 2002
Cveg
Chemical Concentration in Veg
mg/kg
0.1
30.6
Calculated
slope (a)
8.00
10.2
1/Br (EPA, 1998)
IR-VEG
Ingestion Rate - Vegetable
kg/day
0.68
0.68
EPA, 1997 (Table 9-4)
FI-VEG
Fraction Ingested - Veg
%
100%
100%
EF
Exposure Frequency (soil)
days/year
365
365
Harper et al., 2002
EF
Exposure Frequency (ingestion)
days/year
365
365
Harper et al., 2002
ED
Exposure Duration
years
64
64
Harper et al., 2002
BW
Body Weight
kg
70
70
EPA, 1991
AT-N
Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
days
23,360
23,360
EPA, 1991
Contribution: Soil
4.7E-06
1.8E-03
Soil Intake Factor
5.7E-06
5.7E-06
Contribution: Vegetable
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
Veg Intake Factor
9.7E-03
9.7E-03
Cumulative Intake
1.0E-03
3.0E-01
RfD (ing)
Ingestion Reference Dose
mg/kg-day
0.001
0.3
IRIS
HQ: Soil
4.7E-03
5.9E-03
HQ: Vegetable
1.0E+00
9.9E-01
Total HI
1.00
1.00
Soil PRG (based on Soil)
i
1.8E+02
8.2E-01
i
5.3E+04
3.1E+02
mg/kg (soil only)
mg/kg (plant + soil)
H"i 1i
009163
-------
Table N-8
PRGs for Lead in Soil (General Public Agricultural Child) - Milk from Cows on the Receptor's Yard
Acceptable Concentration in Soil
Soil Cone. Soil Cone.
(on (off Cone. In % of milk
property) property) Milk consumption Soil concentration 50 mg/kg associated with P10<5 %
50 3.40E+03 0.78 10 slope Cone. Milk % Milk
100 2.92E+03 0.67 10 | 4361 ~|
150 2.44E+03 0.56 10 0.78 10
200 1.96E+03 0.45 10 0.312 25
250 1.44E+03 0.33 10
300 9.59E+02 0.22 10
325 7.41E+02 0.17 10
350 (not calculated - too low)
Soil concentration 100 mg/kg
50 1.36E+03 0.312 25
100 1.17E+03 0.268 25 0.67 10
150 9.77E+02 0.224 25 0.268 25
200 7.85E+02 0.18 25
250 5.76E+02 0.132 25
300 3.84E+02 0.088 25
325 2.97E+02 0.068 25
350 (not calculated - too low) Soil concentration 150 mg/kg
0.56 10
0.224 25
Soil concentration 200 mg/kg
0.45 10
0.18 25
Soil concentration 250 mg/kg
0.33 10
0.132 25
Soil concentration 300 mg/kg
0.22 10
0.088 25
Soil concentration 325 mg/kg
0.17 10
0.068 25
009164
-------
Soil Cone (property) VS Milk Cone.
Associated with P10<5%
Soil Concentration (on-
property) (mg/kg)
-Milk
Consumption
is 10% of
total milk
consumed
Soil Cone, (property) VS Milk Cone.
Associated with P10<5%
s=
— to 1.5E+03
c ^
.2 o)
g E 1.0E+03
1 >
3 t 5.0E+02
° o
" o. 0.0E+00
W <§>
Soil Concentration (on-
property) (mg/kg)
¦Milk
Consumption
is 25% of
total milk
consumed
009165
-------
Table N-9
PRGs for Lead in Soil (General Public Agricultural Child) - Beef from Cows on the Receptor's Yara
Soil Cone.
(on
property)
Cone. In
Pasture
Cone. In
Beef
% of meat
consumption
% above (10
ug/dl) slope
Soil concentration 50 mg/kg associated with P10<5 %
50
6.91 E+03
1.9
10
5.321
| 3634 |
conc. Beef % meat
100
5.56E+03
1.53
10
5.04
1.9 10
150
4.36E+03
1.2
10
4.99
0.75 25
200
3.27E+03
0.9
10
5.13
250
2.00E+03
0.55
10
4.96
300
8.36E+02
0.23
10
4.96
325
2.91 E+02
0.08
10
5.02
350
3.63E+00
0.001
10
5.53
Soil concentration 100 mg/kg
50
2.73E+03
0.75
25
5.09
100
2.25E+03
0.62
25
5.08
1.53 10
150
1.78E+03
0.49
25
5.07
0.62 25
200
1.27E+03
0.35
25
4.9
250
8.36E+02
0.23
25
5.03
300
3.63E+02
0.1
25
5
325
350
Soil concentration 150 mg/kg
1.2
0.49
10
25
Soil concentration 200 mg/kg
0.9
0.35
10
25
Soil concentration 250 mg/kg
0.55
0.23
10
25
Soil concentration 300 mg/kg
0.23
0.1
10
25
Soil concentration 325
0.08
0
10
25
009166
-------
Soil Cone. VS Beef Cone. Associated with
P10<5%
7.5E+03
o ^
o)
C
.2
S | 5.0E+03
a) rr
g oJ 2.5E+03
o Q-
o 2
o ^ 0.0E+00
------- |